Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior

Rachel Barkan1, Shahar Ayal2 and Dan Ariely3
Addresses
1
self, by including also the violation of social norms and
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev failed self-integrity [6,7]. Third, people cannot solve this
2
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)
3
Duke University dissonance with a change of attitude, as explicit cutback
of moral standards will further threat the self-image [5].
Corresponding author: Ayal, Shahar ([email protected])
We make a distinction between two types of ethical
dissonance: the first type, Anticipated dissonance occurs
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161
before people commit a moral violation. It arises when
This review comes from a themed issue on Morality and ethics
people contemplate wrongdoing, and the agitation it
Edited by Francesca Gino and Shaul Shalvi elicits serves as a forewarning that aims to help people
resist temptation. The second type, Experienced disso-
nance occurs after the fact when people realize their
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.001
wrongdoing and feel guilt and remorse. The distressing
experience prompts people to compensate for the viola-
2352-250/# 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
tion and restore their sense of morality.

Reducing anticipated ethical dissonance

When anticipated ethical dissonance arises, people use
pre-violation justifications to redefine unethical behaviors
as ‘non’ violations. Ambiguity and gray areas allow people
to blur the difference between right and wrong, and
‘‘Wash away all my iniquity
diminish the threat to the moral-self [8].
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
Cash substitutions. Taking money from the petty cash is
and my sin is always before me. . .’’
stealing, but what about taking home office supplies?
Psalms 51 4-5.
When a six-pack of Coca-Cola was left in a communal
refrigerator on a university campus, the cans disappeared
This quote from Psalms describes King David’s agony within 72 hours, but when plates with six one-dollar bills
over his sin with Bathsheba. Far more than God’s forgive- were left in the refrigerator they remained untouched
ness, King David asks for redemption from the pangs of his [3]. Similarly, when unsupervised participants collected
own conscience and the constant reminders of his sin. their payment for an experiment from a jar, they took less
when the jar was filled with dollar bills and more when the
Of course, unlike King David, most people do not commit jar was filled with tokens [4].
adultery and send the betrayed spouse to certain death in
the battle-field. Still, research shows that ordinary people Shuffling and stretching the truth. Inventing facts is definitely
who perceive themselves as trustworthy and honest fre- a lie, but shuffling facts and reporting ‘sorta’ truth reduces
quently break their own moral code, lie (almost every day) anticipated dissonance. In a die-under-cup game partici-
[1], bend rules [2] and cut corners for profit [3,4]. pants rattle a cup, peek through a hole, and report the
Interestingly, whether transgressions are small or large, outcome of the die-roll for payment. When participants
people agonize over them [5]. This paper describes the rolled the die once they cheated less than when they
psychological cost of acknowledging one’s wrongdoing, rolled two extra idle rolls. Why? Because inventing an
and the ways people deal with their scruples to preserve a outcome elicits more tension than reporting an outcome
positive moral image. that was actually observed, though on irrelevant rolls
[9,10]. Using the same game, participants cheated less
Ethical dissonance when an outcome of ‘6’ earned them the maximal pay-
Ethical dissonance arises from the inconsistency between ment and cheated more when the maximal payoff was
the aspiration to uphold a moral self-image and the given to ‘3’. Why? Because ‘stretching’ justifies lying
temptation to profit from unethical behavior. This disso- about an outcome of ‘5’ in one case but in the other case
nance is singled out for three reasons. First, ethical it justifies lying about both outcomes of ‘2’ and ‘4’ [11].
dissonance involves the breach of absolute criteria of Demonstrating truth-stretching in another context
right and wrong (e.g. the Ten Commandments; Aristotle, researchers asked participants to imagine they were sell-
Nicomachean Ethics). Second, beyond cognitive incon- ing a car which odometer had been disconnected, and
sistency, ethical dissonance poses a larger threat to the then judge a mileage report of 60K. When participants

