David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo – Out of Character: Book Review & Audio Summary

Book Info

• Book name: Out of Character: Surprising Truths About the Liar, Cheat, Sinner, and Saint Lurking in All of Us
• Author: David DeSteno, Piercarlo Valdesolo
• Genre: Social Sciences & Humanities (Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology)
• Published Year: 2011
• Publisher: Crown
• Language: English

Audio Summary

Synopsis

Out of Character challenges our fundamental assumptions about human nature and moral behavior. Psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo reveal that character isn’t the fixed, predictable trait we imagine it to be. Through compelling research and experiments, they demonstrate how situational forces, emotional states, and competing internal drives shape our actions in surprising ways. The book explores why good people sometimes do bad things and vice versa, examining hypocrisy, morality, lust, and self-control through the lens of modern psychology. Rather than viewing humans as inherently good or bad, the authors present a nuanced understanding of how we all contain the capacity for both virtue and vice, depending on the circumstances we face.

Key Takeaways

• Character is fluid rather than fixed—we all possess the capacity for both moral and immoral behavior depending on circumstances and internal conflicts between immediate gratification and long-term goals
• Hypocrisy isn’t simply violating your morals but rather shifting them to suit your needs, a psychological mechanism that allows people to justify contradictory behaviors without recognizing the inconsistency
• Our moral judgments are surprisingly malleable and can be influenced by emotional states, environmental factors, and cognitive biases we’re often unaware of
• Understanding the situational nature of character can help us design better systems, make wiser personal decisions, and develop more compassion for human fallibility

My Summary

The Myth of Fixed Character

I’ll be honest—when I first picked up “Out of Character,” I expected another dry psychology textbook filled with academic jargon. What I got instead was a fascinating journey into why the person who cuts you off in traffic might be the same person who volunteers at a soup kitchen on weekends. DeSteno and Valdesolo, both professors at Northeastern University, have crafted something genuinely eye-opening here.

The book’s central premise flies in the face of how we typically judge people. We love our labels: “She’s honest,” “He’s a cheater,” “They’re trustworthy.” But as the authors demonstrate through dozens of psychological experiments, these labels are far too simplistic. The reality? We’re all capable of acting out of character because character itself isn’t the unchanging trait we imagine it to be.

The word “character” comes from an ancient Greek term referring to indelible marks pressed into coins. Ironically, human character is anything but indelible. It’s more like clay—constantly being shaped and reshaped by the forces around us and within us.

The Ant and the Grasshopper Within

One of the most compelling frameworks DeSteno and Valdesolo present is their rejection of the traditional “angel versus devil” metaphor for internal moral conflict. Instead, they propose we think about Aesop’s fable of the ant and the grasshopper.

Remember that story? The ant works tirelessly all summer, storing food for winter, while the grasshopper plays and enjoys the sunshine. When winter arrives, the ant survives while the grasshopper suffers. We’re taught to admire the ant’s foresight and discipline, but here’s where it gets interesting: both strategies have merit.

The grasshopper’s approach—living in the moment, seeking immediate pleasure—isn’t purely foolish. After all, you have to survive long enough to enjoy those future rewards. What if the ant dies before winter? All that preparation was for nothing. This tension between immediate gratification and delayed rewards plays out in our minds constantly.

Should you go to that party tonight or stay home studying? Eat the chocolate cake or stick to your diet? Splurge on vacation or save for retirement? These aren’t battles between good and evil—they’re negotiations between two legitimate but competing priorities.

What struck me most about this framework is how it removes moral judgment from the equation. The grasshopper isn’t evil, and the ant isn’t necessarily virtuous. They’re just operating under different time horizons and risk assessments. We all contain both mindsets, and which one dominates depends largely on our circumstances, emotional state, and recent experiences.

Why This Matters in Modern Life

In our current culture of instant gratification—streaming, same-day delivery, social media dopamine hits—the grasshopper mindset has never had more ammunition. Meanwhile, we’re also bombarded with messages about retirement savings, climate change, and long-term health consequences. The internal conflict has intensified.

Understanding this duality helps explain why smart, educated people still smoke, why financially savvy individuals rack up credit card debt, and why we all know what we “should” do but often don’t do it. It’s not a character flaw—it’s a feature of human psychology.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Hypocrisy

Here’s where the book gets really uncomfortable. DeSteno and Valdesolo argue that hypocrisy isn’t quite the moral failing we think it is. Instead, it’s a psychological mechanism that allows us to shift our moral standards to suit our needs while genuinely believing we’re being consistent.

The authors describe an experiment that perfectly captures this phenomenon. Participants were given two tasks to assign: one short and fun, one long and boring. They could choose which task they’d do and which another person would do, or they could flip a coin to decide fairly.

