“Lax morals lead to questionable behaviour”— or is it the other way around?
Studies show that when good people act dishonestly, this can shift their ethical boundaries.
We sometimes find ourselves in situations where we might downplay that little voice of reason in our head, justifying our inappropriate actions by invoking some greater goal. For example, have you ever justified your reasons for telling a “white lie”, or cheating, or going over the speed limit, or embellishing your résumé a bit too much? The ability to justify or excuse our own negative behaviours, be they small or serious in nature, is a trait that all humans possess in some capacity, regardless whether we consider ourselves to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But, how, and why does such self-justifying behaviour come about?
In this article…
There are many biases and influencing factors that might affect your judgement and how you behave. This article, will focus specifically on the phenomena of congitive dissonance and moral disengagement. You will learn how a person can be affected by these phenomena and strategies to overcome them.
Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant psychological state, which occurs when your own attitudes, beliefs, morals, principles or actions contradict each other. For example, it’s the contradiction you might feel when you exercise because you believe in a healthier lifestyle, but in the meantime you continue smoking, although you know it is harming your body, excusing it as ‘it helps me de-stress’ and whatnot.
To alleviate the feeling of cognitive dissonance, you are more likely to convince yourself that your attitudes, morals or ethics do not apply to the current situation, thus becoming ‘morally disengaged’.
Classic empirical studies on cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement
A classic empirical study (1950s) examining cognitive dissonance involved participants doing a very boring task [1]. Subsequently, they were asked to lie and convince the next participant that the task was actually enjoyable and interesting and that they should participate too. Some agreed to help — of those, some were paid a $1 retainer, while others were paid $20 (a rather substantial amount of money back in the 1950s). The researchers speculated that, because $1 might not be enough to justify lying behaviour, people would be more likely to experience cognitive dissonance, and feel uncomfortable lying for such a small amount. To alleviate that feeling of discomfort after lying, since they could not undo their actions, participants re-assessed their prior opinion/belief about the task; to restore internal balance they assumed that they did not really lie, but that the task might have possibly been less boring than they initially thought. In other words, they became more lenient with their evaluation. In contrast, the ones that were paid $20, did not appear to experience cognitive dissonance, because $20 were sufficient financial incentive to motivate their lying behaviour, making it distinct from their own opinion about the task, e.g. the task was indeed boring, but a small lie was worth the $20.
Continuing to behave contrary to your morals, makes it easier to distance yourself from them each time, which can shift your ethical boundaries and start viewing certain immoral or inappropriate behaviour as more acceptable over time.
Another series of experiments, demonstrated that “honesty is affected by the situation in which one finds oneself; […] people respond to the permissiveness of their environments and seize the opportunity to cheat” [2]. What is even more surprising however, is that having cheated, people’s attitudes towards their own morality could also change.
Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant psychological state, which occurs when your own attitudes, beliefs, morals, principles or actions contradict each other.
The researchers recruited participants to act on and register their response to various hypothetical and real-life tasks, with the opportunity to cheat. Even though many perceived themselves as having high moral standards, their actions proved otherwise when they realised their environment was more tolerant towards cheating, and that they stood to gain from it, without getting caught. The experiments provided evidence for a phenomenon called ‘moral disengagement’ — suggesting that when we go down the path of acting contrary to our moral standards and principles, this can create the sense of internal uneasiness and conflict experienced in cognitive dissonance; to alleviate this feeling, we are more likely to convince ourselves that our attitudes, morals or ethics do not apply to the current situation, thus becoming ‘morally disengaged’ [2]. It was further suggested, that continuing to behave contrary to our morals, makes it easier to distance ourselves from them each time, which can shift our ethical boundaries and lead to viewing certain immoral or inappropriate behaviours as more acceptable over time.
