-
Title
-
Ethical Decision‐Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
-
Author
-
Shu, Lisa L.
-
Effron, Daniel A.
-
Research Area
-
Cognition and Emotions
-
Topic
-
Decision Making
-
Abstract
-
How do people decide when facing dilemmas that pit self‐interested gains against ethical values? We highlight two key principles from contemporary behavioral research: (i) people are more willing to act unethically when they can convince themselves that their behavior does not reflect poorly on their moral character and (ii) people tend to be content with an “ethical enough” self‐image. We examine how these principles shed light on the antecedents and consequences of ethical behavior, emphasizing situational determinants and psychological processes. We close by considering important questions that remain unanswered, and discuss how furthering our understanding the role of the self in ethical decision‐making can be used to nudge people toward more ethical behavior.
-
Identifier
-
etrds0117
-
extracted text
-
Ethical Decision-Making:
Contemporary Research
on the Role of the Self
LISA L. SHU and DANIEL A. EFFRON
Abstract
How do people decide when facing dilemmas that pit self-interested gains against
ethical values? We highlight two key principles from contemporary behavioral
research: (i) people are more willing to act unethically when they can convince
themselves that their behavior does not reflect poorly on their moral character and
(ii) people tend to be content with an “ethical enough” self-image. We examine
how these principles shed light on the antecedents and consequences of ethical
behavior, emphasizing situational determinants and psychological processes. We
close by considering important questions that remain unanswered, and discuss how
furthering our understanding the role of the self in ethical decision-making can be
used to nudge people toward more ethical behavior.
People frequently must choose between pursuing their self-interests and
upholding ethical principles such as justice, fairness, or generosity. What
leads people to make ethical decisions when faced with such dilemmas?
A growing body of research in the fields of psychology, organizational
behavior, and behavioral economics has been addressing this question using
laboratory experiments and field studies. In this essay, we describe contemporary work on the role of the self in ethical decision-making, assert the
importance of considering the decision-making context when intervening to
reduce unethical behavior, and conclude with recommendations for future
research.
THE ROLE OF THE SELF
One of the most fundamental human motives is to protect a positive
self-concept (Stevens & Fiske, 1995), and for many people, this motive is
particularly strong in the domain of ethics and morality (Aquino & Reed,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2002). Contemporary research emphasizes the key role that this motivation
plays in ethical decision-making (Monin & Jordan, 2009; Zhong, Liljenquist, & Cain, 2009), in contrast to the more cognitive approach taken by
earlier theorists that emphasized the importance of moral reasoning ability
(e.g., Kohlberg, 1981).
We identity two key principles regarding the self in ethical decisionmaking:
When faced with a temptation to act inconsistently with their own ethical
standards, people ask themselves, in essence, “Would this decision
reflect poorly on my character?” People become more willing to act
unethically when they can convince themselves that the answer to this
question is no.
Most people are content with an “ethical enough” self-image (Nisan,
1991)—not everyone needs to feel like a saint; they just want to avoid
feeling like a sinner.
Several lines of research support these two principles, illuminating when
and how people tend to cheat:
•
•
•
Consistent with the first principle, people will act less fairly when they
can appear fair to others (Pillutla & Murnighan, 1995) or to themselves
(Batson, Thompson, Seuferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999). For
example, people cheat more in ambiguous situations that allow them to
interpret cheating as accidental (Von Hippel, Lakin, & Shakarchi, 2005)
or as stemming from an ethically acceptable motive such as the desire
to help others (Wiltermuth, 2011).
Consistent with the second principle, when faced with opportunities to
cheat without getting caught, most people will cheat some of the time,
but will not cheat to the maximum extent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
In other words, people act unethically enough to enjoy the relevant benefits, but restrain themselves enough to preserve a moderately moral
self-image.
Acting virtuously makes people feel licensed to subsequently act less
virtuously (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010; Miller & Effron, 2010). Consistent with both principles, prior virtues make subsequent misdeeds
seem less reflective of one’s moral character and allow one to maintain
a “good enough” self-image despite transgressing.
Findings such as these characterize decision-making in ethical domains
as a balancing act in which self-image concerns are weighed against
temptations.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
3
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
People’s desire to preserve a “moral enough” self-image has important
implications for the consequences of acting unethically. On one hand, people
sometimes compensate for their misdeeds in the short term by subsequently
acting more prosocially or ethically (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Jordan,
Mullen, & Murnighan, 2011; McMillen, 1971; McMillen & Austin, 1971;
Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009)—a process called moral cleansing (Tetlock,
Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000). On the other hand, there is reason
to worry that acting unethically may beget more unethical behavior in
the long run due to the cognitive distortions that people use to convince
themselves that their decisions do not reflect poorly on their moral character
(Martens, Kosloff, Greenberg, Landau, & Schmader, 2007). Research on such
distortions has revealed phenomena such as the following:
•
•
•
People tend to apply more lenient moral standards to themselves than to
others (Kruger & Gilovich, 2004; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2007). When people need reassurance of their ethicality, they presume that their behavior
will be judged against even lower moral standards (Effron, 2014).