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161

158 Morality and ethics

were told the true range was 74–76K they estimated 60K to compensate for their guilt and reestablish their moral
as a lie, but when they were told the true range was 60– self [8].
90K they said 60K was justified (in both cases a fair
estimation is 75K) [12]. Stretching the truth in other Cleansing. One way to relieve guilt involves self-punish-
domains is similar to these examples. ment and physical pain [31]. Similar to religious rituals
(e.g. fasting, abstinence, or flagellation) studies indicate
Self-serving altruism. Another way to quiet down antici- that participants responded to their own moral violation
pated dissonance harnesses altruism to turn wrong behav- with a tendency to self-inflict pain [32]. In several studies,
ior into right. White lies provide a simple example. Unlike guilt associated with unethical behavior, led participants
a lie that benefits only the liar, if a lie benefits another to self-inflict more intense electric shocks [33,34] (com-
person as well, it can be justified, and redefined as pared to participants who felt sad or neutral). In another
altruistic [13]. For example, when participants rolled study, guilty participants immersed their hand in ice-
a die to determine their payment, they lied more about water for longer time [35] (compared to a neutral control
the roll outcome when the roll also benefited a passive group). In all cases the experience of pain reduced
partner [14]. Altruistic cheating increases as the lie ben- participants’ feeling of guilt [33], and greater pain led
efits more people [15]. Importantly, as the bonds with the to greater emotional relief [34].
beneficiaries are stronger (e.g. friends, family) the antici-
pated ethical dissonance dissolves and people experience A second, easier way to ease the experience of ethical
less guilt [16,17]. Recent evidence indicated that oxytocin dissonance involves the symbolic act of washing sins
facilitates self-serving altruism [18]. This hormone away. Again, along the lines of religious rituals (e.g.
strengthens social-bonding and is also associated with baptism for repentance) there is evidence for an associa-
decreases in anxiety and social threat [19]. tion between physical cleansing and moral purification
[36]. In one study, after participants hand-copied a de-
The Robin Hood logic goes one step further and justifies scription of unethical selfish behavior they preferred a gift
clear unethical behavior if it hurts the ‘strong’ to benefit of an antiseptic wipe over a pencil. Furthermore partici-
the ‘weak’. In a field study researchers examined vehicle pants who used the antiseptic wipe to clean their hands
emissions testing, and found that inspectors were more experienced fewer moral emotions (such as guilt) than
likely to pass standard (‘poor looking’) cars that should those who did not use the wipe [37].
have failed the test, but were stricter with regard to luxury
vehicles [20]. Confession. Most religions incorporate confession as a way
to resolve the experience of ethical dissonance and turn a
Licensing. Moral licensing helps people reduce anticipated new leaf. Admitting the misconduct, owning up to the
ethical dissonance in quite a different way. People act as wrongdoing, expressing remorse and asking for forgive-
though good deeds earn them moral credit and cancel out ness earn atonement.
future wrongdoing [21,22]. Thus, previous good deeds
balance a mental moral sheet and reduce the anticipated Simulating the effect of confession researchers asked one
threat to the moral-self [23]. group of participants to recall a moral violation they had
committed, close their eyes, and ask God or other higher
Licensing has been documented in a wide variety of entity for forgiveness. Testing cheating before and after
domains and for many different behaviors. For example, the simulation showed that confession reduced the level
expressing support for a Black political candidate licensed of cheating. Interestingly, merely informing participants
participants to discriminate against Black people in subse- they would later simulate confession was enough to
quent hiring decisions [24,25]. People felt similarly licensed reduce dishonest behavior [38]. Sincerity is both the
if their friends supported a minority group [26], or if they key and the Achilles Heel of confession. Recent work
simply had a friend from a minority group [27]. In another suggests that people sometimes engage in partial confes-
domain, choosing to buy green products made participants sion, where they admit some wrongdoing to restore their
more likely to engage later in dishonest behavior [21]. sense of morality but hide the full extent of their actions
Recalling pro-social behavior from their past led people to avoid embarrassment and shame [39].
to make lower donations and justify unethical corporate
decisions [23]. People felt licensed even when they merely Distancing. An insincere way to cope with ethical disso-
thought about their own morality [28] whether the evi- nance involves hiding one’s own moral violation while
dence was weak or strong [29], and even if they merely pointing to other people’s moral failings. In a series of
planned to donate money or blood in the future [30]. studies, participants recalled a moral violation they could
not deny and truly regretted (control conditions included
Reducing experienced ethical dissonance negative events, personal disappointments or neutral
When people experience ethical dissonance after events). Only the first group experienced ethical disso-
their wrongdoing, they use post-violation justifications nance. To distance themselves from the unresolved

Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior Barkan, Ayal and Ariely 159

Figure 1

l Ex
ca pe
hi r
Et e Di ienc
ed c ss ed
p at nan on E
i
tic sso an th
ce ica
An Di l

Pre-Violation Moral Post-Violation

Justification Self Justification

g Co
in m
d er n Vi m
ol itt
i
ns atio at in
io g
Co Viol n

Current Opinion in Psychology

The interplay between ethical dissonance and justifications.

