Why good people (pg 119-132)

Page 119: Morals on vacation: cognitive dissonance and rationalizations

• Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort from holding conflicting cognitions (pieces of knowledge, ideas, or convictions) or from a conflict between beliefs and behavior (believing one thing and doing another).
• This dissonance creates tension that the mind seeks to reduce by adopting new thoughts or adjusting beliefs.
• Examples:
  • Want to stop smoking (cognition) but continue smoking (behavior): tension between cognition and behavior.
  • Want to engage in honest business practices (cognition) but decide to take advantage of competition (behavior).
• Consequences of cognitive dissonance include irritation, stress, energy depletion, and potential harm to one’s self-image as rational and honest.
• Mechanism of coping:
  • People generate rationalizations to reconcile conflicting cognitions, often subconsciously, effectively talking themselves into their behavior.
  • This process is described as rationalization or neutralization.
• Classic rationalizations (Gresham Sykes and David Matza, 1950s): five main justifications used by offenders
  1) Denying responsibility: “It’s not my fault.”
  2) Denying the damage or harm to the other party: “No one will suffer for this” / “What they don’t know won’t hurt them.”
  3) Denying a victim: “They asked for it” / “You get what you deserve.”
  4) Condemning those who condemn the misdemeanor: “They should take a look at themselves.”
  5) Appealing to loyalty or to a higher loyalty: “I didn’t do it for myself.”
• Later research expanded the list with additional rationalizations, including:
  • Balancing the scales: “On balance I’ve done more good than bad.”
  • “Everyone does it.”
  • Denying negative intentions: “It was only a joke.”
  • Relative acceptability: “Others are worse than me.”
• When such arguments are used in the workplace, intervention is necessary to address their fragility.
• Leon Festinger (founder of cognitive dissonance theory) and the classic Festinger–Carlsmith experiment:
  • Task: repeatedly turn pegs 90 degrees for 20 minutes (a boring task).
  • Participants were then asked to convince a new participant that the task was interesting, in exchange for either 1 or 20.
  • Result: participants paid 20 reported finding the task less interesting than those paid 1, because the 20 group could justify lying to the newcomer with external money; the 1 group had insufficient external justification and therefore rationalized internally, often convincing themselves the task was actually enjoyable.
  • Conclusion: external justification reduces the need to internally justify behavior; when external justification is weak, people create internal rationalizations, which can alter norms.
• Moral day off: once fraud or wrongdoing is acknowledged, individuals may attempt to preserve their self-image by insisting they had no intent to deceive or that they were acting under pressures; Bernard Ebbers’ quote after fraud allegations reflects this self-justifying posture, and his later conviction (
  • Ebbers: “I just want you to know you aren’t going to church with a crook. No one will find me to have knowingly committed fraud.”)
  • He was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 25\,\mathrm{years} in prison.
• The broader point: rationalizations can embed themselves in organizational culture, normalizing unethical behavior and blinding people to wrongdoing. They shield the conscience and pave the way for new transgressions.
• Interventions to counter rationalizations:
  • Make hypocrisy visible; reveal conflicts between stated norms and actual behavior.
• Practical takeaway: in workplaces, confront flimsy arguments by highlighting the dissonance between actions and values and promoting accountability.

Sources and examples cited include Festinger & Carlsmith (classic experiment), Sykes & Matza (five rationalizations), Dickerson et al. on hypocrisy, and real-world cases like Bernard Ebbers. Endnote: Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2117396

Page 120: Morals on vacation (continued): more on rationalizations and cognitive dissonance

• Rationalizations can become deeply embedded in organizational life, soothing consciences and enabling ongoing misbehavior.
• An illustrative field study by Chris Dickerson and colleagues demonstrates how hypocrisy can be used to reduce unethical behavior:
  • Problem: campus water overuse around a sports complex; signs urged water conservation with limited behavioral impact (only about 15% reduced shower times).
  • Intervention 1: ask students to sign a petition against wasting water (activates normative awareness).
  • Intervention 2: have students fill out a questionnaire about their water usage (heightens self-awareness).
  • Combined intervention: applying both at once led to a further reduction, down to an average shower time of approximately 3.40\ ext{minutes}.
• The logic: hypocrisy awareness raises personal responsibility to align behavior with norms; however, there is a risk that the dissonance is resolved in the wrong direction if norms themselves are weakened or adapted to current behavior.
• A revealing quote questions whether high principles can be bypassed when convenient: “My principles are so high that I can always squeeze under them if I need to.”
• The general implication: to break through rationalizations, you must reveal the underlying cognitive conflict and the gap between self-image and actions.

Page 121: (Continuation) deeper implications of rationalizations and consistency with organizational ethics

• Rationalizations can become entrenched in an organization, dulling moral sensitivity and enabling ongoing unethical conduct.
• The Dickerson hypocrisy experiments underscore that highlighting personal accountability can be a powerful driver for change, but caution is needed to avoid cynicism or norm drift.
• The discussion reinforces the idea that moral reasoning is not merely about forbidding certain acts but also about managing self-perception and social expectations.