People are adept at reconstruing their questionable behavior as ethically permissible—a process of “moral disengagement” (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bem & McConnell, 1970; Shu,
Gino, & Bazerman, 2011; Tsang, 2002). Methods of moral disengagement
include distorting the consequences of one’s unethical behavior and
displacing blame onto others (Bandura, 1999).
People distort their memories to preserve a moral self-image. They
overestimate how virtuously they acted in the past (Ross, McFarland, &
Fletcher, 1981), how unethically they could have acted if they had wanted
to (Effron, Miller, & Monin, 2012), and they strategically forget ethical
rules that would highlight their own ethical failings (Shu & Gino, 2012).
Once people succumb to ethical temptations, they potentially start down
a path of greater moral disengagement, more lenient moral standards, more
distorted evaluations of their moral history, and decreased attention to moral
rules that would otherwise curb dishonesty—a path that turns into a slippery
slope (Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Martens et al., 2007). This price of preserving a virtuous self-image highlights the need to intervene before unethical
behavior is committed.
REDUCING UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
In the view of neoclassical economics, the major strategies for curbing
unethical behavior are to increase punishment, the likelihood of detection,
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
or both (Becker, 1968). Although these strategies can be effective, they often
require tremendous resources to implement, and neglect the dramatic effect
that small changes in the decision-making context can have on unethical
behavior.
The principles we identified regarding the role of self-concept in ethical
decision-making suggest that unethical behavior can be curbed by making
such behavior seem more reflective of a person’s underlying moral character. For example, recent research suggests that people cheat less when told,
“Don’t be a cheater,” compared to when told, “Don’t cheat” (Bryan, Adams,
& Monin, 2013). The former injunction more effectively connects cheating to
the self-concept. As another example, consider a study in which customers
of an automobile insurance company filled out a form that required them to
report the mileage they drove last year. Because higher mileage means higher
premiums, customers had an incentive to underreport. All participants were
requested to sign a statement saying, “I promise that the information I am
providing is true,” but the researchers varied whether this statement came at
the top of the form versus the bottom.
Signing at the top led the customers to admit to driving more than 10%
more miles (Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012). Simply moving
the signature line to the top of the form seems to have made participants’
ethical standards more salient, which decreased dishonesty. Studies such as
these reveal how small changes to the decision-making context can “nudge”
people toward making more ethical decisions (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), particularly if such changes lead people to reflect on how these behaviors reflect
on their values and self-concepts.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
While much progress has been made in behavioral study of ethical
decision-making in recent years, we highlight some areas that need greater
attention.
•
Research has documented a variety of strategies that people use to
convince themselves that their behavior does not reflect on their moral
character—such as rationalization, moral disengagement, cognitive
distortions, and forgetting relevant rules. Most research tests a single
strategy without giving participants the option to select among different strategies. What determines the efficacy of each strategy, and
how do these strategies interact with one another? When do people
spontaneously use which strategies? If a preferred strategy is blocked,
will people simply use an alternative one?
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
•
•
5
When does (un)ethical behavior beget more (un)ethical behavior (consistency), and when does it lead to the opposite (contrast)? Some research
has begun to identify some key moderators (e.g., Conway & Peetz, 2012;
Cornellissen, Bashshur, & Rode, 2013; Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, &
Norton, 2012), but a comprehensive theory is still lacking. Examining
ethical behavior across longer periods of time may shed light on this
question.
How do we bundle existing means of managing moral decisions
(such as increasing punishment or surveillance) with recent behavioral
evidence—and in what domains will they be most effective? Will public
knowledge of such behavioral interventions mute their effectiveness?
CONCLUSION
Extant research has highlighted the key role that the self-image plays in ethical decision-making. Understanding this role reveals how small tweaks to
the decision-making context can reduce unethical behavior. We close with
the following recommendations: continued study of how people strive to
maintain a “good enough” self-image despite acting unethically; greater theoretical integration of previously documented phenomena; and increased
efforts to design theoretically and empirically grounded interventions. Scholarly attention to these issues will help practitioners leverage the insights from
behavioral research to promote more ethical decision-making.
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II, (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Special Issue: Perspectives on evil and violence,
3(3), 193–209.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999).
Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of
Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
Bem, D. J., & McConnell, H. K. (1970). Testing the self-perception explanation of
dissonance phenomena: on the salience of premanipulation attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 23–31.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a
cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 232–239.
Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better
person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate
consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(7), 907–919.
Cornellissen, G., Bashshur, M. R., & Rode, J. (2013). Rules or consequences? The role
of ethical mindsets in moral dynamics. Psychological Science, 24(4), 482–488.
