dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse

This website has run out of funding so feel free to contribute if you can afford it (see footer)

Author Topic: The Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things  (Read 2040 times)

Offline Chip (OP)

  • Server Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2014
  • Location: Australia
  • Posts: 6464
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Chip has hidden their reputation power
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 05:57:05 AM
  • Deeply Confused Learner
  • Profession: IT Engineer
The Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things
« on: March 02, 2019, 03:55:25 PM »
Drug taking is a beautiful paradox.

So are much of our behaviours and their motives in our collective first world society; it is flawed, for the reasons discussed below (but incorrect on some deep level as people justify (unjustly) and ignore that feeling in their gut).

The Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things

Editor's note on Feb. 14, 2018: Please scroll to the end of this story to see a correction note.

Enron, Worldcom, Bernie Madoff, the subprime mortgage crisis.

Over the past decade or so, news stories about unethical behavior have been a regular feature on TV, a long, discouraging parade of misdeeds marching across our screens. And in the face of these scandals, psychologists and economists have been slowly reworking how they think about the cause of unethical behavior.
In general, when we think about bad behavior, we think about it being tied to character: Bad people do bad things. But that model, researchers say, is profoundly inadequate.
Which brings us to the story of Toby Groves.

Chapter 1

Toby grew up on a farm in Ohio. As a kid, the idea that he was a person of strong moral character was very important to him. Then one Sunday in 1986, when Toby was around 20, he went home for a visit with his family, and he had an experience that made the need to be good dramatically more pressing.

Toby Groves origin story.

Twenty-two years after Toby made that promise to his father, he found himself standing in front of the exact same judge who had sentenced his brother, being sentenced for the exact same crime: fraud.

And not just any fraud — a massive bank fraud involving millions of dollars that drove several companies out of business and resulted in the loss of about a hundred jobs.
In 2008, Toby went to prison, where he says he spent two years staring at a ceiling, trying to understand what had happened.
Was he a bad character? Was it genetic? "Those were things that haunted me every second of every day," Toby says. "I just couldn't grasp it."
This very basic question — what causes unethical behavior? — has been getting a fair amount of attention from researchers recently, particularly those interested in how our brains process information when we make decisions.
And what these these researchers have concluded is that most of us are capable of behaving in profoundly unethical ways. And not only are we capable of it — without realizing it, we do it all the time.

Chapter 2

Consider the case of Toby Groves.
In the early 1990s, a couple of years after graduating from college, Toby decided to start his own mortgage loan company — and that promise to his father was on his mind.

So Toby decided to lie.
He told the bank that he was making $350,000, when in reality he was making nowhere near that.
This is the first lie Toby told — the unethical act that opened the door to all the other unethical acts. So, what was going on in his head at the time?
"There wasn't much of a thought process," he says. "I felt like, at that point, that was a small price to pay and almost like a cost of doing business. You know, things are going to happen, and I just needed to do whatever I needed to do to fix that. It wasn't like ... I didn't think that I was going to be losing money forever or anything like that."
Consider that for a moment.
Here is a man who stood with his heartbroken father and pledged to behave ethically. Anyone involved in the mortgage business knows that it is both unethical and illegal to lie on a mortgage application.
How could that promise be so easily broken?

The Promise Flashback 2 - Chapter 3

To understand, says Ann Tenbrunsel, a researcher at Notre Dame who studies unethical behavior, you have to consider what this looks like from Toby's perspective.
There is, she says, a common misperception that at moments like this, when people face an ethical decision, they clearly understand the choice that they are making.
"We assume that they can see the ethics and are consciously choosing not to behave ethically," Tenbrunsel says.
This, generally speaking, is the basis of our disapproval: They knew. They chose to do wrong.
But Tenbrunsel says that we are frequently blind to the ethics of a situation.
Over the past couple of decades, psychologists have documented many different ways that our minds fail to see what is directly in front of us. They've come up with a concept called "bounded ethicality": That's the notion that cognitively, our ability to behave ethically is seriously limited, because we don't always see the ethical big picture.
One small example: the way a decision is framed. "The way that a decision is presented to me," says Tenbrunsel, "very much changes the way in which I view that decision, and then eventually, the decision it is that I reach."
Essentially, Tenbrunsel argues, certain cognitive frames make us blind to the fact that we are confronting an ethical problem at all.
Tenbrunsel told us about a recent experiment that illustrates the problem. She got together two groups of people and told one to think about a business decision. The other group was instructed to think about an ethical decision. Those asked to consider a business decision generated one mental checklist; those asked to think of an ethical decision generated a different mental checklist.
Tenbrunsel next had her subjects do an unrelated task to distract them. Then she presented them with an opportunity to cheat.
Those cognitively primed to think about business behaved radically different from those who were not — no matter who they were, or what their moral upbringing had been.
"If you're thinking about a business decision, you are significantly more likely to lie than if you were thinking from an ethical frame," Tenbrunsel says.
According to Tenbrunsel, the business frame cognitively activates one set of goals — to be competent, to be successful; the ethics frame triggers other goals. And once you're in, say, a business frame, you become really focused on meeting those goals, and other goals can completely fade from view.

