PAUL VORSTER: Virtualisation may be bad for ethics

Most of us have adopted a virtual, or partly virtual, lifestyle since the Covid-19 pandemic. Many organisations have brought in more relaxed work-from-home policies, with a larger percentage of employees now doing some or most of their work online.

The use of email and virtual communications platforms such as Zoom and Teams have skyrocketed and are now the primary communication mechanisms in many organisations. But is this increased virtualisation good for us? How do these mechanisms affect personal and group ethics?

Canadian psychologist and “dark tetrad” expert Delroy Paulhus has investigated the expression of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism and sadism in a virtual world, and the results should worry all of us. 

Paulhus and his colleagues have investigated dark tetrad personality traits, namely psychopathy (a lack of empathy and increased propensity for antisocial predatory behaviour and poor impulse control), Machiavellianism (manipulativeness, callousness and indifference to morality), narcissism (inflated pride, egotism, dominance, and self-importance), and sadism (a propensity to enjoy cruelty and inflicting pain and suffering on others), for more than 20 years.

Their research demonstrates that all of us have a propensity for the dark traits of personality to some degree. We all have lapses in empathy, engage in impulsive and manipulative behaviour occasionally, sometimes overinflate our self-worth, and secretly enjoy the misfortunes of others (“Schadenfreude”). 

Consider that the most popular television series ever is Game of Thrones. Hyperviolence, Machiavellianism, narcissism and sadism are the core drawing cards of this series. We enjoy violent sports and cheer when our team dominates and even inflicts pain on members of the other team. However, for many of us there are social processes that limit indulgence in dark behaviour. 

There are consequences in society for unchecked dark traits. These are often social in nature and obtained directly from those we may otherwise manipulate, dominate, hurt or use as a means to an end. It is more difficult to engage in apathetic or hurtful behaviour towards someone in the same room as you. It is far easier and  less stressful to pick a fight online than in person. 

We know, for example, that people who are unusually high in dark tetrad traits struggle to form long-lasting relationships and are eventually caught out by the social groups in which they operate. This can often be career-limiting. The social consequences of unchecked dark traits can be dire, including losing a job, destruction of a career, social rejection and isolation, and in extreme cases criminal prosecution. This is not even taking into account the negative influence these traits have on organisational mechanisms and social cohesion.

We are all encouraged to act in socially desirable ways. We are primed to live and work in groups. It is therefore vital for us to ensure that the group likes us. We are a gregarious species, after all. Rejection from our social groups is generally extremely disadvantageous both personally and professionally. In our prehistoric past, rejection from your social group could even mean certain death.

This may explain the social anxiety phenomenon. The statistically most common phobia is public speaking. Perhaps visceral reactions like a dry mouth and sweaty hands has something to do with the omnipresent fear that people may not like what we have to say. Or at worst, that the group may reject us. 

All people therefore engage in some form of socially desirable behaviour in public. We could say that we tend to engage our “conventional” morality in society. We may indicate that we care about a group or individual we do not really care about. We may say nice things about a person even when we deeply dislike them. We use euphemisms, avoid conflict, engage in tactful responses, and say to believe the same things our social group believes (even when we do not).  

All of these behaviours are constructed to get the group to accept us. Being in a social group has many advantages. Having others on your side, or there to assist you, is important. We need to leverage our social capital for our wellbeing and survival.  

Of course, seeking social desirability in this way can be viewed as a form of dishonesty; that someone who engages in socially desirable ways when that is not how they really feel is acting in a manipulative or conniving manner. However, social feedback and a susceptibility to being liked by our social groups form part of an important social feedback mechanism that stops us from crossing red lines. It is what places limits on our dark traits.

Consider, for example, that there is evidence of well-socialised, diagnosed psychopaths who have never broken a law and are considered rewarding to work with in their organisations. Ask yourself, how socially desirable have you been when going for a job interview, meeting your partner’s parents, or being introduced to new people socially? 

Virtualisation has had a big effect on our social feedback mechanisms. In a recent interview about his work on social media and the dark traits Prof Paulhus indicated that “in a way you are getting closer to how people are ‘really’ like” when they have the cushion of indirect social experiences through virtualisation.  

It is a similar mechanism to road rage. When you are separated from others through a buffer such as a car, you tend to engage in less socially desirable behaviour and the incidences of dark traits emerging tend to increase. In studies on online bullying and “trolling” behaviours Paulhus and colleagues found that virtualisation may enable psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism and sadism. This brings us to an interesting and popular internet phenomenon called “doing it for the lulz”.  

“Doing it for the lulz” is a phrase often used to describe activities or behaviours undertaken purely for amusement, often at others' expense or with the goal of eliciting a reaction. This behaviour is enjoyable to those who engage in it, if not those at the receiving end, and has increased exponentially with the advent of virtualisation, both personally and in the work context.

People are simply getting less direct social feedback from their peers, feel less compelled to act in socially desirable ways, and as a consequence have less empathy for others. There is also a substantial decrease in direct role-modelling. The additional safety an online virtual platform provides may also increase the frequency of unwanted dark traits being expressed.  

Numerous studies have shown that dark traits share one thing in common; a lack of empathy. Our empathy is not a linear force. It changes based on your context. You are more likely to feel empathy for someone when you are in their physical presence than if they are presented virtually. Empathy is dynamic. Virtualisation may be eroding this vital moral pillar, and we may not be ready for the consequences on either a personal or professional level.  

Perhaps then, returning to the office is desirable. Many individuals are unhappy that their organisations are pushing for a return to face-to-face work. But if you are thoughtful and consider the possible negative outcomes of virtualisation, a return to work in some form is not such a bad thing. It may even be a necessity to retain our pro-social morality.  

Dr Vorster is a senior research specialist at The Ethics Institute.