Effron, D. A. (2014). Making mountains of morality from molehills of virtue: Threat
causes people to overestimate their moral credentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 972–985.
Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken:
The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 916–932.
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45(4), 708–719.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to
be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1),
179–187.
Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects
of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701–713.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to
self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(3), 328–339.
Martens, A., Kosloff, S., Greenberg, J., Landau, M. J., & Schmader, T. (2007). Killing
begets killing: Evidence from a bug-killing paradigm that initial killing fuels subsequent killing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1251–1264.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory
of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.
McMillen, D. L. (1971). Transgression, self-image, and compliant behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 20(2), 176.
McMillen, D. L., & Austin, J. B. (1971). Effect of positive feedback on compliance
following transgression. Psychonomic Science, 24, 59–61.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being
good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and
how it functions. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 117–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
7
Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological
perspective. In D. Narvaez & D. Lapsley (Eds.), Moral self, identity, and character:
Prospects for a new field of study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nisan, M. (1991). The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our
understanding of moral choice and deviation. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 213–249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5),
1408–1426.
Ross, M., McFarland, C., & Fletcher, G. J. (1981). The effect of attitude on the recall
of personal histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 627–634.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The
paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20, 523–528.
Shu, L. L., & Gino, F. (2012). Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: How unethical
actions lead to forgetting of moral rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(6), 1164–1177.
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience:
When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 330–349.
Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the
beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38),
15197–15200.
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Motivation and cognition in social life: A social
survival perspective. Social Cognition, 13(3), 189–214.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness. 2008. New Haven, CT: Yale.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical
counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.
Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors
and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology,
6(1), 25–50.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility
of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
Von Hippel, W., Lakin, J. L., & Shakarchi, R. L. (2005). Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of self-serving information processing. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1347–1357.
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 157–168.
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
FURTHER READING
Benney, K. S., & Henkel, L. A. (2006). The role of free choice in memory for past
decisions. Memory, 14(8), 1001–1011.
LISA L. SHU SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lisa L. Shu studies the architecture of morality through examining the
antecedents and consequences of ethical decision-making. In the laboratory
and field, she investigates the psychological costs of unethical behavior, and
proposes ways to avoid the costs of dishonesty through interventions in
the social context. She tests strategies that promote ethical decision-making
over the long term in order to identify moral nudges that can be effective
across a diversity of cultural and geographic settings. Her work has been
featured in academic and media outlets such as CBS MoneyWatch, CNN Live,
Financial Times, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. Shu attained her PhD in Organizational
Behavior and Psychology from Harvard University.
DANIEL A. EFFRON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Daniel A. Effron holds a BA in Psychology from Yale University and a PhD
in Social Psychology from Stanford University. His research examines the
psychological processes that allow people to act in morally questionable
ways without feeling immoral, and that shape how people respond to the
moral transgressions of others. For example, Dr. Effron has investigated how
refraining from wrongdoing in the past can make people willing to act less
virtuously in the future; when and why a history of good deeds can get one
“off the hook” for subsequent transgressions; and what makes individuals
willing to acknowledge and redress atrocities committed by their national
or ethnic groups. His research has appeared in such scholarly publications
as Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; has been covered by
such popular media outlets as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and
Psychology Today; and has received a Dissertation Award from the American
Psychological Association.
http://www.london.edu/facultyandresearch/faculty/search.do?uid=
deffron
RELATED ESSAYS
Intersectionality and the Development of Self and Identity (Psychology), Margarita Azmitia and Virginia Thomas
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
9
Identity Fusion (Psychology), Michael D. Burhmester and William B. Swann
Jr.
Understanding the Adaptive Functions of Morality from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective (Psychology), James Dungan and Liane Young
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Identity-Based Motivation (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Temporal Identity Integration as a Core Developmental Process (Psychology),
Moin Syed and Lauren L. Mitchell
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
-
Ethical Decision-Making:
Contemporary Research
on the Role of the Self
LISA L. SHU and DANIEL A. EFFRON
Abstract
How do people decide when facing dilemmas that pit self-interested gains against
ethical values? We highlight two key principles from contemporary behavioral
research: (i) people are more willing to act unethically when they can convince
themselves that their behavior does not reflect poorly on their moral character and
(ii) people tend to be content with an “ethical enough” self-image. We examine
how these principles shed light on the antecedents and consequences of ethical
behavior, emphasizing situational determinants and psychological processes. We
close by considering important questions that remain unanswered, and discuss how
furthering our understanding the role of the self in ethical decision-making can be
used to nudge people toward more ethical behavior.
People frequently must choose between pursuing their self-interests and
upholding ethical principles such as justice, fairness, or generosity. What
leads people to make ethical decisions when faced with such dilemmas?
A growing body of research in the fields of psychology, organizational
behavior, and behavioral economics has been addressing this question using
laboratory experiments and field studies. In this essay, we describe contemporary work on the role of the self in ethical decision-making, assert the
importance of considering the decision-making context when intervening to
reduce unethical behavior, and conclude with recommendations for future
research.
