Abstract
Growing recognition in both the psychological and management literature of the concept of “good people” has caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of wrongful behavior: Wrongdoings that were previously assumed to be based on conscious choice—that is, deliberate decisions—are often the product of intuitive processes that prevent people from recognizing the wrongfulness of their behavior. Several leading scholars have dubbed this process as an ethical “blind spot.” This study explores the main implications of the good people paradigm on the regulation of employees’ conflicts of interest. In two experiments, we examined the efficacy of traditional deterrence- and morality-based interventions in encouraging people to maintain their professional integrity and objectivity at the cost of their own self-interest. Results demonstrate that while the manipulated conflict was likely to “corrupt” people under intuitive/automatic mindset (Experiment 1), explicit/deliberative mechanisms (both deterrence- and morality-based) had a much larger constraining effect overall on participants’ judgment than did implicit measures, with no differences between deterrence and morality (Experiment 2). The findings demonstrate how little is needed to compromise the employees’ ethical integrity, but they also suggest that a modest explicit/deliberative intervention can easily prevent much of the wrongdoing that may otherwise result.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We ignore here concepts such as mistakes which are treated by the negligence doctrine.
The “good people” argument does not use the term “good” to mean “moral” or “virtuous.” Rather, the focus is on garden variety individuals who might, in various organizational settings, end up behaving unethically without fully recognizing that what they do is unethical.
Originally, most discussions of intrinsic motivation have been within the context of interest in the task. See generally Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999), describing the research approach and results of a number of studies on intrinsic motivation; see also Kasser and Ryan (1996), examining the differences in individual well-being associated with focusing on extrinsic and intrinsic goals.
These responses were identified based on duplicated IP addresses and GPS locations.
In the original design, along with the material-based conflict of interest used in the current paper, we had five more group of participants that went through an identity-based conflict of interest manipulation as an additional type of conflict of interest. One group with no intervention manipulation and four groups with the same intervention manipulations we used for the material-based conflict of interest. We did not find any effect for the identity-based conflict of interest on participants (as compared to the control group of no COI condition). Since the focus of the current experiment was to examine how can we regulate people’s behavior in a conflict of interest situation, there was no point in including these conditions in the paper, so we focused only on the material-based conflict of interest conditions.
By mistake, one of the items referring to the researchers in the center was worded in the opposite way to all other items (i.e., disagreement indicated a favorable evaluation of the research institute). Because this was the only item formulated in such a way, and because Cronbach's alpha reliability of the researcher items, with the inclusion of the reversed responses to this item resulted in a drop from .83 (without this item) to .75, we excluded this item from further analysis. The pattern of the following reported results was similar when this item was included in the analysis.
References
Achtziger, A., Alós-Ferrer, C., & Wagner, A. K. (2015). Money, depletion, and prosociality in the dictator game. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 8(1), 1.
Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 199–211.
Alemanno, A., & Sibony, A. L. (2015). Nudge and the law: A European perspective. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Ayal, S., & Gino, F. (2011). Honest rationales for dishonest behavior. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Shalvi, S. (2015). Deliberate honesty. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 195–198.
Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 28–39.
Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 1–25.
Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital–labor–production framework. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 19(1-3), 7–42.
Che, Y. K. (1995). Revolving doors and the optimal tolerance for agency collusion. The Rand Journal of Economics, 26(2), 378–397.
Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflict of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74–95). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cornaggia, J., Cornaggia, K. J., & Xia, H. (2016). Revolving doors on wall street. Journal of Financial Economics, 120(2), 400–419.
Craswell, R., & Calfee, J. E. (1986). Deterrence and uncertain legal standards. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 2(2), 279–303.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–688.
Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.
Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
Feldman, Y. (2009). The expressive function of the trade secret law: Legality, cost, intrinsic motivation and consensus. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 177–212.
Feldman, Y. (2011). The complexity of disentangling intrinsic and extrinsic compliance motivations: Theoretical and empirical insights from the behavioral analysis of law. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 35, 11–52.
Feldman, Y. (2014). Behavioral ethics meets behavioral law and economics. In Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of behavioral law and economics (pp. 213–241). Oxford University Press.
Feldman, Y., Gauthier, R., & Schuler, T. (2013). Curbing misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry: Insights from behavioral ethics and the behavioral approach to law. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(3), 620–628.
Feldman, Y., & Lobel, O. (2015). Behavioral trade-offs: Beyond the land of nudges spans the world of law and psychology. In Alemanno, A. & Sibony, E. (Eds.), Nudge and the law: A European perspective. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Friedberg, M., Saffran, B., Stinson, T. J., Nelson, W., & Bennett, C. L. (1999). Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA, 282(15), 1453–1457.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.
Gino, F., & Desai, S. D. (2012). Memory lane and morality: How childhood memories promote prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 743–758.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M., Mead, N., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191–203.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–209.
Gormley Jr, W. T. (1979). A test of the revolving door hypothesis at the FCC. American Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 665–683.
Halali, E., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Meiran, N. (2014). Between self-interest and reciprocity: The social bright side of self-control failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143, 745–754.
