I have a question that’s pretty important for my thesis.
I plan (okay this is plan 4 at this point…) to study how the ordering of the stakes (high/low) of ethical decisions affects the decision to engage in unethical behaviour
Specifically, does facing a high stakes decision (falsifying data on a report to the boss) first make you more or less likely to cheat on a lower stakes decision (ie stealing a candy bar from the convenience store) later
Any thoughts?
I have three hypotheses on how things might work, but I need some input before I share with my advisors:
Changing reference point: High stakes decisions are morally “expensive” → the small stakes decision is like a cheap substitute or “discounted item”. The reference point changes from “im a good person if I do not cheat at all ” to “I’m a good person if I don’t cheat big”
“Rewarding” oneself for avoiding the large temptation (probably couples with the above): as a “reward” for taking the high road, I “treat” myself to small stakes bad behaviour. This would be similar to the case where someone trying to lose weight rewards themselves with a scoop of ice cream for picking a salad instead of a burger for dessert.
Conditional on actually doing the wrong thing in the high stakes decision, that high “moral cost” would be more salient → tighten the belt in subsequent “transactions”: i just made a “large purchase” so I’m more frugal in “subsequent purchases” to avoid “blowing the budget”. (Ie the difference between going out for an expensive meal vs getting Starbucks every day)
Just an initial thought: i feel these two are the wrong way round. Stealing from a convenience store (assuming it’s not an armed robbery or the like) is insanely low risk. Stealing office supplies from your place of work could cost you a career.
I’m not smart enough to give you an answer, but the first thing that came to my mind is Dan Johns “one can of shaving gel” metaphor. Specifically the idea that people only have one “can” of willpower in a day. Once you use that up, it’s gone. If you use a lot of willpower/decision making ability on a big moral decision earlier in the day, does that mean you have limited amounts left later? How does that change your decision?
I think there are also different ethical norms that are applied to different situations.
Like, to me, the candy bar is a deviation from my personal code of ethics. That is below the standard I hold for myself as I see myself.
Then there is business ethics- “what is good for the business is good business.” which can easily unfurl into an ethical discussion of what is “good”.
I’ve seen this in action. My wife came up with a creative interpretation of some performance metrics in order to get a bonus. Now, she felt like she was really going to be on thin ice, and if found out would at the very least have to pay back the bonus. BUT there was data to back up the interpretation, so it could be plausible or even forgivable that she did.
Then she got called in on it to “explain” these numbers. So she did. It was not just considered to be a “good” interpretation but a Great one, which was then adopted as their client facing method of presenting the performance levels of certain programs, which led to more money, promotion, prestige, etc.
What Ive found is that if you’re going to take a risk or deviate from a standard of behavior, dont take a dumb or worthless risk.
FWIW, my wife holds herself to some pretty decent standards. She would never steal a candy bar. Has never taken an illicit substance, etc.
People can be very compartmentalized with these things.
And this also seems to cross over or conflate risk/reward and normalization of deviance. Maybe a little clarity on that would help.
I think that many professional “high stakes” situations are often more nuanced: using data or interpretations to your advantage even if you know it’s not the most legitimate way to do it. But, it will help you or your unit get what you need, like a promotion, more resources, etc…. Also, these situations can often be rationalized and are not illegal. Stealing from a store is straight up, no gray area illegal. Many would do the former, while fewer would do the latter.
Yeah, then there’s the old conundrum about a loaf of bread for a starving family (for the sake of discussion), and whether or not that Should be illegal. Is that law a just law, moral objectivity vs. subjectivity, weighing the motive that drives the act, etc.
As a long time retail manager, i strongly disagree. Retail theft is astonishingly high. Most food retailers in this country budget ~1% sales to “unknown stockloss”, for which you can largely read theft. Retailers in other sectors budget much, much higher percentages. In fashion, i’m told the percentage is closer to 10%.
My point is that we may think that crimes like this have no grey area and are obviously illegal, but many, many people (including well respected and otherwise moral and upstanding members on this board), find reasons to cross these lines.
I don’t doubt you on retail theft. To me, though, the way the question was framed was that “high stakes” wrong doings meant you were in a high-powered position with a lot to lose. An executive or well-paid employee. These types of people, in my experience, would be much more likely to fudge reports and analyses to get ahead, but would never dream of stealing from a retail store.
It seems your example, and others’, are about someone that steals because of their basic necessities or otherwise risky lifestyle. These people would be less likely to have a high paying, high powered job they’re risking. So, stealing in a retail setting is actually less risky for them than the former case in the first paragraph. So it depends on your frame of reference.
In my experience, equally likely, to be honest. I don’t want to turn this into a thread on retail theft, but i think it might be relevant. Assuming we take out the “career criminals”, the ones who are emptying meat shelves to feed a drug habit, i don’t see any particular correlation between wealth and likelihood to steal. A few caveats here: By “steal” i’m including “Oh, it doesn’t scan on self scans so it must be free” or the “try before you buy” that never gets bought or the like. Another caveat: I live in a country with enough social security nets that it would be practically impossible to starve to death, so the people that @SkyzykS is talking about would be so rare, they wouldn’t move the needle. I also live in a country in which the likely consequences for petty theft are tiny, essentially non-existent.
Given all of that, retail theft becomes an issue similar to littering. We all know it’s not OK, we all know there’s close to no excuse, but one look at any public area tells you how many humans can be trusted to do the right thing and how many can’t.
)
