Defensive Self-Structure Predicts
Unethical Decisions
Andrew J. Leister,
Jenna S. Thomas,
& Carolin J. Showers
The University of Oklahoma
Department of Psychology
1 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
What sort of person decides
to behave unethically?
2 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Classical View - Self Consistency
Unethical decisions are cognitively consistent with an already
negative self view (Aronson & Mettee, 1968)
Participants given positive, negative, or no feedback about the self
After negative feedback, more likely to behave unethically
Dissonance reduction perspective
3 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Entitlement After Threat
After being treated unfair, feelings of entitlement is associated with
‘selfish’ decision making (Zitek et al., 2010)
People feel no obligation to help or reduce other’s suffering
After ostracism, entitlement is associated with unethical behavior
(Poon et al., 2013)
Perceived as a threat to the self, feel entitled to received
underserved rewards to compensate
Not emotionally based (controlled for mood)
4 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Self Deception and Stability
Self-serving bias in the perception of outcomes associated with
cheating (von Hippel et al., 2005)
Self-enhancement distorts the truth, is self-deceptive
Creativity associated with ability to justify unethical decisions
(Gino & Ariely, 2012)
A secure, authentic self is less likely to lie or cheat than a fragile,
unstable self (Gillath et al., 2010)
5 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Compartmentalization
Table 1
Examples of Actual Card Sorts Illustrating Compartmentalization and Integration
Panel A: Compartmentalized Organization
When I am around
new people
- Uncomfortable
- Insecure
- Inferior
- Isolated
- Indecisive
- Tense
- Not the “real me”
6
How I feel on bad
days
- Like a failure
- Sad & blue
- Weary
- Unloved
- Hopeless
- Irritable
- Immature
Me almost
everyday
Friendly
Happy
Hardworking
Energetic
Interested
Fun & entertaining
Lovable
Intelligent
Organized
Capable
Giving
What I wish to be
like (but I’m not)
Successful
Confident
Comfortable
Independent
Outgoing
Optimistic
Communicative
Needed
Panel B: Integrative Organization
Me with my family
Me at school
Me with my sorority
Happy
Mature
Friendly
Friendly
- Lazy
Outgoing
Lovable
- Sad and blue
Fun & entertaining
Giving
Capable
Comfortable
Comfortable
Organized
- Inferior
Communicative
Confident
Energetic
Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
The way I am
around my true
friends
Successful
Giving
Capable
Friendly
Happy
Hardworking
Energetic
Interested
Fun & entertaining
Lovable
Confident
Comfortable
Outgoing
Optimistic
Me with my friends
Confident
Optimistic
Outgoing
Needed
Energetic
Communicative
Integration
Me with my family
Happy
Friendly
Lovable
Giving
Comfortable
Communicative
Energetic
Confident
Optimistic
Needed
Interested
Successful
Hardworking
Independent
- Self-centered
Needed
- Indecisive
Outgoing
Organized
Capable
Giving
Panel B: Integrative Organization
Me at school
Me with my sorority
Mature
Friendly
- Lazy
Outgoing
- Sad and blue
Fun & entertaining
Capable
Comfortable
Organized
- Inferior
Confident
Energetic
Hardworking
- Not the “real me”
Successful
- Insecure
Interested
Confident
Independent
Independent
Intelligent
- Uncomfortable
- Tense
Interested
Energetic
Hardworking
Comfortable
Energetic
Friendly
Communicative
Happy
Happy
- Insecure
- Disorganized
- Incompetent
- Indecisive
- Indecisive
Fun & entertaining
Lovable
Confident
Comfortable
Outgoing
Optimistic
Me with my friends
Confident
Optimistic
Outgoing
Needed
Energetic
Communicative
Happy
Friendly
Lovable
Giving
Fun & entertaining
Comfortable
- Immature
- Independent
Note. Negative attributes are identified by a minus sign. Panel A: compartmentalization =
1.00, differential importance = .83, and proportion of negative attributes = .30. Panel B:
compartmentalization = .29, differential importance = .96, and proportion of negative
attributes = .22.
7 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Compartmentalizing the Self...
