Download 27 Psychological Reasons Why Good People Do Bad Things

27 Psychological Reasons Why Good
People Do Bad Things
By: Max Nisen and Aimee Groth
Published: Aug. 27, 2012, 2:35 PM
The FBI escorts Ralph Cioffi, who formerly managed a Bear Stearns subprime hedge
fund.
The white-collar crimes that lead major companies to collapse usually begin with
seemingly minor ethical violations that spiral into something much bigger. The
question of what motivates smart and talented people to commit fraud is fascinating,
and is the subject of a new paper by Dr. Muel Kaptein of the Rotterdam School Of
Management.
We've put together some of his most interesting insights on the situations and
behavioral biases that lead people to do wrong.
Thanks to Dr. Kaptein for letting us feature his work.
1|Page
Tunnel vision (1)
Setting and achieving goals is important, but single-minded focus on them can blind
people to ethical concerns. When Enron offered large bonuses to employees for
bringing in sales, they became so focused on that goal that they forgot to make sure
they were profitable or moral. We all know how that ended.
The power of names (2)
When bribery becomes "greasing the wheels" or accounting fraud becomes "financial
engineering," unethical behavior can seem less bad. The use of nicknames and
euphemisms for questionable practices can free them of their moral
connotations, making them seem more acceptable.
Social bond theory (3)
In large organizations, employees can begin to feel more like numbers or cogs in a machine than
individuals. When people feel detached from the goals and leadership of their
workplace, they are more likely to commit fraud, steal, or hurt the company via
neglect.
The Galatea effect (4)
Self image determines behavior. People who have a strong sense of themselves as
individuals are less likely to do unethical things. Alternatively, employees who see
themselves as determined by their environment or having their choices made for
them are more likely to bend the rules, as they feel less individually responsible.
Time pressure (5)
In a study, a group of theology students were told to preach the story of the good
Samaritan, then walk to another building where they'd be filmed. Along the way, they
encountered a man in visible distress. When given ample time, almost all helped.
When they were deliberately let out late, only 63 percent helped. When encouraged to
go as fast as possible, 90 percent ignored the man.
Acceptance of small theft (6)
There are dozens of small temptations in any workplace. Stationary, sugar packets,
and toilet paper frequently go home with employees. Those small thefts are ignored. So
are slightly larger ones, like over-claiming expenses or accepting unauthorized
business gifts. It doesn't take long for people to begin pushing those limits.
2|Page
Self-serving bias (7)
Few people believe they're average; most think they're smarter and more ethical
than those around them. That can lead to feelings of injustice. If somebody else gets
a promotion, it's not down to their performance and capacity, it must be something
else. Those feelings, and overestimation of other's biases can lead to unethical
behavior.
Conspicuous consumption (8)
Extreme wealth, or environments that reflect it can lead to unethical behavior. For
employees, seeing excessive bonuses or perks that they don't show leads to feeling of
injustice and jealousy which may lead them to unethical behavior.
Research by Kathleen Vohs shows that the mere presence of money makes
people more selfish, as they focus on success and individual needs over other
factors.
The Pygmalion effect (9)
The way that people are seen and treated influences the way they act. When
employees are viewed suspiciously and constantly treated like potential thieves,
they are more likely be thieves. This effect occurs even in employees who aren't
initially inclined towards unethical behavior.
Environmental influence (10)
Employees reflect their environment. If corruption, major or minor, is a part of their
workplace, they become blind to its occurrence and its possible costs.
A study incorporating participants from a variety of countries found that the less
transparent and more corrupt the participant's country of origin, the more willing they
were to accept or give bribes.
Reactance theory (11)
Rules are designed to prevent unethical behavior, but when they're seen as unjust or
excessive they can provoke the opposite reaction. This is known as reactance
theory. People resent threats to their freedom, and they often manifest that resistance
by flouting certain rules.
3|Page
Obedience to authority (12)
Obedience to authority is ingrained in our culture and workplace. When someone in a
position of authority asks an employee to do something unethical or illegal, they can
find it difficult to say no. It's easier to justify bad behavior, and when people see
themselves as an instrument of another's wishes, they feel less responsible.
The blinding effect of power (13)
Powerful people appear more corrupt because they're caught more publicly. However,
a recent study found that when given power, people set ethical rules much higher
for others than they do themselves. If someone is influential and sets rules for
others, they can begin to see themselves as morally distinct from their employees, and
not subject to the same rules.