Most people chose the fun task for themselves without flipping the coin. When asked to rate the fairness of their own behavior, they put themselves in the middle of the scale. But when evaluating someone else who did the exact same thing? They rated it as very unfair.

This isn’t conscious deception—it’s self-deception. Our minds are remarkably skilled at constructing narratives that justify our actions. The politician caught with a prostitute after campaigning on family values genuinely doesn’t see the contradiction, at least not in the moment. His brain has recategorized his behavior, found mitigating circumstances, or created distinctions that make sense to him.

I found myself thinking about my own hypocrisies while reading this section. How many times have I been annoyed when someone’s late but made excuses when I’m running behind? How often have I judged others for behaviors I’ve engaged in myself? The uncomfortable answer: constantly.

Morality Is More Flexible Than We’d Like to Admit

The book includes another disturbing experiment about moral decision-making. Researchers posed the classic trolley problem variant: Would you push a large man off a bridge to stop a runaway trolley from killing five people? (His body would stop the trolley, saving the five but killing him.)

Here’s the twist: Before answering, some participants watched Saturday Night Live clips while others watched a serious documentary. The group that watched comedy was significantly more likely to say they’d push the man to his death.

Let that sink in. A completely unrelated emotional state—mild amusement from watching SNL—changed people’s answers to a profound moral question about whether to actively kill one person to save five others. Our moral judgments, which we like to think are products of deep reasoning and firm principles, can be swayed by something as trivial as what we watched on TV.

This finding aligns with a growing body of research showing that moral intuitions often come first, with rational justifications constructed after the fact. We feel that something is right or wrong, then our logical mind scrambles to explain why. And those feelings can be manipulated by factors we’re not even aware of—hunger, fatigue, whether we’ve recently washed our hands, the cleanliness of the room we’re in.

The Science of Straying

Perhaps the most personally relevant chapter for many readers deals with romantic relationships and infidelity. DeSteno and Valdesolo tackle the question: Why do people cheat, even when they genuinely love their partners?

The distinction they draw between love and lust is crucial. Lust is straightforward—it’s physical attraction driven by evolutionary imperatives and biological signals of health and fertility. These attractions are largely universal and not personal. The features we find attractive (symmetrical faces, certain body proportions, clear skin) are the same ones humans have been responding to for millennia.

Love, on the other hand, is maddeningly difficult to define. Plato’s idea that we’re all searching for our missing half sounds romantic but offers no practical guidance. How do you recognize your other half when you find them? What if you think you’ve found them but you’re wrong?

The authors suggest that even in the most committed relationships, lust for others doesn’t disappear. It’s a biological drive that exists independently of emotional attachment. The question isn’t whether you’ll feel attracted to other people—you almost certainly will. The question is what you do with those feelings.

This perspective removes some of the moral panic around attraction to others while in a relationship. Feeling attracted to someone who isn’t your partner doesn’t make you a bad person or mean your relationship is doomed. It makes you human. What matters is how you manage those feelings and whether you act on them.

Practical Applications for Relationships

Understanding the distinction between lust and love can actually strengthen relationships. It allows couples to acknowledge attraction to others without catastrophizing. It creates space for honest conversations about temptation and boundaries.

It also suggests that relationship maintenance requires active effort. The initial lust that brings couples together naturally fades over time—that’s biology, not a sign of incompatibility. Building lasting love requires intentional cultivation of intimacy, shared experiences, and emotional connection.

The book doesn’t offer a simple formula for fidelity, which I actually appreciated. Instead, it provides a more realistic framework for understanding why infidelity happens and how the same person can be both genuinely committed and genuinely tempted.

Situational Forces Shape Behavior

Running throughout “Out of Character” is the theme that external circumstances profoundly influence our actions, often more than our supposed character traits. This idea isn’t new—social psychology has been demonstrating it for decades—but DeSteno and Valdesolo synthesize the research in accessible ways.

The famous Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram’s obedience studies, and countless other experiments have shown that ordinary people will do extraordinary things—both good and bad—when placed in the right situation. Good people can become cruel guards. Compassionate people can administer what they believe are dangerous electric shocks. Honest people can become liars and cheaters.

This doesn’t mean character doesn’t matter at all. Some people are more resistant to situational pressures than others. But the influence of situation is far stronger than most of us realize or want to admit.

I found this perspective both humbling and liberating. Humbling because it means I can’t be certain I’d act morally in every situation. I’d like to think I’d be the person who stands up to injustice, who resists group pressure to do wrong, who maintains integrity under stress. But the research suggests I might not be, depending on the circumstances.

It’s liberating because it reduces the harsh judgment we often direct at ourselves and others. That person who made a terrible choice might not be fundamentally different from you—they might have just faced a different set of pressures at a vulnerable moment.