Halali, E., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Ockenfels, A. (2013). Is it all about the self? The effect of self-control depletion on ultimatum game proposers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 240.
Hillman, A. L. (1987). Financial incentives for physicians in HMOs. Is there a conflict of interest? The New England Journal of Medicine, 317(27), 1743–1748.
Hollis, J. (2008). Why good people do bad things: Understanding our darker selves. New York, NY: Gotham Books.
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Macmillan.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.
Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, lost: How money corrupts congress—and a plan to stop it. New York, NY: Hachette Digital Inc.
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.
Mead, N., Baumeister, R. F., 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, 594–597.
Moore, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 189–202.
Moore, D. A., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 37–53.
Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322(5898), 58–62.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.
Pillutla, M. M. (2011). When good people do wrong: Morality, social identity, and ethical behavior. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dijk, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations (pp. 353–370). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pittarello, A., Leib, M., Gordon-Hecker, T., & Shalvi, S. (2015). Justifications shape ethical blind spots. Psychological Science, 26(6), 794–804.
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427–430.
Rodwin, M. A. (1989). Physicians’ conflicts of interest: The limitations of disclosure. New England Journal of Medicine, 321(20), 1405–1409.
Rodwin, M. A. (2012). Conflicts of interest, institutional corruption, and pharma: An agenda for reform. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 40(3), 511–522.
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758.
Schwartz, M. S. (2002). A code of ethics for corporatecode of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1–2), 27–43.
Schweitzer, M. E., & Hsee, C. K. (2002). Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 185–201.
Sezer, O., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2015). Ethical blind spots: Explaining unintentional unethical behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 77–81.
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 181–190.
Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological Science, 23, 1264–1270.
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 125–130.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in god. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.
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.
Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: A study of the relationship between codes of conduct, employee behavior and organizational values. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(2), 185–195.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1660.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.
Stapenhurst, R., & Kpundeh, S. J. (Eds.). (1999). Curbing corruption: Toward a model for building national integrity. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Stevens, B. (1994). An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: “Where do we go from here?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 63–69.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions using the architecture of choice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Uziel, L., & Hefetz, U. (2014). The selfish side of self-control. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 449–458.
Weaver, G. R. (1995). Does ethics code design matter? Effects of ethics code rationales and sanctions on recipients’ justice perceptions and content recall. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(5), 367–385.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 181–192.
Xu, H., Bègue, L., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Too fatigued to care: Ego depletion, guilt, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1183–1186.
Zamir, E., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2016). Explaining Self-Interested Behavior of Public-Spirited Policymakers (November 28, 2016). Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper No. 17–8. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2876437.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Edmond J. Safra Center for the Study of Ethics, Harvard University (Grant No. 10), and the Jerusalem Crime Group for its financial support. We thank Dan Simon, Barak Ariel, Mazarin Banaji and Christoph Engle for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The 18-Item Questionnaire
Please state your agreement or disagreement with the following statements, as objectively as possible, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
-
1.
Research conducted by this center is more important than most other research I’m familiar with in the Social Sciences [R].
-
2.
The research done by the center is more valuable than research done by other similar centers [R].
-
3.
Universities should divert funds for this center’s research [R].
-
4.
There should be less scrutiny into the actions of members of this center [S].
-
5.
The center’s research would provide useful information for the scientific community [R].
-
6.
It would be a valuable use of my time to read research about institutional corruption and how to increase public trust in institutions [R].
-
7.
Mistakes by researchers in this foundation should not be punished as harshly as other researchers [S].
-
8.
Government subsidies for this center are better investments than subsidies for other centers [R].
-
9.
Salaries of researchers in this center should be higher than other researchers’ salaries [S].
-
10.
For this question, please answer with the “2” button.
-
11.
Research by this center is crucial for the future success of the international community [R].
-
12.
Governments should divert research funds from other areas to this area [R].
-
13.
International foundations should consider allocating funds to this center [R].
-
14.
Researchers in this center should have greater freedom in how they use public grants [S].
-
15.
Researchers at the Safra Center are more likely to donate to charity than other researchers [S].
-
16.
Researchers at the Safra Center are more concerned with helping people than researchers at other institutions [S].
-
17.
Researchers at the Safra Center are more likely to misuse funds than other researchers [S].
-
18.
Researchers at the Safra Center are less likely to plagiarize work than other researchers [S].
-
[R] Items focusing on the research conducted by the institute.
-
[S] Items focusing on the scientists working at the institute.
The Binominal Questionnaire
We would like to ask for your help in rating various statements the Safra Center could potentially use in a future fund-raising campaign. Please indicate whether this statement is accurate/inaccurate, you agree/disagree, would say this statement to potential donors/would not say this statement to potential donors, and would sign a petition containing this statement/would not sign a petition containing this statement.
-
Research conducted by the Safra Center is crucial for the well-being of society.
1. | Accurate | Inaccurate |
2. | Agree | Disagree |
3. | Would say to potential donors | Would not say to potential donors |
4. | Would sign a petition | Would not sign a petition |
-
The Safra Center’s research will change the way we look at public institutions.
5. | Accurate | Inaccurate |
6. | Agree | Disagree |
7. | Would say to potential donors | Would not say to potential donors |
8. | Would sign a petition | Would not sign a petition |
-
The Safra Center’s mission is the first attempt ever to deal with one of our most important problems
9. | Accurate | Inaccurate |
10. | Agree | Disagree |
11. | Would say to potential donors | Would not say to potential donors |
12. | Would sign a petition | Would not sign a petition |
The Objectivity Questionnaire
-
1.
Do you think you had any sort of influence while you were answering the questions?
-
Yes (if so, please state what you were influenced by)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
-
No
-
-
2.
Were you completely objective during this study?
-
Yes
-
No (if so, please state why you were not completely objective)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
-
-
3.
Did you think of any factor besides your best judgment while answering the questions?
-
Yes (if so, please state what else you used)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
-
No
-
The Explicit Deterrence Manipulation
Many countries have focused on cracking down on people and businesses who act unethically. Those who are involved in multiple interests, and let one of those interests corrupt their actions are especially important targets. Global leaders have decided that such conflict of interest situations are intolerable. Governments around the world took action against hundreds of unethical individuals last week. As a result, both individuals and organizations must be extra cautious when doing business with the government. Otherwise, if they let conflict of interest situations influence their decisions, they will be heavily prosecuted.
In accordance with this worldwide trend, we believe that people who let their conflict of interest affect their objectivity and integrity when completing this survey should be penalized. Hence, participants who let their conflicting interests affect their judgment might lose some of their compensation for the work they do for us.
Who have decided conflict of interest situations are intolerable?
-
Everyday people
-
Global leaders
-
Big business companies
What will happen to people if they let their conflict of interest situations influence their decisions?
-
They will receive a warning
-
They will be rewarded
-
They will be prosecuted
What will happen to participants in this survey if they are influenced by their conflict of interest when completing the survey?
-
Their compensation might be affected
-
Their reputation might be harmed
-
The validity of their answers might be affected
The Explicit Morality Manipulation
Conflict of interest situations are among the greatest problems the world faces today. A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. Such situations harm the public good, as the correct decision in a national dilemma may be rejected due to these corrupt individuals or organizations. Conflicts of interest also threaten the merit-based system, as individuals are chosen based on who they know, not what they know. These actions are immoral, so conscientious individuals should do everything in their power to avoid conflict of interest situations.
In accordance with this worldwide trend, we believe that people who let their conflict of interest affect their objectivity and integrity when completing this survey are not acting in a moral and ethical way. Hence, participants who will let their conflicting interests affect their judgment might harm the public good.
What should conscientious individuals do in regard to conflict of interest situations?
-
Avoid them
-
Seek them out
-
Take advantage of them
What do conflict of interest situations harm?
-
A person’s feelings
-
The environment
-
The public good
What will happen to participants in this survey if they are influenced by their conflict of interest when completing the survey?
-
They might harm the public good
-
Their integrity might be harmed
-
The validity of their answers might be affected
The Implicit Deterrence Manipulation
c_ _ _uption | corruption |
jai_ | jail |
poli_ _ | police |
punish_ _ _t | punishment |
fin_ | fine |
_ubpoena | subpoena |
jud_e | judge |
in_ictm_nt | indictment |
in_ _st_gat_on | investigation |
br_be | bribe |
_uilt_ | guilty |
cro_ _ing | crossing |
rotat_ _ _ | rotation |
_ miling | smiling |
s_ll | sill |
fi_ _y | fiery |
flou_ | flour |
b_ld | bald |
r_ _t | root |
fe_er | fever |
w_ _ds | weeds |
fema_ _ | female |
_ _ gineer | engineer |
al_gn | align |
d_sconn_ _ted | disconnected |
catal_ _ | catalog |
_ orn | corn |
mer_ e | merge |
fantast_ _ | fantastic |
_uman | human |
exc_ll_nt | excellent |
cop_ _r | copier |
tra_ | trap |
bl_e | blue |
effic_ _nt | efficient |
The Implicit Morality Manipulation
integri_ _ | integrity |
_rust | trust |
mor_li_y | morality |
hon_sty | honesty |
objectivi_ _ | objectivity |
princi_ _es | principles |
_irtue | virtue |
t_ _th | truth |
_ _irness | fairness |
neut_ali_ _ | neutrality |
jus_ic_ | justice |
cro_ _ing | crossing |
rotat_ _ _ | rotation |
_ miling | smiling |
s_ll | sill |
fi_ _y | fiery |
flou_ | flour |
b_ld | bold |
r_ _t | root |
fe_er | fever |
w_ _ds | weeds |
fema_ _ | female |
_ _ gineer | engineer |
al_gn | align |
d_sconn_ _ted | disconnected |
catal_ _ | catalog |
_ orn | corn |
mer_ e | merge |
fantast_ _ | fantastic |
_uman | human |
exc_ll_nt | excellent |
cop_ _r | copper |
tra_ | trap |
bl_e | blue |
effic_ _nt | efficient |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feldman, Y., Halali, E. Regulating “Good” People in Subtle Conflicts of Interest Situations. J Bus Ethics 154, 65–83 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3468-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3468-8