Broken window theory (14)
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani popularized the "broken window theory"
when he led a sweeping effort to lower crime rates. The idea was to crack down on
smaller, petty crimes, and clean up the city to create some semblance of order, and
discourage larger crimes. When people see disorder or disorganization, they assume
there is no real authority. In that environment, their threshold to overstepping
legal and moral boundaries is lower.
The free-rider problem (15)
"If nobody else steals stationary, the company won't notice if I do. If nobody else in the
area pollutes, they won't notice if a tiny bit of waste is released. "Positive and ethical
behavior can sometimes engender an opposite reaction. If total damage is limited,
people feel as though they can take more liberties.
The foot in the door (16)
When a figure in authority asks someone to skirt the rules, they want to seem like a
team player. Giving in modifies self perception. A person may begin to think of
themselves as extremely loyal, someone who gets things done. In that frame of mind,
they may be willing to do increasingly unethical things.
Winner take-all competition (17)
In situations where there is a clearly-defined winner and loser, people are more
likely to cheat. They desperately want to avoid the financial and reputational costs of
losing. The people most likely to cheat may not even be those farthest behind, but
rather those who are just short of their goal.
4|Page
Cognitive dissonance and rationalization (18)
When people's actions differ from their morals, they begin to rationalize both to protect
themselves from a painful contradiction and to build up protection against
accusations. The bigger the dissonance, the larger the rationalization, and the
longer it lasts, the less immoral it seems.
Problematic punishments (19)
Attaching fines or other economic punishments to immoral behavior can have an
undesired effect. Once something is cast in those terms, it loses its moral
connotation and becomes an entirely different calculation. Rather than being
about whether something is right or wrong, it becomes an economic calculation about
the likelihood of getting caught versus the potential fine.
Lack of sleep and hypoglycemia (20)
The rewards of unethical behavior are something people struggle with on a daily basis.
As simplistic as it sounds, people who are hungry or tired have less self control.
Research has found that tired participants asked to complete math tasks significantly
over-report correct answers. While being tired or hungry won't make someone
embezzle, it leaves them more open to moments of weakness.
Escalating commitment (21)
Big thieves usually start out as small thieves. One way such actions become a slippery
slope leading to ever greater misconduct is the feeling that there's no way out. This
has been seen in recent rogue traders like Jerome Kerviel and Kweku Adoboli. They
got bonuses for taking big risks, but when those risks became big losses, they took
even larger risks to try and make up for them.
The induction mechanism (22)
People compare their present behavior to what they've done in the past. Another
way people slide down the slope of unethical behavior is to stop seeing that behavior
as bad. As the unethical becomes routine, the extremely unethical, once unthinkable,
enters the realm of possibility.
Market and shareholder pressure (23)
Former Citigroup CEO and Chairman Charles Prince once said, "As long as the music
is playing, you've got to get up and dance." He was referring to the leveraged buyout
market in 2007. Before the collapse, there was intense pressure for managers to
join in on the huge and risky profits, despite the evident bubbliness of the market.
5|Page
The compensation effect (24)
Sometimes people, having been moral and forthright in their dealings for a long time,
feel as if they have banked up some kind of "ethical credit," which they may use
to justify immoral behavior in the future. An experiment from Nina Mazar and
Chen-Bo Zhong found that people who have just bought sustainable products tend to
lie and steal more afterwards than those who bought standard versions.
Negative consequences of transparency (25)
Transparency usually serves to reduce unethical behavior, as it increases the
likelihood of getting caught. Experiments examining the publication of conflicts of
interest have found a perverse effect. The effect comes from something called "moral
licensing." If a conflict of interest is publicly disclosed, it can seem less problematic, as
if it has been agreed that it's all right. That can lead people to indulge their bias.
Bad communication (26)
Issues of corruption and morality are often treated as black and white, wrongdoers are
badly punished, and gray areas are not discussed.
That can lead to an environment where rather than sounding out ideas that border
on unethical, people push and test their limits.
The pressure to conform (27)
Nobody likes being a nuisance. In order to fit in with a group, people do things
they might not otherwise. That can lead them to ignore abuses for the sake of peace
or unity and go along with questionable decisions.
6|Page