Tenbrunsel listened to Toby's story, and she argues that one way to understand Toby's initial choice to lie on his loan application is to consider the cognitive frame he was using.
"His sole focus was on making the best business decision," she says, which made him blind to the ethics.
Obviously we'll never know what was actually going through Toby's mind, and the point of raising this possibility is not to excuse Toby's bad behavior, but simply to demonstrate in a small way the very uncomfortable argument that these researchers are making:
That people can be genuinely unaware that they're making a profoundly unethical decision.
It's not that they're evil — it's that they don't see.
And if we want to attack fraud, we have to understand that a lot of fraud is unintentional.

Chapter 4

Tenbrunsel's argument that we are often blind to the ethical dimensions of a situation might explain part of Toby's story, his first unethical act. But a bigger puzzle remains: How did Toby's fraud spread? How did a lie on a mortgage application balloon into a $7 million fraud?
According to Toby, in the weeks after his initial lie, he discovered more losses at his company — huge losses. Toby had already mortgaged his house. He didn't have any more money, but he needed to save his business.
The easiest way for him to cover the mounting losses, he reasoned, was to get more loans. So Toby decided to do something that is much harder to understand than lying on a mortgage application: He took out a series of entirely false loans — loans on houses that didn't exist.
Creating false loans is not an easy process. You have to manufacture from thin air borrowers and homes and the paperwork to go with them.
Toby was CEO of his company, but this was outside of his skill set. He needed help — people on his staff who knew how loan documents should look and how to fake them.
And so, one by one, Toby says, he pulled employees into a room.

"Maybe that was the most shocking thing," Toby says. "Everyone said, 'OK, we're in trouble, we need to solve this. I'll help you. You know, I'll try to have that for you tomorrow.' "
According to Toby, no one said no.
Most of the people who helped Toby would not talk to us because they didn't want to expose themselves to legal repercussions.
Of the four people at his company Toby told us about, we were able to speak about the fraud with only one — a woman on staff named Monique McDowell. She was involved in fabricating documents, and her description of what happened and how it happened completely conforms to Toby's description.
If you accept what they're saying as true, then that raises a troubling scenario, because we expect people to protest when they're asked to do wrong. But Toby's employees didn't. What's even more troubling is that according to Toby, it wasn't just his employees: "I mean, we had to have assistance from other companies to pull this off," he says.
To make it look like a real person closed on a real house, Toby needed a title company to sign off on the fake documents his staff had generated. And so after he got his staff onboard, Toby says he made some calls and basically made the same pitch he'd given his employees.
"It was, 'Here is what happened. Here is the only way I know to fix it, and if you help me, great. If you won't, I understand.' Nobody said, 'Maybe we'll think about this. ... Within a few minutes [it was], 'Yes, I'll help you.' "
So here we have people outside his company, agreeing to do things completely illegal and wrong.
Again, we contacted several of the title companies. No one would speak to us, but it's clear from the legal cases that title companies were involved. One title company president ended up in jail because of his dealings with Toby; another agreed to a legal resolution.
So how could it be that easy?

