The second way in which to address cheating involves “cutting directly to the chase.” Actions are taken to minimize the harm done to other people or to “pay back” the harm that has already been done. The liar is required to correct their lie in public or in some written statement that is widely circulated. A truth and reconciliation process is engaged or a mock trial is held where the liar is forced to confess their “sin.” This is Active Rectification. As the name implies, this involves actions that move beyond emotional reparation.
The third way in which to address cheating and purposeful lying is the most challenging – and ultimately the most beneficial. It is Behavior Change. The outcome of this third way is quite simple and direct. The cheater quits cheating. The liar begins to tell the truth. This might mean a universal commitment: no more cheating ever! Nothing but the truth and the whole truth! This is usually not a realistic goal. A much more realistic outcome is for the cheater to cease a particular type of cheating (domestic, financial, etc.) or for them to at least reduce the frequency or severity of the cheating or lying. How do each of these three historic ways operate when addressing the cheat? We turn to each way.
Reparation: Emotions
Given that cheating, purposeful lying, and related “crimes and misdemeanors” have occurred throughout human history, it is not surprising to find that many procedures are deployed to help address these issues. Often, the personal or societal transgression is viewed as a spiritual matter—which is why testimony in a courtroom often requires someone to swear on a bible (or other religious document) that they are telling the “truth.” When a major lie has been told inside or outside the courtroom, then the trust or rule of God (or multiple Gods) has/have been violated. A sin has been committed. Rituals are engaged that that enable the transgressor to be “purified” or at least forgiven.
In the Catholic Church this can take place in a confessional booth with follow up acts of contrition. Some “Hail Marys” help and a few coins or bills in the collection basket can prove beneficial in the eyes of the transgressor (if not God). Other churches ask for a portion of one’s income as a way to provide “universal coverage” for sins such as cheating. Once again, this tithing might be meant for those living on earth more than for any God in heaven.
In the Protestant Church, we find a God who is not “bought off” by contrition; rather, the Protestant God provides Grace that is unconditional. As sinners, Protestant cheaters must come to terms with their own misdeeds by first changing their heart and subsequently changing their behavior. A noted psychologist, O. Hobart Mowrer, blended his own behavioral perspectives with a strong Protestant perspective, proposing that our experience of anxiety is itself a sign that we are not aligned with God’s commandments. We will seek to be anxious, as cheaters, when we recognize that we have “sinned” and when we change our behavior.
Other religious traditions require some public act of contrition, such as punishing oneself (flagellation), confessing to one’s sin(s) in a public forum, or at least begging the victim for forgiveness and absolution. Our Freudian colleagues might suggest that these acts of reparation are guided by an active super-ego. Countering the irrational and impulsive urges of the Id which induce cheating, super-ego functions are not only meant to block the enactment of these urges, but also to punish their host for even thinking about cheating. As the country-western song goes, “do you have cheating on your mind.” If you do, then there is likely to be a feeling of guilt and a desire to somehow reclaim the self-image of integrity and goodness (which the super-ego demands of us).
Download Article 1K Club