Designing Better Systems

Understanding the power of situations has practical implications for how we structure organizations, policies, and even our personal environments. If we know that certain situations increase the likelihood of unethical behavior, we can redesign those situations.

For example, research shows that people are more likely to cheat when they’re tired, stressed, or depleted from exerting self-control. Companies could reduce fraud by ensuring employees aren’t chronically overworked. Schools could reduce cheating by spacing out exams rather than clustering them during finals week.

On a personal level, you can set up your environment to support your goals. Want to eat healthier? Don’t rely on willpower—remove junk food from your house. Want to exercise more? Lay out your workout clothes the night before. Want to save money? Automate transfers to savings before you see the money in your checking account.

These strategies work because they acknowledge the situational nature of behavior rather than relying on the myth of consistent character.

Strengths and Limitations

DeSteno and Valdesolo have written an engaging, thought-provoking book that successfully challenges conventional wisdom about character and morality. Their use of research studies is extensive and well-explained, making complex psychological concepts accessible to general readers.

The book’s greatest strength is its refusal to offer simplistic answers. The authors embrace nuance and ambiguity, acknowledging that human behavior is messy and context-dependent. This makes for a more intellectually honest read than many pop psychology books that promise easy solutions.

However, this same strength could be seen as a limitation for readers seeking concrete guidance. “Out of Character” is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive. It explains why we behave inconsistently but offers less advice on what to do about it. Some readers might finish the book understanding themselves better but feeling uncertain about how to apply that understanding.

The book also focuses heavily on negative behaviors—cheating, hypocrisy, moral failures. While this makes sense given the title and premise, I would have appreciated more exploration of how situational forces can bring out our better natures. If circumstances can make us worse, they can presumably also make us better.

Comparison to Similar Works

“Out of Character” fits into a broader genre of books challenging our assumptions about human nature. It shares territory with Dan Ariely’s “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty,” which also explores how good people cheat, and Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind,” which examines the psychological foundations of morality.

What distinguishes DeSteno and Valdesolo’s work is their focus on the fluidity of character itself rather than just specific behaviors. While Ariely focuses on dishonesty and Haidt on moral reasoning, “Out of Character” takes a broader view of how our entire sense of self can shift depending on circumstances.

The book also has echoes of Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink,” particularly in its discussion of how unconscious factors influence our judgments. However, “Out of Character” is more grounded in academic research and less anecdotal than Gladwell’s work.

Questions Worth Pondering

As I finished “Out of Character,” several questions stayed with me. If character is so fluid and situation-dependent, what does personal responsibility mean? Can we hold people accountable for their actions if those actions were heavily influenced by circumstances?

The authors don’t provide definitive answers, which is probably appropriate. These are questions humanity has grappled with for millennia. But the book reframes them in useful ways, suggesting that we should focus less on judging character and more on understanding and modifying the situations that bring out our worst impulses.

Another question: If we accept that we all contain the capacity for both virtue and vice, how do we cultivate the conditions that bring out our better selves? This feels like the natural next step after understanding the problem.

Why This Book Matters Now

In our current era of intense polarization and moral certainty, “Out of Character” offers a much-needed dose of humility. We’re quick to condemn others as fundamentally flawed while excusing our own transgressions as aberrations. This book suggests we have it backwards—everyone’s behavior is more aberrational than we think.

Social media has amplified our tendency to judge others based on single actions or statements, treating these moments as definitive revelations of character. Cancel culture operates on the assumption that character is fixed and that past behavior predicts future behavior with certainty. “Out of Character” challenges this assumption, suggesting that people are capable of change precisely because character is fluid.

This doesn’t mean abandoning accountability or accepting harmful behavior. Rather, it means approaching moral judgment with more nuance and recognizing our own capacity for similar failings under different circumstances.

Final Thoughts

Reading “Out of Character” was an uncomfortable but valuable experience. It forced me to confront my own hypocrisies and acknowledge that my moral consistency is more illusion than reality. That’s not a pleasant realization, but it’s an important one.

The book won’t give you a simple formula for being a better person, but it will give you a more realistic understanding of what being human means. We’re all works in progress, all containing multitudes, all capable of surprising ourselves—for better and worse.

If you’re interested in psychology, moral philosophy, or just understanding why people (including yourself) don’t always act the way you expect, this book is worth your time. It’s not always an easy read emotionally, but it’s an enlightening one.

I’d love to hear your thoughts if you’ve read it or if these ideas resonate with your own experiences. Have you noticed how your behavior changes in different situations? Have you caught yourself being hypocritical in ways you didn’t initially recognize? Let’s continue this conversation in the comments—after all, grappling with these questions together is how we grow.