…is good when positive categories are perceived as more
important (Showers, 1992, 2000)
…is fragile:
Unstable mood and self-esteem when responding to
daily events (Ziegler-Hill & Showers, 2007)
…increases under threat:
Insecure related prime (high self-esteem only; Bozeman &
Showers, in prep)
Current grant uses multiple paradigms to investigate
compartmentalization and unethical decision making tasks:
mental math, matrix math, coin flip
8 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Current Study Purpose
Replicate previous results using the coin flip method as the
ethical decision outcome (Bryan, Adams, & Monin, 2013)
Reproduce the association between unethical decision
making and compartmentalization (self-structure)
Examine moderators that have been known to influence
ethical decision making (e.g., creativity and entitlement)
9 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Current Study Method
Prescreening
Narcissism (NPI-37)
Lab Session
Self-structure (card sorting task) and additional questionnaires
including creativity (Remote Associates Test; RAT)
Online Session (Qualtrics)
Unethical decision paradigm (coin flip) and debriefing
Sample (3 coin flip conditions)
N = 113
Female = 77, M age = 19.04
Cheater n = 40
Cheating n = 34
Baseline n = 39
10 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Self-structure Directions
Card Sorting Task (Showers, 1992)
Instructions:
“Your task is to use the cards in front of you to generate a description
of yourself…where each group of traits describes an aspect of
yourself or your life.”
Participants given 40 cards with a single trait on each (20
positive, 20 negative) and 25 minutes to complete
Participants generate their own self-aspect labels (categories)
and use the cards (attributes) to describe each
Use cards more than once, don’t have to use all cards
11 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Coin Flip Task Cover Story
Ethical decision making method (Bryan et al., 2013)
Task cover story, Bem’s psi phenomenon (2011):
“In this study, we are examining psychokinesis. This term refers to people’s
ability to control physical objects with their minds.
Recently, a psychologist at Cornell University published a highly controversial
article claiming to report the first experimental evidence that some people
have “paranormal abilities.” Although this article was published in a respected
scientific journal, many people are skeptical. Critics generally agree that, as
more studies are conducted, the findings will not hold up.
The goal of this study is to test whether people who are highly motivated to
influence the movement of an object with their minds, are able to do so.
Please find a coin now. It can be a penny, nickel, dime, or quarter. In a
moment, we will ask you to flip the coin 10 times, and try to influence each
flip to land as “heads.”
12 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Coin Flip Task (Bryan et al., 2013)
13 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Coin Flip Task (Bryan et al., 2013)
Manipulation: self-relevant noun frame
• Please don’t cheat /be a cheater and report that one or more of your coin
flips landed heads when it really landed tails! Even a small amount of
cheating/Even a small number of cheaters would undermine the
study, making it appear that psychokinesis is real.
When you are ready to begin, proceed to the next page:
14 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Number of heads claimed
Bryan et al. (2013) Results
15 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Current Study Condition Results
16 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Current Study
Results`
Number of heads claimed
Number of heads claimed
Bryan et al.
Self-Structure Regression Model
DV= number of heads claimed
a = compartmentalization (phi)
b = differential importance (DI)
c = proportion of negative attributes (neg)
Step 1: /method=enter a b c
Step 2: /method=enter ab ac bc
17 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Main Effect (Cheater Condition)
Within the cheater condition there was a significant Phi main
effect (β = .41, p = .04)
18 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Number of heads claimed
Phi x NPI EE (All Conditions)
N = 98, p = .03
19 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Compartmentalization Summary
Support for association between a defensive, fragile self
(compartmentalization) and unethical decision making
Compartmentalized people report heads flipped at the
greatest rate with high levels of entitlement
Together these results suggest a failure to confront the
negative implications of unethical decisions, potentially
viewing the outcome as self-enhancing instead
20 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Discuss: Why is Bryan Not Replicated?
Incentive for participation
Sample differences
- Choice vs. Forced
- Age (self-reflection differences?)
Debriefing participant exclusion
BUT when including specific moderators, we have replication!
21 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Number of heads claimed
Condition x RAT
n = 72, p = .05
22 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Discussion - Future Directions
Manipulations and Moderators
Power (Gervais et al., 2013)
Time vs. Money (Gino & Mogilner, 2013)
Mastery vs. Performance (Anderman & Midgley, 2004)
Bryan replication: sample a different population? No creative
people?
Increasing confrontation of negative self-information reduces
unethical decision making?
Develop models synthesizing current results
23 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014
Acknowledgements
Dr. Carolin Showers - adviser
Jenna Thomas – lab member
Sara Bozeman – lab member
Katy Shanahan – research assistant
Katie Rosenthal – research assistant
Funded by NIH Grant: 5R21 HD075308
Questions or Comments?
24 Ethical Decision Making | Andrew J. Leister | 12 April 2014