Ariely observes, in turn, that we are much more likely to cheat and distort reality (in this case the reality of financial status) when finances become “virtual.” We might even recall that money itself is a replacement for tangible, in-person (bartering-based) exchange of services and products (Bergquist, 1093). It is even harder to deny or distort reality when one is swapping a bushel of wheat for a hand-crafted chair, or two nights of baby-sitting for two pans of home-made lasagna. The reality and reinforcement of the in-person swap is furthered by its foundation in social rather than market exchange.
The Tangible Culture
We stand here in the early mid-21st Century world and despair that it isn’t like the “good old days” when we got to know our local banker and when everything was paid for with cash or a check. We read the daily newspaper that purportedly presented “all sides” of an issue and listened every evening to one of three TV channels that purported to serve all members of a community—regardless of political affiliations. While these “good old days” are to be found only in our collective memory (aided by nostalgic movies and novels), they do provide incentive and guidance for the creation of a tangible culture that returns us to the things that we can see, hear and touch.
The activities to be found in the tangible culture range from our family dinners to national holidays, and from a demand for in-person education to the requirement that people must show up in person to vote. In some cases, the return to old tangible practices is to be praised. In other cases, this return is accompanied by (or acts as a shield) for the return of discriminatory practices. Perhaps of greatest importance is the frequent alliance of the tangible culture with issues of morality and religion. We find this alliance in Ariely’s suggestion that religion and moral education might be part of the antidote for pervasive (and perverse) lying. He finds, specifically, that religion and moral education tends to blunt the tendency to lie (Ariely, 2012, p. 281):
. . . [t]he general approach of religion is to deal directly with the period before we cheat and the period in which we have the opportunity to cheat. First, religion attempts to influence our mind-set before we are tempted, by creating moral education and-let’s not forget-guilt. The basic understanding is that if we want to curb dishonesty, we need to think about education and calibrating the moral compass, rather than threatening punishment after the fact (which many religions are also pretty clear about). Second, religions attempt to influence our mind-sets in the moment of temptation by incorporating different moral reminders into our environment. Here, the basic idea is that once we have a moral compass, it’s a good idea to keep it in good working order, with appropriate adjustments in real time, if we expect it to operate at full capacity.
A culture of tangibility—based on well-established traditions—also tends to create a culture of decency and honesty. Ariely (2012, p. 43) suggests that this foundation of decency and honesty is often established and reinforced by a very tangible code of ethics. This code might be the Ten Commandments of the Torah (Old Testament) or the Golden Rule (of the New Testament). Turning to his own Jewish tradition, Ariely (,2012p. 270) identifies two ways in which the weekly observance of Shabbat promotes this culture. Participants in Shabbat are reminded on a weekly basis of the extent to which their own behavior is aligned with the Jewish code, the ways in which they can live up to this code during the coming week, and (most importantly), the values inherent in (and inherited by) this traditional code. “It is clear” to Ariely (2012, p. 52), “that moral reminders make it relatively easy to get people to be more honest—at least for a short while.”