Chapter 5

Typically when we hear about large frauds, we assume the perpetrators were driven by financial incentives. But psychologists and economists say financial incentives don't fully explain it. They're interested in another possible explanation: Human beings commit fraud because human beings like each other.
We like to help each other, especially people we identify with. And when we are helping people, we really don't see what we are doing as unethical.
Lamar Pierce, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, points to the case of emissions testers. Emissions testers are supposed to test whether or not your car is too polluting to stay on the road. If it is, they're supposed to fail you. But in many cases, emissions testers lie.
"Somewhere between 20 percent and 50 percent of cars that should fail are passed — are illicitly passed," Pierce says.
Financial incentives can explain some of that cheating. But Pierce and psychologist Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School say that doesn't fully capture it.
They collected hundreds of thousands of records and were actually able to track the patterns of individual inspectors, carefully monitoring those they approved and those they denied. And here is what they found:
If you pull up in a fancy car — say, a BMW or Ferrari — and your car is polluting the air, you are likely to fail. But pull up in a Honda Civic, and you have a much better chance of passing.
"We know from a lot of research that when we feel empathy towards others, we want to help them out," says Gino.
Emissions testers — who make a modest salary — see a Civic and identify, they feel empathetic.
Essentially, Gino and Pierce are arguing that these testers commit fraud not because they are greedy, but because they are nice.
"And most people don't see the harm in this," says Pierce. "That is the problem."
Pierce argues that cognitively, emissions testers can't appreciate the consequences of their fraud, the costs of the decision that they are making in the moment. The cost is abstract: the global environment. They are literally being asked to weigh the costs to the global environment against the benefits of passing someone who is right there who needs help. We are not cognitively designed to do that.
"I've never talked to a mortgage broker who thought, 'When I help someone get into a loan by falsifying their income, I deeply consider whether or not I would destabilize the world economy,' " says Pierce. "You are helping someone who is real."
Gino and Pierce argue that Toby's staff was faced with the same kind of decision: future abstract consequences, or help out the very real person in front of them.
And so without focusing on the ethics of what they were doing, they helped out a person who was not focusing on the ethics, either. And together they perpetrated a $7 million fraud.
Chapter 6
As for Toby, he says that maintaining the giant lie he'd created was exhausting day in and day out.
So in 2006, when two FBI agents showed up at his office, he quickly confessed everything. He says he was relieved.
Two years later, he was standing in front of the same judge who had sentenced his brother. A short time after that, he was in jail, grateful that his father wasn't alive to see him, wondering how he ended up where he did.
"The last thing in the world that I wanted to do in my life would be to break that promise to my father," he says. "It haunts me."
The Promise Flashback 1
Now if these psychologists and economists are right, if we are all capable of behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it, then our workplaces and regulations are poorly organized. They're not designed to take into account the cognitively flawed human beings that we are. They don't attempt to structure things around our weaknesses.
Some concrete proposals to do that are on the table. For example, we know that auditors develop relationships with clients after years of working together, and we know that those relationships can corrupt their audits without them even realizing it. So there is a proposal to force businesses to switch auditors every couple of years to address that problem.
Another suggestion: A sentence should be placed at the beginning of every business contract that explicitly says that lying on this contract is unethical and illegal, because that kind of statement would get people into the proper cognitive frame.
And there are other proposals, of course.
Or, we could just keep saying what we've always said — that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and people should know the difference.

Web story produced and edited by Maria Godoy; on-air story edited by Planet Money and Anne Gudenkauf.

Feb. 14, 2018

In this story, we refer to Toby Groves' lie in 2004 on his mortgage loan application as "his first bad act." We should have noted that according to court records, Groves admitted that he began the "scheme" to defraud banks "on or about June 30, 2003." In addition, court records show he admitted to owing the federal Internal Revenue Service $299,997 for claims made about the tax years 2001-2003.
Also in this story, Groves discusses what he sees as a key moment in his life — his brother's 1986 bank fraud conviction. Groves describes what he says was his father's anguish over a front-page newspaper story. Our Web coverage includes illustrations that make it appear as if a photo of Groves' brother was on the front page and that the family's name was in the headline. But archives show that the Cincinnati Enquirer's coverage did not include a front-page image of Groves' brother. The family's name was not in the headline. Instead, the brother's name appeared inside the newspaper.

The details about others in this report — including researchers Lamar Pierce, Francesca Gino and Ann Tenbrunsel — are not in question.

The blog Paul Vanderveen's Attitude of Reciprocity drew NPR's attention back to this story.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2019, 05:06:13 PM by Chip »
I do not condone or support any illegal activities. All information is for theoretical discussion and wonder.
All activities discussed are considered fictional and hypothetical. Information of all discussion has been derived from online research and in the spirit of personal Freedom.

Offline LadyKalma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 178
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • LadyKalma is new on the scene.
  • Last Login:March 09, 2019, 05:12:23 AM
  • Welcome to drugs-and-users !
Re: The Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2019, 03:51:54 PM »
I'd like to see a study done with something more people feel itd unethical. I mean, defrauding banks? Of course the employees would be ok with that. There is no direct victim, and it can almost be seen as a class struggle. And of course, in the same way it makes sense that the emission inspector itd more likely to stick to the rules and fail the cars of the rich. I guess i'm one of the people they found unethical, I don't see anything wrong or surprising about what they did.