However, on a more positive note, the experiments also showed that the opposite applies too — when we get reminded of our own moral standards and principles, and become actively responsible in upholding them, then we minimise the potential harm of acting against them. For example, even the simple act of asking someone to sign a piece of paper commiting to an honour code, can drastically change their behavior, which points to the malleability of moral self-regulation [2].
Not everyone may seek to reduce their cognitive dissonance, because not everyone may experience dissonance the same way, or to the same extent. Generally-speaking, people tend to change their behaviours or attitudes/principles, when they are tensed (i.e. experience “dissonance”).
In extreme scenarios, moral disengagement may even lead to acts of cruelty. In the words of Albert Bandura, one of the leading psychologists in the field: “How do otherwise considerate human beings do cruel things and still live in peace with themselves? […] They do so by sanctifying their harmful behavior as serving worthy causes; they absolve themselves of blame for the harm they cause by displacement and diffusion of responsibility; they minimize or deny the harmful effects of their actions; and they dehumanize those they maltreat and blame them for bringing the suffering on themselves” [11].
Moral disengement has been demonstrated in a variety of other situations, such as:
- Bullying behaviour [3]-[5] (be it in real life or virtually), or workplace misconduct [6]-[10], after a period of time where one repeatedly experiences moral disengagement. For example, 199 US workers from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk; online crowd-sourcing tool) were asked to complete a series of questionnaires for their experiences (throught their lifetime), in relation to hazing and bullying, using Bandura’s moral disengagement scales [5]. Hazing was defined as “any potentially humiliating, degrading, abusive, or dangerous activity expected of a junior-ranked group member by a more senior-ranking group member” [5]. 66.8% of respondents (77% of them male; 56% female) mentioned that they had experienced hazing at least once in their lifetime. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between hazing/bullying behaviours and behaviours indicative of moral disengagement.
- Belief in conspiracy theories, used to justify socially inappropriate behaviours. For instance, a study in Romania examined the survey responses of 245 participants, in regards to: (1) their perceived COVID-19 virus risk, (2) their trust in science, (3) their trust in the official public health regulations imposed to minimise the spread of the virus, and (4) their personal compliance to these regulations [12]. It was revealed that individuals who are able to appreciate the inherent uncertainty that characterises certain situations (i.e. not influenced by the ‘neglect of probability’ bias), and who are less susceptible to conspiracy ideation, exhibit reduced moral disengagement and were more compliant with the COVID-19 lockdown regulations. To counter the risk of non-compliance, the researchers suggested that beyond simply trying to counter disinformation campaigns, public health authorities should also promote campaigns that try to get the public engaged on moral grounds, as individuals and as part of a whole.
- Media, entertainment, and gaming industries make intentional use of moral disengagement cues and similar psychological tactics as a plot device, in order to increase engagement and immersion in their audiences [16]-[19]. For instance, there is an increasing trend in story-driven and role-playing video games (RPGs) to use “morality systems”, which pitch the player in morally ambiguous situations, where they have to commit to difficult decisions (e.g. what to do with hostages, or whether to betray your faction for another one depending on the ‘karma’ points you have available) [16]-[19]. The negative manifestations of moral disengagement are more evident in online communities, particularly where relative anonymity exists, such as in virtual-world games and certain social media. In these scenarios, people may engage in negative behaviours against real individuals, or perform actions that have real life consequences, but still downplay the moral relevance of those actions, simply because they happen to take place in a virtual medium.
Individuals who are able to appreciate the inherent uncertainty that characterises certain situations, and who are less susceptible to conspiracy ideation, exhibit reduced moral disengagement and were more compliant with the COVID-19 lockdown regulations.
Suggestions to reduce or prevent negative behaviours relating to cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement
Advice and approaches seem to share similar characteristics when it comes to reducing or preventing (a) diffusion or displacement of responsibility (e.g. blame someone else because you didn’t believe it is your responsibility), (b) disregard or distortion of consequences and (c) subjective justification of one’s actions, amongst others [10].