Page 122: Factor 5: transparency

• The fifth factor: transparency. It concerns how visible the effects of one’s behavior are, including others’ behavior and organizational outcomes.
• Transparency facilitates adjustment and correction, and raises awareness and responsibility.
• The chapter previews five topics related to transparency in subsequent chapters:
  • Chapter 38: why it is imperative that people look themselves in the eye.
  • Chapter 39: looking one another in the eye and its corrective effect.
  • Chapter 40: how people weigh the chance of getting caught when deciding to do wrong.
  • Chapter 41: a critical note on the significance of transparency.
  • Chapter 42: perverse effects of transparency.
• Practical takeaway: transparency should increase accountability, but can have unintended consequences if not implemented carefully.

Page 123: 38. The mirror as a reality check: objective self-awareness and self-evaluation

• Some organizations place a mirror on the final page of a code of conduct to remind employees to look themselves in the eyes before acting.
• Beaman et al. (Halloween study): 18 houses decorated for Halloween; a bowl of candy was placed out, and children could take more than one piece if unsupervised.
  • Baseline: about one-third of children took more than one piece of candy.
  • With a mirror placed by the candy bowl, theft dropped to about 9%.
• Self-awareness theory: directing attention to the self makes people evaluate their current behavior against internal values and norms, revealing the gap between who they want to be and what they are doing.
• The mirror effect can be temporary or reinforced by other practices (video recordings, self-critique, etc.).
• The “mirror stage” (developmental concept): around ~18 months, individuals start recognizing themselves in mirrors; this self-recognition triggers self-evaluation.
• Self-awareness can be reduced by distractions (TV, video games, alcohol, drugs) but can be enhanced by seeing one’s image (mirror, video) and by hearing one’s own voice.
• The bottom line: look-yourself-in-the-eyes reflection boosts motivation to align behavior with norms, especially when decisions are made under temptation or pressure.

Page 124: 38. The mirror as a reality check (continued): practical reflection strategies

• Reflection is beneficial for sustained alignment with values, beyond short-term decisions.
• Encourage regular self-reflection to ensure consistent commitment to norms across long- and short-term horizons.
• Caution: while mirrors and reflection can promote integrity, rationalizations can still emerge and must be addressed at the cognitive level.

Page 125: 39. Constrained by the eyes of strangers: the four eyes principle

• Eye contact is a powerful behavioral cue and can influence compliance and prosocial action.
• A study by Melissa Bateson and colleagues examined coffee/tea stations with a cash pot for purchases:
  • Initial setup: modest payments in the honor-system coffee pot showed limited payment.
  • Intervention 1: posters with images of flowers (eye-level) above the pot did not change behavior.
  • Intervention 2: posters with eyes (man’s or woman’s, friendly or tense) looking directly at the camera increased payments dramatically, by 275\%.
• The eyes signal suggests that “you are being watched,” increasing social accountability and reducing misbehavior.
• Additional research shows that even the idea of being watched can influence behavior: children, when told there is an invisible princess or a ghost observing, cheated less; those told to think about God or to write sentences about virtue behaved more altruistically.
• The eyes effect operates as a mechanism for social control, provoking guilt and shame for misconduct.

Page 126: 39. Constrained by the eyes of strangers: the four eyes principle (continued)

• The presence of eyes or faces of stakeholders can enhance moral guidance and social accountability.
• Avoiding eye contact is often associated with having something to hide; keeping one’s eyes open and looking others in the eye can reinforce ethical behavior.

Page 127: 40. Lamps and sunglasses: detection theory, controlitis and the spotlight test

• Cheats often believe they can keep cheating secret; those who get caught often believed they could not be caught.
• Barry, a parking attendant, operated for 12 years in a way that allowed him to skim funds. Post-employment, an internal investigation revealed the scheme, with sums reaching about 190{,}000\,\mathrm{euros}. He was sentenced to prison and required to return the money.
• Don Cressey’s classic detection theory (studies of 300 individuals sentenced for fraud) reports that the probability of detection strongly influences the likelihood of transgression: lower perceived likelihood of getting caught increases the chance of cheating.
• Henry Schneider’s undercover research across 40 garages involved a car with five defects. In three-quarters of garages, urgent problems were ignored due to the assumption that the owner wouldn’t know, while many invoices included unnecessary repairs—suggesting that perceived detection risk governs behavior.
• Mechanisms to prevent this include transparency: increasing the perceived likelihood of getting caught can deter wrongdoing. However, perceived likelihood, not actual likelihood, often drives behavior.
• Visibility effects include the “front-page test” (what would you do if everyone could see) and the “spotlight test.”
• Excessive checks (controlitis) can backfire, creating distrust or shifting responsibility to the checker. Ironic processes of control (as per Wegner) show that trying to avoid errors can, under cognitive load, lead to more errors (e.g., golfers focusing on not doing one thing can do the opposite).
• The takeaway: balance transparency with practicality; ensure leaders model ethical behavior to reinforce norms.