Offline Chip (OP)

  • Server Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2014
  • Location: Australia
  • Posts: 6464
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Chip has hidden their reputation power
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 05:57:05 AM
  • Deeply Confused Learner
  • Profession: IT Engineer
Re: The Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2019, 08:07:34 PM »
I do and it is evident. Why support anything other than a win-win system let alone sustain it.

To keep throwing good money (like stories on a building) after bad money (the core foundations) means that all the money will go bad and it WILL collapse under it's own weight of deception, the weight of guilt, the weight of ignoring their gut, the weight of greed, the weight of unsustainable.

WE want out genes to live on forever but a scheme like this would only spread like an infection the longer it was perpetuated.

Money talks and the BOSS must be the SUPREME GOD in this microcosm of Capitalism ! POWER intimidates and makes you doubts your powerless self, if you are shallow. If i want power then i WILL FUCKING TURN THE SWITCH ON WALL ON THE OUTLET ON ! fuck me - why am i so bent ?

Helping someone is nice and if you have to be unethical then put boundaries on it and have it on paper (like once, your fault BUT twice, my fault. UNETHICAL means that someone is suffering REAL LOSS and the OTHER GAINS. That is OUT OF BALANCE and everything in NATURE that survives has to remain either FAIR AND EQUITABLE or in my game, EVERY LIFE FORM AND THE ENVIRONMENT WINS and like genes, everything looks amazing but it's merely what's left from all the unfathomable amounts of crap that failed.

He used his manipulation by fusing his raw honesty (we love that) with his BAD situation (red flag and SYMPATHY SEEKING - AND HE KNEW IT [negative manipulation]) and then appealed to their better nature (an old trick) BUT the main problem was the fact that the accomplices welfare's were then compromised by being tied to him AND TO MAKE IT WORSE, any fool knows that it's UNSUSTAINABLE and it's NOT OK even if everyone is doing it !

Their CORE MOTIVES were not on paper and not transparent yet they used paper as proof and not were their TRUE intentions.

Any system based on deception and compromise for an "indefinite" period is NOT BASED in REALITY: where ANYONE suffers is not win-win and will ALWAYS FAIL, not IF but WHEN

We don't want our genes to fail yet we support this ? money and what it can do is the real world nature of assigning, ERRONEOUSLY, value to what we can give to others and feel appreciated - the genetics of inclusively, ego, purpose and resource.

The only thing that matters is did you have some fun today ?

Did you make one or more people feel happier ?

Did you be true to yourself ?

Did you try to improve anything or just even not make much worse ?

Did you get really stoned and high as fuck ?

... and, my fave, did people just give you the drugs free because they actually loved you a teeny bit ?

Did you do a little happy dance ?

Did you laugh at your own stupidity (once or in my case, heaps on my good days)


Do you think that you're worth the best treatment that people can give you considering your handicaps (drug addicted, congenital faults that you can't change etc.)

... and did you anything that might have helped ALL OF HUMANITY for no money at all ?

... and was it all done whilst dancing and listening to your favorite (DELTA BRAIN WAVE) music ? CHICKEN DINNER
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 08:39:18 PM by Chip »
I do not condone or support any illegal activities. All information is for theoretical discussion and wonder.
All activities discussed are considered fictional and hypothetical. Information of all discussion has been derived from online research and in the spirit of personal Freedom.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
Last post March 09, 2019, 02:19:24 AM
by bignasty
3 Replies
Last post December 03, 2017, 05:21:14 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post February 14, 2018, 07:37:02 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post June 29, 2018, 01:49:56 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post October 01, 2018, 03:51:36 AM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post July 08, 2019, 05:27:48 PM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post July 12, 2019, 07:13:34 AM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post October 20, 2019, 07:40:32 AM
by Chip
0 Replies
Last post December 05, 2019, 12:23:32 PM
by Chip
2 Replies
Last post October 27, 2020, 04:53:02 AM
by limerence

dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse


In no event will d&u or any person involved in creating, producing, or distributing site information be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use d&u. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless d&u, its domain founders, sponsors, maintainers, server administrators, volunteers and contributors from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from the use of any part of the d&u site.


Founded December 2014
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal