SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Moral Psychology & Business Ethics DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THINK-PAIR-SHARE Last Week We Talked About Ethics/Morality Think-Pair-Share 3 min with your neighbors, 2 min on class 1. What are different views on ethics/morality? How to decide what is right/wrong? 2. What is the is-ought problem? 3. How can psychology contribute to morality? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD COURSE STRUCTURE THEORIES TRIGGERS & CONTEXTS INTERVENTIONS APPLIED CASES 1. Introduction to Moral Theory 3. Moral Emotions 7. Nudging 9. Artificial Morality 2. Self-Concept Maintenance 4. Social Norms & Groups 8. REVISE (Corrupt Environments) 10. Whistleblowing WHAT IS MORALITY? 5. Moral Character (Personality) MORALITY DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOW CAN WE INFLUENCE MORAL DECISIONS? 11. Corporate Social Responsibility 6. Leadership 12. Labor Economics & Discrimination WHAT INFLUENCES MORALITY? 13. Moral Limits of Markets MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD WHY IS MORALITY IMPORTANT? HOW DOES MORALITY SHAPE OUR WORLD? 1. AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO MORALITY DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO MORALITY two dimension of teory Graham & Haidt (2007); Gray et al. (2012); Curry (2016) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD IS VS. OUGHT Is descriptive – how do people act, what kind of judgements do people make? Ought prescreptive - how should people act, what judgements ought they make? David Hume (1711– 1776) is-ought problem – “ought” can never be inferred from “is”. Merely because something is the case, does not mean that it ought to be the case. image: Flaticon.com - This slide has been designed using resources from Freepick, by Flaticon.com LEARNING OUTCOMES • Know the motivation to investigate unethical/dishonest behaviour • Review previous dishonesty paradigms • Review the theory of self-concept maintenance • Understand the “slippery slope” and ”steep cliff” of dishonesty • Criticize studies on dishonest behaviour DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD Corruption Perceptions Index 2021 Denmark Score: 88 - #1 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD WHY STUDY DISHONEST BEHAVIOUR? • World wide scandals • Enron, Volkswagen, Danske Bank, Panama Papers • Corruption Perceptions Index • 2/3 of the World’s countries fall below the midpoint • “Endemic corruption” - even in the Western world. • Small scale unethical behaviour with large consequences • Misreporting liable income cost nearly $500 billion in US in 2019 • Vital to understand the motivation behind why individuals engage in unethical behaviour, so we can find better ways to hinder it. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD CLASSICAL ECONOMICS Cost vs. Benefit • Nobel Laureate Gary Becker: The Simple Model of Rational Crime (‘SMORC’) predict behavior • Probability of cheating = Availability of chances to cheat ± Net benefit from Utility function cheating • Adam Smiths ideas of ”homo economicus” • Individuals are rational profit maximizing agents using cost-benefit analysis in every decision of life. Consider this: • You are sitting in a restaurant and someone asks you to watch over their bag, while they go to the restroom. What do you do? • If you found a wallet with $1500, would you keep it or return it? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD WHEN ARE PEOPLE DISHONEST? ECONOMICS PSYCHOLOGY Mazar & Ariely (2006) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD A LITTLE RECAP ON EXPERIMENTS • Behaviour is hard to understand • A plethora of factors are in play! • How can we try to understand (some) of what is going on? • = Experiments! • Ceteris Paribus • Cause and Effect • Lab experiments study a hypothesized relationship in a very isolated setting (high internal, but low external validity) • Field experiments try to do the same, but in more naturalistic settings DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD A LITTLE RECAP ON EXPERIMENTS • Within-subjects vs. Between-subjects • Treatment & Control • Multiple factors? • Manipulation – how are conditions different? (Indepdent Variable: IV) • Experiment Task, what are we testing on? (Dependent Variable: DV) Treatment A • Statistical considerations • Sample size • Effect size • Statistical power DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 Treatment B NO YES NO Control B YES A A/B JANIS H. ZICKFELD TESTING DISHONESTY 2. How to manipulate experimental factor (IV)? RQ: Does chocolate intake reduce dishonesty? 1. Formulate (Directed) Hypothesis 3. How to measure the outcome (DV)? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD TESTING DISHONESTY Think and discuss in pairs (5 minutes) How would you measure dishonest behavior in the experiment? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD HOW TO STUDY DISHONESTY - PARADIGMS • Sender receiver game • Sending a false message to another participant • Binary, Individual • The (private) coin flip • Misreporting a randomly generated outcome • Binary, deviation of probability, aggregate • The (private) die-roll • Misreporting a randomly generated outcome • Continuous, deviation of probability, aggregate • The Matrix task • Nuanced to deal with “levels” of cheating • Other tasks • Mind game, Dot task, Tax Evasion Game DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD Gerlach et al., (2019) THE MATRIX TASK • The Matrix task • 4 minutes, 20 matrices • Find the 2 numbers that add to ten • Cognitively demanding • Shred/recycle answers before collecting pay-off • No cheating, 3-4 correct • Pro’s • Continuous • Repeated measures • Differences in cheating levels • Con’s • Cognitive ability • Social desirability at play? (e.g., Mazar et al., 2008) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD DISCUSSION Why do you think people might be motivated to act dishonestly? What personal or situational factors might be in play? How would you experimentally test such behaviour? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD 2. SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE The Dishonesty of Honest People: The Theory of Self-concept Maintenance • Introduced the matrix task as a new way to measure individual levels of cheating • Very influential (around 3400 citations) • Have been utilized on over 45.000 individuals in different experiments • Let’s look at the original findings! DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE • The dilemma of cheating • Temptation to act dishonestly vs. upholding a positive self-concept. • Individuals balance this • Thus, an equilibrium between deriving some benefit from cheating, while still maintaining a positive self-concept. • Disproving the idea of cost-benefit (“SMORC”). • Two mechanism at play: • Categorization • Attention to one’s own moral standards DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE • Categorization • “Label” unethical behaviour to not affect the self-concept • Stealing bread to help out a hungry child – unethical? • Malleability increase à Magnitude of dishonest behaviour increase • Boundary – effect until threshold = no longer possible to avoid moral valence DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE • Attention to standards • When people attend to their moral standards, dishonest action more likely to be reflected in self-concept • When people don’t attend to their moral standards, self-concept less likely to updated = Moral standards more accessible à dishonesty will hurt the self-concept à lower magnitude of cheating (vice versa) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE SelfConcept Behavior I am an honest person! Cheating Categorization Moral Standards DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD A FRAMEWORK OF MORAL VIOLATIONS Ambiguity Prosocial Moral Licensing Cleansing Confessing Distancing Shalvi et al. (2015) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Experiment 1 • Testing attention to standards, by reminders (nudge) • Treatment: Write down ten commandments • Control: Write down names of ten books • 2 (type of reminder) × 2 (ability to cheat) betweensubjects design. • à Matrix Task Results • Participants cheated after book recall, but not after TC recall, F(1, 225) = 5.24, p = .023) • Interaction between reminder and ability to cheat, F(3, 225) = 4.52, p = .036 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) Experiment 1 • Testing attention to standards, by reminders (nudge) • Treatment: Write down ten commandments • Control: Write down names of ten books • 2 (type of reminder) × 2 (ability to cheat) betweensubjects design. • à Matrix Task Results • Participants cheated after book recall, but not after TC recall, F(1, 225) = 5.24, p = .023) • Interaction between reminder and ability to cheat, F(3, 225) = 4.52, p = .036 Verschuere et al. (2018) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Experiment 2 • Increasing attention to standards • Honour code signage • Between-subject manipulation of pay-out ($.5 or $2) and attention to standards (control, recycle and recycle + honour code) Results • Attention-to-standards (F(2, 201) = 11.94, p < .001), but effect of incentive. • Honour code eliminated cheating as performance was not different from control, F(1, 201) = .19, p = .66) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) Experiment 2 • Increasing attention to standards • Honour code signage • Between-subject manipulation of pay-out ($.5 or $2) and attention to standards (control, recycle and recycle + honour code) Results • Attention-to-standards (F(2, 201) = 11.94, p < .001), but effect of incentive. • Honour code eliminated cheating as performance was not different from control, F(1, 201) = .19, p = .66) Zickfeld et al. (2022) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Experiment 3 • Categorization malleability • A medium for monetary output, tokens, offers more room for interpretation of moral actions. • Three conditions; control, recycle and token ($.5) Results • Recycle condition; more matrices, more cheating F(1, 447) = 34.26, p < .001 • Token condition, more cheating than recycle F(1, 447) = 47.62, p < .001 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) Experiment 4 • Testing whether people recognize their actions as immoral (update self-concept) • Predict matrix task without possibility of cheating • Answered to questions on self-concept (i.e. how honest do you consider yourself) People in the recycle condition knew they had cheated. Magnitude of cheating was low Cheating in the experiment did not affect their reported self-concepts Result support the idea that cheating “a little” does not hurt the self concept DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Experiment 5 • Control and recycle • Beliefs about number of matrices the average student could solve (4 vs. 8) • Main effect of the ability to cheat (F(1, 104) = 6.89, p = .01) • No main effect of the beliefs about average performance levels (F(1, 104) = .15, p = .7) and no interaction (F(1, 104) = .09, p = .76). • Participants cheated when they had the ability, but independent of beliefs. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE Experiment 6 • Introducing the “shredder” • 50 multiple choice questions on general knowledge ($.10 per correct) • Transfer results to bubble sheet • Control: Both sheets to RA who checked • No-cycle: Answers indicated, RA only checked bubble sheet (risk of detection). • Recycle: Original answers shredded (no detection risk • Recycle+: everything is shredded No difference in dishonesty across the three cheating conditions F(2, 209) = .11, p = .9 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE So what do we know now? Main points (to remember): • Dishonesty is NOT a cost-benefit analysis (at least in the classical economic sense) • When people can cheat they do so, but the magnitude is relatively low, so a positive self-concept is maintained • Very few people cheat ”full-out” • Dishonesty drops with attention to (moral) standards • Dishonesty increase with categorization malleability In conclusion; People are willing to act dishonestly to the degree to which they can maintain a positive self-concept. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD (MAZAR ET AL., 2008) CRITIQUE OF SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE • The classic economic model does not necessarily predict more cheating from more gain • Rise in the gain can decrease number of crimes • Experiment with matrix task • Control vs. safe environment (doing it at home) • 4.2 vs 16 matrices on average DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THINK-PAIR-SHARE • Can you think of other domains or situations where selfconcept maintenance might influence the propensity to engage in unethical behaviour? • Categorization malleability? • Moral standards (availability)? • How could we test it? • How could we critique the studies on self-concept maintenance? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD 3. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE PROBLEM OF “A LITTLE” DISHONESTY Recall the findings from the Matrix task: • Individuals cheat to the degree that they can uphold a positive selfconcept. • This is in direct comparison to misreporting liable income ($500 billion a year in the US) • But how might small scale dishonesty evolve into large scale dishonesty? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) Many papers, including Mazar et al. 2008, investigate morality at one point in time, but how does dishonesty evolve over time? Prediction: The magnitude of unethical behaviour will increase over time due to moral disengagement, moderated negatively by a prevention focus. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) Study 1: Gradual vs. abrupt increases in monetary incentives. Study 2: Gradual vs. abrupt changes in task difficulty Study 3: Gradual vs. abrupt changes in both monetary incentives and task difficulty Study 4: Same as study 3, but with an inducement of prevention focus DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) Study 1 • The Matrix task, repeated measures (3 rounds) • Significant correlation between gradual change in incentives and magnitude of cheating • No evidence of a slippery slope in the other 3 conditions. • Hence, people are tempted to cheat in small amounts, but will increase such cheating if the incentives rise. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) Study 2 • Task: Solve ten math problems each consisting of a string of 10 numbers. • Answer would pop-up, but participants were asked to hit space-bar to remove it. • Participants could thus cheat by not removing the pop-up answer. • In gradual change condition, the problems got more difficult. • Moral designment measured by an adapted scale. Results: DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY (WELSH ET AL., 2014) MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) Study 3 & 4 (in short): • Study 3 • Non-student sample & different cheating task • = Gradual changes led to increased unethical behaviour • = Gradual changes led to increased moral disengagement • Study 4 • Inducing prevention focus by a word association task • = Gradual changes led to increased unethical behaviour • = When morally disengaged, those with a prevention focus cheated less DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE SLIPPERY SLOPE (WELSH ET AL., 2014) • The results indicate that unethical behaviour evolves in magnitude over time, when incentives and task difficulty increase • While individuals are likely to cheat to some degree, while still upholding a positive self-concept, this behaviour can increase in magnitude due to a gradual rise in incentives and moral disengagement • Field work – The Atea Case • Corruption and embezzlement started on a very small scale, but evolved into the biggest corruption scandal in Danish history (Elbæk & Mitkidis, 2022) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE BRAIN ADAPTS TO DISHONESTY (GARRETT ET AL. 2016) How is the slippery slope of self-serving dishonesty represented in the brain? • Using fMRI data on the amygdala, a region that is intimately involved in processing emotions. • Results show that activity in bilateral amygdala tracked the gradual adaption to repeated acts of dishonesty. • Specifically, repeated acts of dishonesty generated less emotional response to dishonest behaviour. • A biological mechanism that supports a 'slippery slope': what begins as small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger transgressions. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE STEEP CLIFF (KÖBIS ET AL., 2017) • Sometimes the route to corruption leads over a steep cliff rather than a slippery slope. • 4 studies testing whether individuals are more likely to engage in abrupt or gradual corruption. • Important distinction: All experiments use a collaborative corruption game, instead of a dishonesty task. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE STEEP SHEEP CLIFF THE STEEP CLIFF (KÖBIS ET AL., 2017) Corruption game • 3-player auction game, 5 rounds • Two competing players receive a budget of 50 credits in every round. In an auction fashion, they make bids (between 0 and 50 credits) for a prize of 120 credits • The third player (the allocator) awards the prize to the highest bidder • The player with the highest bid wins the total prize. • One of the two players (participant) gets the option to circumvent the fair bidding process by bribing the allocator. • Steep-cliff condition: Invite public official on private vacation (advantage in all rounds) • Slippery-slope condition: Invite public official to banquet, afterwards vacation DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE STEEP CLIFF DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY (KÖBIS ET AL., 2017) MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THE STEEP CLIFF (KÖBIS ET AL., 2017) The scholars argue that; “Contrary to the widespread belief that people gradually slide into corruption down a slippery slope, the present studies provide novel evidence that people may instead jump into severe corruption over a steep cliff“ Important considerations: • The study uses a corruption game which mimics a real-world scenario (CEO’s, politicians etc.), but do the participants are students with no such experience. • Possibly just considered a fun game? – and not morally wrong? • While the matrix task is more abstract, it is a more “hard” test of dishonesty. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD WHAT ELSE IS THERE? • Numerous personal and situational factors can affect dishonesty (Gerlach et al., 2019) • Cooperation can increase dishonesty (Kocher et al., 2018) • Work bonuses can increase dishonesty (Gill et al., 2013) • A lack of time can increase dishonesty (Shalvi et al., 2012; Köbis et al., 2019) • Darkness can increase dishonesty (Zhong et al., 2010) • Higher social class (might) increase unethical behaviour (Piff, 2012) • “Watching eyes” and reminders of social norms can decrease dishonesty (Shahar et al., 2019) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD CRITIQUE OF STUDIES ON DISHONESTY • Sufficient paradigms? Low external validity (Houdek, 2017) • Die-rolls, coin flips, the matrix task and even corruption games are far from the real world! • Many factors can be in play at once • Dishonesty is, probably, not just one thing! • Embezzlement • Tax fraud • Corruption DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD CRITIQUE OF STUDIES ON DISHONESTY • Most participants are aware of the goal of dishonesty tasks (Skowronek, 2021) • Participants might act in a desirable fashion • Validity of tasks is questioned. Are they really measuring dishonesty? (Heyman et al., 2020; Karg, 2021; Frollova et al., 2021) • Matrix task might be based on honest mistakes • Consequently, we still can not say with certainty why people engage in unethical behaviour and more importantly, how to stop it. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD THINK-PAIR-SHARE Come up with one unethical behaviour problem, which you consider to be highly important to investigate For instance, why do people shoplift? Why do people inside an organization not report embezzlement before it is too late? Why do people accept bribes? How would you experimentally (lab/field) test such behaviour? Could we test it in any other way? DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD REVIEW After this lecture you should be able to… ….understand the main experimental paradigms within the dishonesty literature …explain the theory of self-concept maintenance and the experimental results of the original article …outline the concepts of the “slippery slope” and the “steep cliff” of dishonesty …critique the field of dishonesty research DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD LITERATURE (1/2) • Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K., & Hertwig, R. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1. • Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203. • Mead, N., Baumeister, R., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 594-597. • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393-398. • Garrett, N., Lazzaro, S. C., Ariely, D., & Sharot, T. (2016). The brain adapts to dishonesty. Nature Neuroscience, 19(12), 1727. • 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. • Welsh, D., Ordóñez, L., G Snyder, D., & Christian, M. (2014). The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 114-127. • Elbaek, C.T., Mitkidis, P. (2021, in preparation). Evidence of Ethics and Misconduct in a Multinational Corporation: How Field Evidence Can Illuminate Motives for Growth of Corrupt Environments in Today’s Business World DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD LITERATURE (2/2) • Ayal, S., Celse, J., & Hochman, G. (2019). Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003 • Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2013). Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 96, 120-134. • Shalvi, S., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(15), 5503. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400724111 • Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological Science, 23(10), 1264-1270. • Kocher, M. G., Schudy, S., & Spantig, L. (2018). I lie? We lie! Why? Experimental evidence on a dishonesty shift in groups. Management Science, 64(9), 3995-4008. • Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086-4091. • Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). The road to bribery and corruption: Slippery slope or steep cliff? Psychological Science, 28(3), 297-306. • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 285-292. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY MORAL PSYCHOLOGY & BUSINESS ETHICS 14.02.2023 JANIS H. ZICKFELD DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AARHUS UNIVERSITY
