Smooth criminal: convicted rule-breakers show reduced cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations
- 352 Downloads
Classic findings on conformity and obedience document a strong and automatic drive of human agents to follow any type of rule or social norm. At the same time, most individuals tend to violate rules on occasion, and such deliberate rule violations have recently been shown to yield cognitive conflict for the rule-breaker. These findings indicate persistent difficulty to suppress the rule representation, even though rule violations were studied in a controlled experimental setting with neither gains nor possible sanctions for violators. In the current study, we validate these findings by showing that convicted criminals, i.e., individuals with a history of habitual and severe forms of rule violations, can free themselves from such cognitive conflict in a similarly controlled laboratory task. These findings support an emerging view that aims at understanding rule violations from the perspective of the violating agent rather than from the perspective of outside observer.
KeywordsTarget Stimulus Control Participant Movement Trajectory Antisocial Personality Disorder Criminal History
We are grateful to Ryan Dutton for language editing and inspiring discussions. We thank Sandra Christian and Katharina Louis for the support in data collection.
Compliance with ethical standards
This research was funded by the Promotion of Junior Researchers Program at the University of Tübingen and the LEAD Graduate School [GSC1028], a project of the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.Google Scholar
- Foerster, A., Wirth, R., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2016). The dishonest mind set in sequence. Psychological Research. doi: 10.1007/s00426-016-0780-3 (In press).
- Kimbrough, E. O., & Vostroknutov, A. (2016). Journal of the European Economic Association. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12152 (In press).
- Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: a 10-year research review and a research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49–75). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Pfister, R. (2013). Breaking the rules: Cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
- Wirth, R., Foerster, A., Rendel, H., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2016a). Looking for trouble, then looking for cops: Rule violations sensitize towards authority-related stimuli (Manuscript under review).Google Scholar