THE ROLE OF THE SELF
One of the most fundamental human motives is to protect a positive
self-concept (Stevens & Fiske, 1995), and for many people, this motive is
particularly strong in the domain of ethics and morality (Aquino & Reed,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2002). Contemporary research emphasizes the key role that this motivation
plays in ethical decision-making (Monin & Jordan, 2009; Zhong, Liljenquist, & Cain, 2009), in contrast to the more cognitive approach taken by
earlier theorists that emphasized the importance of moral reasoning ability
(e.g., Kohlberg, 1981).
We identity two key principles regarding the self in ethical decisionmaking:
When faced with a temptation to act inconsistently with their own ethical
standards, people ask themselves, in essence, “Would this decision
reflect poorly on my character?” People become more willing to act
unethically when they can convince themselves that the answer to this
question is no.
Most people are content with an “ethical enough” self-image (Nisan,
1991)—not everyone needs to feel like a saint; they just want to avoid
feeling like a sinner.
Several lines of research support these two principles, illuminating when
and how people tend to cheat:
•
•
•
Consistent with the first principle, people will act less fairly when they
can appear fair to others (Pillutla & Murnighan, 1995) or to themselves
(Batson, Thompson, Seuferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999). For
example, people cheat more in ambiguous situations that allow them to
interpret cheating as accidental (Von Hippel, Lakin, & Shakarchi, 2005)
or as stemming from an ethically acceptable motive such as the desire
to help others (Wiltermuth, 2011).
Consistent with the second principle, when faced with opportunities to
cheat without getting caught, most people will cheat some of the time,
but will not cheat to the maximum extent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
In other words, people act unethically enough to enjoy the relevant benefits, but restrain themselves enough to preserve a moderately moral
self-image.
Acting virtuously makes people feel licensed to subsequently act less
virtuously (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010; Miller & Effron, 2010). Consistent with both principles, prior virtues make subsequent misdeeds
seem less reflective of one’s moral character and allow one to maintain
a “good enough” self-image despite transgressing.
Findings such as these characterize decision-making in ethical domains
as a balancing act in which self-image concerns are weighed against
temptations.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
3
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
People’s desire to preserve a “moral enough” self-image has important
implications for the consequences of acting unethically. On one hand, people
sometimes compensate for their misdeeds in the short term by subsequently
acting more prosocially or ethically (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Jordan,
Mullen, & Murnighan, 2011; McMillen, 1971; McMillen & Austin, 1971;
Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009)—a process called moral cleansing (Tetlock,
Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000). On the other hand, there is reason
to worry that acting unethically may beget more unethical behavior in
the long run due to the cognitive distortions that people use to convince
themselves that their decisions do not reflect poorly on their moral character
(Martens, Kosloff, Greenberg, Landau, & Schmader, 2007). Research on such
distortions has revealed phenomena such as the following:
•
•
•
People tend to apply more lenient moral standards to themselves than to
others (Kruger & Gilovich, 2004; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2007). When people need reassurance of their ethicality, they presume that their behavior
will be judged against even lower moral standards (Effron, 2014).
People are adept at reconstruing their questionable behavior as ethically permissible—a process of “moral disengagement” (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bem & McConnell, 1970; Shu,
Gino, & Bazerman, 2011; Tsang, 2002). Methods of moral disengagement
include distorting the consequences of one’s unethical behavior and
displacing blame onto others (Bandura, 1999).
People distort their memories to preserve a moral self-image. They
overestimate how virtuously they acted in the past (Ross, McFarland, &
Fletcher, 1981), how unethically they could have acted if they had wanted
to (Effron, Miller, & Monin, 2012), and they strategically forget ethical
rules that would highlight their own ethical failings (Shu & Gino, 2012).
Once people succumb to ethical temptations, they potentially start down
a path of greater moral disengagement, more lenient moral standards, more
distorted evaluations of their moral history, and decreased attention to moral
rules that would otherwise curb dishonesty—a path that turns into a slippery
slope (Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Martens et al., 2007). This price of preserving a virtuous self-image highlights the need to intervene before unethical
behavior is committed.
REDUCING UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
In the view of neoclassical economics, the major strategies for curbing
unethical behavior are to increase punishment, the likelihood of detection,
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
or both (Becker, 1968). Although these strategies can be effective, they often
require tremendous resources to implement, and neglect the dramatic effect
that small changes in the decision-making context can have on unethical
behavior.
The principles we identified regarding the role of self-concept in ethical
decision-making suggest that unethical behavior can be curbed by making
such behavior seem more reflective of a person’s underlying moral character. For example, recent research suggests that people cheat less when told,
“Don’t be a cheater,” compared to when told, “Don’t cheat” (Bryan, Adams,
& Monin, 2013). The former injunction more effectively connects cheating to
the self-concept. As another example, consider a study in which customers
of an automobile insurance company filled out a form that required them to
report the mileage they drove last year. Because higher mileage means higher
premiums, customers had an incentive to underreport. All participants were
requested to sign a statement saying, “I promise that the information I am
providing is true,” but the researchers varied whether this statement came at
the top of the form versus the bottom.
Signing at the top led the customers to admit to driving more than 10%
more miles (Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012). Simply moving
the signature line to the top of the form seems to have made participants’
ethical standards more salient, which decreased dishonesty. Studies such as
these reveal how small changes to the decision-making context can “nudge”
people toward making more ethical decisions (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), particularly if such changes lead people to reflect on how these behaviors reflect
on their values and self-concepts.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
While much progress has been made in behavioral study of ethical
decision-making in recent years, we highlight some areas that need greater
attention.
•
Research has documented a variety of strategies that people use to
convince themselves that their behavior does not reflect on their moral
character—such as rationalization, moral disengagement, cognitive
distortions, and forgetting relevant rules. Most research tests a single
strategy without giving participants the option to select among different strategies. What determines the efficacy of each strategy, and
how do these strategies interact with one another? When do people
spontaneously use which strategies? If a preferred strategy is blocked,
will people simply use an alternative one?
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
•
•
5
When does (un)ethical behavior beget more (un)ethical behavior (consistency), and when does it lead to the opposite (contrast)? Some research
has begun to identify some key moderators (e.g., Conway & Peetz, 2012;
Cornellissen, Bashshur, & Rode, 2013; Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, &
Norton, 2012), but a comprehensive theory is still lacking. Examining
ethical behavior across longer periods of time may shed light on this
question.
How do we bundle existing means of managing moral decisions
(such as increasing punishment or surveillance) with recent behavioral
evidence—and in what domains will they be most effective? Will public
knowledge of such behavioral interventions mute their effectiveness?
CONCLUSION
Extant research has highlighted the key role that the self-image plays in ethical decision-making. Understanding this role reveals how small tweaks to
the decision-making context can reduce unethical behavior. We close with
the following recommendations: continued study of how people strive to
maintain a “good enough” self-image despite acting unethically; greater theoretical integration of previously documented phenomena; and increased
efforts to design theoretically and empirically grounded interventions. Scholarly attention to these issues will help practitioners leverage the insights from
behavioral research to promote more ethical decision-making.
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II, (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Special Issue: Perspectives on evil and violence,
3(3), 193–209.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999).
Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of
Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
Bem, D. J., & McConnell, H. K. (1970). Testing the self-perception explanation of
dissonance phenomena: on the salience of premanipulation attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 23–31.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a
cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 232–239.
Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better
person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate
consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(7), 907–919.
Cornellissen, G., Bashshur, M. R., & Rode, J. (2013). Rules or consequences? The role
of ethical mindsets in moral dynamics. Psychological Science, 24(4), 482–488.
Effron, D. A. (2014). Making mountains of morality from molehills of virtue: Threat
causes people to overestimate their moral credentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 972–985.
Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken:
The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 916–932.
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45(4), 708–719.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to
be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1),
179–187.
Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects
of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701–713.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to
self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(3), 328–339.
Martens, A., Kosloff, S., Greenberg, J., Landau, M. J., & Schmader, T. (2007). Killing
begets killing: Evidence from a bug-killing paradigm that initial killing fuels subsequent killing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1251–1264.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory
of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.
McMillen, D. L. (1971). Transgression, self-image, and compliant behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 20(2), 176.
McMillen, D. L., & Austin, J. B. (1971). Effect of positive feedback on compliance
following transgression. Psychonomic Science, 24, 59–61.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being
good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and
how it functions. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 117–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
7
Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological
perspective. In D. Narvaez & D. Lapsley (Eds.), Moral self, identity, and character:
Prospects for a new field of study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nisan, M. (1991). The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our
understanding of moral choice and deviation. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 213–249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5),
1408–1426.
Ross, M., McFarland, C., & Fletcher, G. J. (1981). The effect of attitude on the recall
of personal histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 627–634.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The
paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20, 523–528.
Shu, L. L., & Gino, F. (2012). Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: How unethical
actions lead to forgetting of moral rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(6), 1164–1177.
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience:
When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 330–349.
Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the
beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38),
15197–15200.
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Motivation and cognition in social life: A social
survival perspective. Social Cognition, 13(3), 189–214.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness. 2008. New Haven, CT: Yale.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical
counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.
Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors
and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology,
6(1), 25–50.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility
of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
Von Hippel, W., Lakin, J. L., & Shakarchi, R. L. (2005). Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of self-serving information processing. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1347–1357.
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 157–168.
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
FURTHER READING
Benney, K. S., & Henkel, L. A. (2006). The role of free choice in memory for past
decisions. Memory, 14(8), 1001–1011.
LISA L. SHU SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lisa L. Shu studies the architecture of morality through examining the
antecedents and consequences of ethical decision-making. In the laboratory
and field, she investigates the psychological costs of unethical behavior, and
proposes ways to avoid the costs of dishonesty through interventions in
the social context. She tests strategies that promote ethical decision-making
over the long term in order to identify moral nudges that can be effective
across a diversity of cultural and geographic settings. Her work has been
featured in academic and media outlets such as CBS MoneyWatch, CNN Live,
Financial Times, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. Shu attained her PhD in Organizational
Behavior and Psychology from Harvard University.
DANIEL A. EFFRON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Daniel A. Effron holds a BA in Psychology from Yale University and a PhD
in Social Psychology from Stanford University. His research examines the
psychological processes that allow people to act in morally questionable
ways without feeling immoral, and that shape how people respond to the
moral transgressions of others. For example, Dr. Effron has investigated how
refraining from wrongdoing in the past can make people willing to act less
virtuously in the future; when and why a history of good deeds can get one
“off the hook” for subsequent transgressions; and what makes individuals
willing to acknowledge and redress atrocities committed by their national
or ethnic groups. His research has appeared in such scholarly publications
as Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; has been covered by
such popular media outlets as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and
Psychology Today; and has received a Dissertation Award from the American
Psychological Association.
http://www.london.edu/facultyandresearch/faculty/search.do?uid=
deffron
RELATED ESSAYS
Intersectionality and the Development of Self and Identity (Psychology), Margarita Azmitia and Virginia Thomas
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
9
Identity Fusion (Psychology), Michael D. Burhmester and William B. Swann
Jr.
Understanding the Adaptive Functions of Morality from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective (Psychology), James Dungan and Liane Young
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Identity-Based Motivation (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Temporal Identity Integration as a Core Developmental Process (Psychology),
Moin Syed and Lauren L. Mitchell
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Ethical Decision-Making:
Contemporary Research
on the Role of the Self
LISA L. SHU and DANIEL A. EFFRON
Abstract
How do people decide when facing dilemmas that pit self-interested gains against
ethical values? We highlight two key principles from contemporary behavioral
research: (i) people are more willing to act unethically when they can convince
themselves that their behavior does not reflect poorly on their moral character and
(ii) people tend to be content with an “ethical enough” self-image. We examine
how these principles shed light on the antecedents and consequences of ethical
behavior, emphasizing situational determinants and psychological processes. We
close by considering important questions that remain unanswered, and discuss how
furthering our understanding the role of the self in ethical decision-making can be
used to nudge people toward more ethical behavior.
People frequently must choose between pursuing their self-interests and
upholding ethical principles such as justice, fairness, or generosity. What
leads people to make ethical decisions when faced with such dilemmas?
A growing body of research in the fields of psychology, organizational
behavior, and behavioral economics has been addressing this question using
laboratory experiments and field studies. In this essay, we describe contemporary work on the role of the self in ethical decision-making, assert the
importance of considering the decision-making context when intervening to
reduce unethical behavior, and conclude with recommendations for future
research.
THE ROLE OF THE SELF
One of the most fundamental human motives is to protect a positive
self-concept (Stevens & Fiske, 1995), and for many people, this motive is
particularly strong in the domain of ethics and morality (Aquino & Reed,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
2002). Contemporary research emphasizes the key role that this motivation
plays in ethical decision-making (Monin & Jordan, 2009; Zhong, Liljenquist, & Cain, 2009), in contrast to the more cognitive approach taken by
earlier theorists that emphasized the importance of moral reasoning ability
(e.g., Kohlberg, 1981).
We identity two key principles regarding the self in ethical decisionmaking:
When faced with a temptation to act inconsistently with their own ethical
standards, people ask themselves, in essence, “Would this decision
reflect poorly on my character?” People become more willing to act
unethically when they can convince themselves that the answer to this
question is no.
Most people are content with an “ethical enough” self-image (Nisan,
1991)—not everyone needs to feel like a saint; they just want to avoid
feeling like a sinner.
Several lines of research support these two principles, illuminating when
and how people tend to cheat:
•
•
•
Consistent with the first principle, people will act less fairly when they
can appear fair to others (Pillutla & Murnighan, 1995) or to themselves
(Batson, Thompson, Seuferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999). For
example, people cheat more in ambiguous situations that allow them to
interpret cheating as accidental (Von Hippel, Lakin, & Shakarchi, 2005)
or as stemming from an ethically acceptable motive such as the desire
to help others (Wiltermuth, 2011).
Consistent with the second principle, when faced with opportunities to
cheat without getting caught, most people will cheat some of the time,
but will not cheat to the maximum extent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
In other words, people act unethically enough to enjoy the relevant benefits, but restrain themselves enough to preserve a moderately moral
self-image.
Acting virtuously makes people feel licensed to subsequently act less
virtuously (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010; Miller & Effron, 2010). Consistent with both principles, prior virtues make subsequent misdeeds
seem less reflective of one’s moral character and allow one to maintain
a “good enough” self-image despite transgressing.
Findings such as these characterize decision-making in ethical domains
as a balancing act in which self-image concerns are weighed against
temptations.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
3
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
People’s desire to preserve a “moral enough” self-image has important
implications for the consequences of acting unethically. On one hand, people
sometimes compensate for their misdeeds in the short term by subsequently
acting more prosocially or ethically (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Jordan,
Mullen, & Murnighan, 2011; McMillen, 1971; McMillen & Austin, 1971;
Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009)—a process called moral cleansing (Tetlock,
Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000). On the other hand, there is reason
to worry that acting unethically may beget more unethical behavior in
the long run due to the cognitive distortions that people use to convince
themselves that their decisions do not reflect poorly on their moral character
(Martens, Kosloff, Greenberg, Landau, & Schmader, 2007). Research on such
distortions has revealed phenomena such as the following:
•
•
•
People tend to apply more lenient moral standards to themselves than to
others (Kruger & Gilovich, 2004; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2007). When people need reassurance of their ethicality, they presume that their behavior
will be judged against even lower moral standards (Effron, 2014).
People are adept at reconstruing their questionable behavior as ethically permissible—a process of “moral disengagement” (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bem & McConnell, 1970; Shu,
Gino, & Bazerman, 2011; Tsang, 2002). Methods of moral disengagement
include distorting the consequences of one’s unethical behavior and
displacing blame onto others (Bandura, 1999).
People distort their memories to preserve a moral self-image. They
overestimate how virtuously they acted in the past (Ross, McFarland, &
Fletcher, 1981), how unethically they could have acted if they had wanted
to (Effron, Miller, & Monin, 2012), and they strategically forget ethical
rules that would highlight their own ethical failings (Shu & Gino, 2012).
Once people succumb to ethical temptations, they potentially start down
a path of greater moral disengagement, more lenient moral standards, more
distorted evaluations of their moral history, and decreased attention to moral
rules that would otherwise curb dishonesty—a path that turns into a slippery
slope (Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Martens et al., 2007). This price of preserving a virtuous self-image highlights the need to intervene before unethical
behavior is committed.
REDUCING UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
In the view of neoclassical economics, the major strategies for curbing
unethical behavior are to increase punishment, the likelihood of detection,
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
or both (Becker, 1968). Although these strategies can be effective, they often
require tremendous resources to implement, and neglect the dramatic effect
that small changes in the decision-making context can have on unethical
behavior.
The principles we identified regarding the role of self-concept in ethical
decision-making suggest that unethical behavior can be curbed by making
such behavior seem more reflective of a person’s underlying moral character. For example, recent research suggests that people cheat less when told,
“Don’t be a cheater,” compared to when told, “Don’t cheat” (Bryan, Adams,
& Monin, 2013). The former injunction more effectively connects cheating to
the self-concept. As another example, consider a study in which customers
of an automobile insurance company filled out a form that required them to
report the mileage they drove last year. Because higher mileage means higher
premiums, customers had an incentive to underreport. All participants were
requested to sign a statement saying, “I promise that the information I am
providing is true,” but the researchers varied whether this statement came at
the top of the form versus the bottom.
Signing at the top led the customers to admit to driving more than 10%
more miles (Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012). Simply moving
the signature line to the top of the form seems to have made participants’
ethical standards more salient, which decreased dishonesty. Studies such as
these reveal how small changes to the decision-making context can “nudge”
people toward making more ethical decisions (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), particularly if such changes lead people to reflect on how these behaviors reflect
on their values and self-concepts.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
While much progress has been made in behavioral study of ethical
decision-making in recent years, we highlight some areas that need greater
attention.
•
Research has documented a variety of strategies that people use to
convince themselves that their behavior does not reflect on their moral
character—such as rationalization, moral disengagement, cognitive
distortions, and forgetting relevant rules. Most research tests a single
strategy without giving participants the option to select among different strategies. What determines the efficacy of each strategy, and
how do these strategies interact with one another? When do people
spontaneously use which strategies? If a preferred strategy is blocked,
will people simply use an alternative one?
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
•
•
5
When does (un)ethical behavior beget more (un)ethical behavior (consistency), and when does it lead to the opposite (contrast)? Some research
has begun to identify some key moderators (e.g., Conway & Peetz, 2012;
Cornellissen, Bashshur, & Rode, 2013; Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, &
Norton, 2012), but a comprehensive theory is still lacking. Examining
ethical behavior across longer periods of time may shed light on this
question.
How do we bundle existing means of managing moral decisions
(such as increasing punishment or surveillance) with recent behavioral
evidence—and in what domains will they be most effective? Will public
knowledge of such behavioral interventions mute their effectiveness?
