Rationalizing Bad Decisions: How Moral Disengagement Plays a Key Role

Source: Pixabay

Darden Ideas to Action, a site that features cutting edge research insights from the Darden School at UVA, published a fascinating piece earlier this year titled, "TALKING OURSELVES INTO IT: HOW WE RATIONALIZE BAD CHOICES."  The article describes research by James Detert and Sean Martin, along with several colleagues from other schools.  Jim and I went to graduate school together, and he is a terrific scholar of organizational behavior.   You can read the underlying research here.  

These scholars have documented a rationalization process that they call "moral disengagement" that unfolds when we are trying to justify to ourselves and others our poor decisions.  Detert and Martin have created a typology of moral disengagement strategies, and they offer some examples of the types of pharses associated with each strategy.  Here are the eight types.  The list proves a useful tool for self-reflection.  You can ask yourself:  Am I thinking or saying something similar to these phrases?  If you answer yes, it might be time to step back and reconsider your course of action or your decisions.  

Here are eight common moral disengagement strategies and what they sound like:

Moral justification (“This is actually the morally right thing to do; we’re actually helping them by doing this.”)

Euphemistic labeling (“I’m just ‘borrowing’ this.” “It’s ‘collateral damage.’”)

Advantageous comparison (“Doing A, is not as bad as doing B.” “It’s not like I’m doing B.”)

Displacement of responsibility (“My boss told me to do it.” “I’m just following orders.”)

Diffusion of responsibility (“Everyone’s doing it.” “It’s a group decision.” “This is just a small part of a bigger system.”)

Distortion of consequences (“This is a victimless crime.” “No harm done.” “It’s no big deal.”)

Attribution of blame (“They brought it on themselves.” “Buyer beware.”)

Dehumanization (“They’re a bunch of dogs.” “They’re like robots.”)

The Benefits & Risks of International Experiences

A team of scholars has published an interesting new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology regarding the impact that foreign experiences have on our behavior (Jackson Lu, Jordi Quoidbach, Francesca Gino, Alek Chakroff, William Maddux, and Adam Galinksy).  They built upon prior research that has demonstrated that foreign experiences bring certain important benefits to individuals.  Specifically, prior work has shown that foreign experiences foster cognitive flexibility and enhance creativity.   They also reduce intergroup bias.  

This new study shows that foreign experiences have negative impacts as well.  These scholars conducted eight studies using multiple research methodologies.  They found that foreign experiences enhance moral flexibility.   By that, they mean that foreign experiences increased moral relativism, and thereby enhanced immoral behavior on the part of individuals.  The findings held true even for people of different ages and cultures.  The study certainly does not mean that we should limit our international educational, travel, and work experiences.   However, it does sound a note of caution about the effects these experiences have on us.  The benefits can be substantial, but some important risks do arise.   

Cheaters vs. Cheating: Words Matter When It Comes to Crossing The Ethical Line

Christopher Bryan and Gabrielle Adams have conducted a neat new study regarding ethical transgressions.  They examined whether wording mattered when it came to the rate of unethical behavior in which people might engage.  Specifically, they examined whether people might cheat to win $5. They asked subjects to think of number between one and ten; they could win $5 if their number was even.  Much prior research suggests that people are much more likely to think of an odd number.  Therefore, a high rate of even numbers would indicate that quite a few folks were likely to be cheating.  Now, here's the interesting twist.  They broke the subjects into two experimental conditions.  One group was told that they were playing a game that "tests how common 'cheating' is on college campuses."  The other group did not use the word 'cheating' - instead, it used the word 'cheaters' to describe the purpose of the research. In addition, subjects were being told that it would impossible for the researchers to know if subjects were "cheating" vs. were a "cheater." 

What did Bryan and Adams find?  Approximately 20% of the subjects in the "cheater" group reported an even number.  That's what we would expect if people are being honest (given the tendency of most folks to pick an odd number in prior studies).  Roughly one-half of the folks in the "cheating" group reported an even number!   Therefore, the slight alteration of wording seemed to matter a great deal.   No one wants to be called a cheater!  People worry very much about how they think of themselves, not just how others think of them.  The word "cheater" moves people to honesty!