- If someone shows open dislike for you, you can try asking them for a favour. This may actually result in reduced future negative behaviour towards you. If you ask a favour from someone who already likes you and you get along, they can justify their reasons of deciding to help you by considering you deserving of their help. However, if someone does you a favour although they may have neutral or negative feelings towards you, depending on the level of cognitive dissonance they may experience, they may be more likely to excuse their contradicting behaviour of being willing to help you out, by humanising you more [14]-[16]. This phenomenon has recently been popularised as “the Benjamin Franklin effect” based on a relevant quote by Benjamin Franklin: “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged” [20].
- Frame the responsibility of upholding certain ethical standards and regulations at the individual level (rather than as a generic collective responsibility). Having an active responsibility to uphold said standards could take different forms, such as signing a paper, providing written email of consent, developing relevant legally-binding policies, schedule assessment meetings with clear outcomes [7][10].
- Raise awareness or remind people of the importance of adhering to certain attitudes or ethical practices, and the potential harm that their dismissal may cause to others and/or themselves. Practical suggestions for this could be in the form of educational workshops, employee programs, intervention and support lines, providing relevant resouces, or reminding friends and family to keep a promise for certain reasons [7][10]. Additionally, you could promote an influential group or individual (e.g. the popular kids at school, an athlete, a celebrity, a charity or political group, etc), to support your practices, as that might be held to higher regard by those who admire them.
- Focus on explicitly addressing the discrepancies between your own actions/behaviours and morals/values/attitudes— keep yourself in line. For example, if you are faced with a situation where your potential behaviour might go against an important principle of yours, you may try engaging in a process of self-affirmation (either mentally, or better yet, writing them down on a piece of paper) — i.e. consciously re-visit your own values and principles, remind yourself why they are important to you, and re-affirm your commitment to them, to protect yourself from deviating from them.
When you get reminded of your own moral standards and principles, and become actively responsible in upholding them (e.g. by providing your signature or oath), then you minimise the potential harm of acting against them.
However, keep in mind that not everyone may seek to reduce their cognitive dissonance, because not everyone may experience dissonance the same way, or to the same extent. Some people may live with it relatively easily, even if it affects them negatively. Furthermore, generally-speaking, people tend to want to change their behaviours or attitudes and morals, when they are tensed (i.e. experience “dissonance”). For example, individuals may express dissonance in situations where they have to choose on their own (if their options or choices contradict their values) [13]. Otherwise, they may not bother as much if that choice was made for them (even though it may still contradict their values), because potentially they may diffuse or displace the responsibility of their actions, to whoever took the decision for them.
Behavioural scientist Kulani Abendroth-Dias (in the video below) explains further on why good people can do bad things, and offers additional insights on what we can do about it.
Final notes
A note of caution regarding research on cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement relates to the fact that some of those studies lack ecological validity (i.e. real-world testing scenarios), making it harder to generalise. Others rely on self-reports (e.g. questionnaires/surveys), which are susceptible to an individual’s own morals and bias in responding truthfully. Moreover, these phenomena cannot be physically examined (being perceptual), which can raise questions on the subjectivity of these studies, and other potentially unaccounted-for influencing factors.
Having said that, perhaps next time you are tempted to cheat or lie “a tiny bit”, you should reflect on the fact that there may be more at stake than simply getting caught. You might be accidentally, getting yourself into a downward spiral. Equally, next time you are trying to do something that requires strength of character, you could remind yourself that even the simple act of signing a piece of paper, which expresses the values one promises to uphold, and reminding yourself of your own moral code and who might be affected otherwise, can go a long way.
Note from the author…
If you found this article helpful or interesting, recommend it and share it, so others can benefit from it too! 😊
Follow me and the Medium publication ‘A Cup of Psyence’ for more evidence-based articles.
‘A Cup of Psyence’ is a collection of essays on human psychology, science, user experience (UX), technology, and general wellbeing — curated by C. Maltezou-Papastylianou, with the occasional invited article by other experts.
