YESTERDAY, I linked a story about stores getting rid of self-checkout because of customers not paying. Then Helen found me a story containing this explanation of why some people do that: “Others believe their actions are justified because they are forced to do the work of a checkout attendant.”

Plus: “Solutions to reduce theft and cheating at self-service checkouts include a simple login screen at the start of every self-checkout system’s sequence, where the shopper must agree to be honest and not cheat the system – research suggests this could play into the mind’s of the human psyche.”

Actually, that approach was based on fraudulent data, long-discredited but not dead.

More: “Ariely’s 2012 paper found that people were more honest when they signed a promise to be honest at the beginning of a transaction than when they signed the same promise at the end. The idea was that the early exposure to the importance of honesty set the tone. The Obama administration’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team recommended this approach to the government. It seemed like a cheap and easy way of promoting good behavior. The only problem is, it’s not true. Other scientists found that his work couldn’t be replicated. And a deep dive into the data Ariely used determined that it couldn’t possibly be correct. Even Ariely agrees that the criticisms are ‘damning’ and ‘clear beyond doubt.'”

My own prediction is that people who are already resentful of being made to do the work of an employee for no pay will find such a smarmy involuntary “pledge” an encouragement to larceny.