CONCLUSION
Extant research has highlighted the key role that the self-image plays in ethical decision-making. Understanding this role reveals how small tweaks to
the decision-making context can reduce unethical behavior. We close with
the following recommendations: continued study of how people strive to
maintain a “good enough” self-image despite acting unethically; greater theoretical integration of previously documented phenomena; and increased
efforts to design theoretically and empirically grounded interventions. Scholarly attention to these issues will help practitioners leverage the insights from
behavioral research to promote more ethical decision-making.
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II, (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Special Issue: Perspectives on evil and violence,
3(3), 193–209.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999).
Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of
Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
Bem, D. J., & McConnell, H. K. (1970). Testing the self-perception explanation of
dissonance phenomena: on the salience of premanipulation attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 23–31.
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a
cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 232–239.
Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better
person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate
consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(7), 907–919.
Cornellissen, G., Bashshur, M. R., & Rode, J. (2013). Rules or consequences? The role
of ethical mindsets in moral dynamics. Psychological Science, 24(4), 482–488.
Effron, D. A. (2014). Making mountains of morality from molehills of virtue: Threat
causes people to overestimate their moral credentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 972–985.
Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken:
The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 916–932.
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45(4), 708–719.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to
be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1),
179–187.
Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects
of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701–713.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to
self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(3), 328–339.
Martens, A., Kosloff, S., Greenberg, J., Landau, M. J., & Schmader, T. (2007). Killing
begets killing: Evidence from a bug-killing paradigm that initial killing fuels subsequent killing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1251–1264.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory
of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.
McMillen, D. L. (1971). Transgression, self-image, and compliant behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 20(2), 176.
McMillen, D. L., & Austin, J. B. (1971). Effect of positive feedback on compliance
following transgression. Psychonomic Science, 24, 59–61.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being
good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and
how it functions. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 117–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
7
Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological
perspective. In D. Narvaez & D. Lapsley (Eds.), Moral self, identity, and character:
Prospects for a new field of study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nisan, M. (1991). The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our
understanding of moral choice and deviation. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 213–249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5),
1408–1426.
Ross, M., McFarland, C., & Fletcher, G. J. (1981). The effect of attitude on the recall
of personal histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 627–634.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The
paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20, 523–528.
Shu, L. L., & Gino, F. (2012). Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: How unethical
actions lead to forgetting of moral rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(6), 1164–1177.
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience:
When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 330–349.
Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the
beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38),
15197–15200.
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Motivation and cognition in social life: A social
survival perspective. Social Cognition, 13(3), 189–214.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness. 2008. New Haven, CT: Yale.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical
counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.
Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors
and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology,
6(1), 25–50.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility
of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
Von Hippel, W., Lakin, J. L., & Shakarchi, R. L. (2005). Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of self-serving information processing. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1347–1357.
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 157–168.
Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
FURTHER READING
Benney, K. S., & Henkel, L. A. (2006). The role of free choice in memory for past
decisions. Memory, 14(8), 1001–1011.
LISA L. SHU SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Lisa L. Shu studies the architecture of morality through examining the
antecedents and consequences of ethical decision-making. In the laboratory
and field, she investigates the psychological costs of unethical behavior, and
proposes ways to avoid the costs of dishonesty through interventions in
the social context. She tests strategies that promote ethical decision-making
over the long term in order to identify moral nudges that can be effective
across a diversity of cultural and geographic settings. Her work has been
featured in academic and media outlets such as CBS MoneyWatch, CNN Live,
Financial Times, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. Shu attained her PhD in Organizational
Behavior and Psychology from Harvard University.
DANIEL A. EFFRON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Daniel A. Effron holds a BA in Psychology from Yale University and a PhD
in Social Psychology from Stanford University. His research examines the
psychological processes that allow people to act in morally questionable
ways without feeling immoral, and that shape how people respond to the
moral transgressions of others. For example, Dr. Effron has investigated how
refraining from wrongdoing in the past can make people willing to act less
virtuously in the future; when and why a history of good deeds can get one
“off the hook” for subsequent transgressions; and what makes individuals
willing to acknowledge and redress atrocities committed by their national
or ethnic groups. His research has appeared in such scholarly publications
as Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; has been covered by
such popular media outlets as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and
Psychology Today; and has received a Dissertation Award from the American
Psychological Association.
http://www.london.edu/facultyandresearch/faculty/search.do?uid=
deffron
RELATED ESSAYS
Intersectionality and the Development of Self and Identity (Psychology), Margarita Azmitia and Virginia Thomas
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
9
Identity Fusion (Psychology), Michael D. Burhmester and William B. Swann
Jr.
Understanding the Adaptive Functions of Morality from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective (Psychology), James Dungan and Liane Young
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Identity-Based Motivation (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Temporal Identity Integration as a Core Developmental Process (Psychology),
Moin Syed and Lauren L. Mitchell
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