Page 128: 40. Lamps and sunglasses: detection theory, controlitis and the spotlight test (continued)

• Creating transparent systems is crucial for reducing transgressions, but not all transparency is equally effective.
• Key considerations include the extent of lighting, visibility, and leadership example; excessive checks can prompt unintended negative effects.

Page 129: 41. Deceptive appearances: moral self-fulfillment and the compensation effect

• The halo effect: people generalize apparent goodness of an organization or person to assume overall virtue, which can mask hidden misconduct.
• Moral self-fulfillment describes how people’s self-image motivates compensatory behavior: after doing something virtuous, they may feel licensed to engage in wrongdoing later.
• The compensation effect also works in reverse: good deeds can create an inflated sense of ethical entitlement that justifies later immoral acts.
• Research by Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong shows that consumers who purchased sustainable products may lie or steal more than those who bought standard products, illustrating the compensation effect in consumer behavior.
• The warning: a company excelling in one area (e.g., customer rights) may lag in another (e.g., human rights or labor practices), and appearances can mislead stakeholders.
• Appearance-based biases extend to judgments of honesty: clean-shaven men and those who look “clean” are often perceived as more honest, though evidence shows judging honesty from appearance is unreliable.
• Research also shows that people are not good at detecting lies from appearance alone; even parents’ judgments about their children’s truth-telling are poor.
• Lie-detection: a study using rapid responses found that lying generally takes longer to formulate than truth-telling (average response times: honest answers around 1.2\ \text{seconds}; lies take about 1.8\ \text{seconds} on average, though there is variation). Liars tend to provide fewer details and may be remembered longer due to the attention drawn to the deception.
• The overall message: appearances are not reliable indicators of integrity; memory of liars tends to linger and can distort future judgments.

Page 130: 41. Deceptive appearances: moral self-fulfillment and the compensation effect (continued)

• Further evidence: the “lie detector” approach suggests that truthfulness can be detected via response time, but this is not definitive; liars often provide fewer details and may use vaguer language.
• The broader implication: do not rely on appearance or superficial cues to judge honesty; rely on verifiable behavior and patterns over time.

Page 131: 41. Deceptive appearances: moral self-fulfillment and the compensation effect (continued)

• Additional experimental findings suggest that liars are remembered longer than truth-tellers; the memory of deception can contribute to reputational harm for the liar over time.
• The key takeaway remains that moral self-fulfillment and compensation effects can disrupt ethical judgments and contribute to moral licensing in everyday life.

Page 132: 42. Perverse effects of transparency: moral licensing and the magnetic middle

• Transparency is not universally beneficial; it can yield perverse effects in moral behavior.
• Part 1: Moral licensing in the context of conflicts of interest. Daylian Cain and colleagues studied expert advice and conflicts of interest:
  • setup: a glass bowl with pennies; participants acted as advisers or valuers; advisers could investigate the bowl contents and write a report, while valuers estimated the contents in a separate room under time pressure (ten seconds).
  • The adviser’s compensation was varied (and the extent of disclosure to the valuer was manipulated) over six rounds.
  • Key results:
  • When the adviser was paid according to the accuracy of the valuer’s estimate, the adviser’s recommendation tended to undervalue the bowl (lower estimates).
  • When the adviser’s payoff was tied to the valuer’s estimate but the valuer did not know the adviser’s compensation, advisers overvalued the bowl to protect their own interests.
  • When the conflict of interest was publicly known, the average advised value rose further (e.g., from baseline ~18.16\,\mathrm{dollars} to ~24.16\,\mathrm{dollars}).
  • Interpretation: publicizing conflicts of interest does not always curb bias; awareness of the conflict can lead advisers to adjust expectations about the valuer’s reactions and can encourage favorable judgments toward one’s own interests.
  • The broader term: “moral licensing.” When conflict of interest is acknowledged, transparency can paradoxically license biased advice because the adviser feels approved to give biased guidance.
• Part 2: The magnetic middle. Transparency-as-information can push people toward the average norm, sometimes eroding motivation to improve:
  • Schultz et al. studied energy consumption among 290 California households and found that:
  • Those above the average reduced consumption when they knew they were above average (average reduction ~5.7\%).
  • Those below the average increased consumption when they knew they were below average (average increase ~8.6\%).
  • The researchers labeled this tendency the “magnetic middle”: people are pulled toward the mean, regardless of whether they are above or below it.
  • Mitigation: incorporating injunctive norms (emoticons such as happy/sad faces) can steer behavior toward improved outcomes while avoiding the drift toward mediocrity. With emotional cues, high consumers reduced consumption by ~5\% while low consumers stayed the same, creating a more uniformly positive outcome.
• Overall implication: public transparency can backfire if it leads to moral licensing or averaging toward the middle; transparency should be designed to encourage ethical engagement and improvement rather than passively signaling compliance.
• Practical recommendation: when communicating metrics (product safety, productivity, absence, etc.), accompany figures with injunctive norms or guidance designed to incentivize ethical improvement and maintain higher standards (e.g., combine transparency with explicit expectations and supportive feedback).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2117396