dissonance these participants presented an ultra-honest implementation encouraged self-reflection and helped
image, adopted stricter ethical criteria, and judged other people resist temporary temptations [48,49].
people’s unethical behavior more harshly [5]. When
wrongdoers are identified as out-group members, distanc- Paradoxically, the problem with justifications is that they
ing is emphasized, leading to explicit condemnation [40]. are highly effective in resolving ethical dissonance. While
justifications protect people from psychological tension
Moral hypocrisy. A cynical post-violation justification and secure their self-image they also allow people to
allows people to hold two distinct belief systems. In line behave unethically, making their sense of morality a
with Machiavelli’s logic in The Prince moral hypocrisy mirage. Our review portrays a moral pendulum [23]
asserts that power and status justify immoral behavior as which allows people to swing back and forth between
means to an end or as privilege. A number of studies have the guilt associated with unethical temptation and a sense
shown that once participants were endowed with power in of decency elicited by justifications [50,51]. This special
asymmetric situations such as the dictator game or man- interplay between ethical dissonance and justifications is
ager-employee simulation, they changed their percep- depicted in Figure 1. People may feel altruistic despite
tions of fairness and morality, judged their own (or even because) they cheated; people may intend to do
violations leniently and judged the violations of others good and then feel licensed to do bad (whether or not they
harshly. Interestingly, both transgressors and their victims actually carried out the good deed); people may feel
agreed that power and status trumps morality [41–43]. generous after compensating for unethical behavior with
a donation; or cover-up a shameful sin by being over
righteous. The problem is further complicated as this
The promise of ethical dissonance dynamic process gradually erodes the moral code along a
On a brighter note, ethical dissonance holds a promise. A slippery slope [52,53], numbs people’s sensitivity to
robust finding indicates that people wish to be moral and moral dilemmas, shapes down social norms, and make
consider honesty central to their self-image [44]. Serving us less ethical as individuals and society. Given this
as a moral gate-keeper, ethical dissonance harnesses the incredible human ability, fighting dishonesty is certainly
tension it creates to help people uphold their aspired more complex, and it must include interventions that
moral standards. Research has documented effective make ethical dissonance more difficult to excuse.
ways to trigger ethical dissonance as an intervention
[45]. For example, recalling the Ten Commandments We conclude by offering that rather than a threat, we
or signing an honor code made morality salient and should think of ethical dissonance as a morality’s gate-
eliminated dishonesty [3,4]. Presenting a picture of keeper, and attend to its unsettling reminders to help us
eyes above an honor-pay-jar lowered the sense of ano- be better people.
nymity and resulted in more payments [46]. Signing one’s
name at the top of an insurance form (rather than at the
bottom) elicited moral commitment and reduced false Conflict of interest
reports [47] and forcing delays between choice and None declared.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161

160 Morality and ethics

References and recommended reading 16. Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D: Self-serving altruism? The lure of
unethical actions that benefit others. J Econ Behav Organ 2013,
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, 93:285-292.
have been highlighted as:
17. Shu LL, Gino F: Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: How
 of special interest unethical actions lead to forgetting of moral rules. J Pers Soc
 of outstanding interest Psychol 2012, 102(6):1164.
18. Shalvi S, De Dreu CK: Oxytocin promotes group-serving
1. DePaulo BM, Kashy DA: Everyday lies in close and casual
dishonesty. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014, 111(15):5503-5507.
relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998, 74(1):63-79.
19. Bethlehem RA, Baron-Cohen S, van Honk J, Auyeung B, Bos PA:
2. Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE: Blind Spots: Why We Fail To Do
The oxytocin paradox. Front Behav Neurosci 2014, 8:1-5.
 What’s Right and What To Do About It. NJ: Princeton University
Press; 2011. 20. Gino F, Pierce L: Robin Hood under the hood: wealth-based
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, most of us like to think we discrimination in illicit customer help. Organ Sci 2010,
would stand up for our principles. But we are not as ethical as we 21(6):1176-1194.
think we are. In this important book, Bazerman and Tenbrunsel show
us how we fail to see our own immoral actions in an objective light, 21. Mazar N, Zhong CB: Do green products make us better people?
and how to secure a place for ethics in our workplaces, institutions, Psychol Sci 2010, 21(4):494-498.
and daily lives.
22. Monin B, Miller DT: Moral credentials and the expression of
3. Ariely D: The Honest Truth About Dishonesty. New York, NY:  prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001, 81:33-43.
 HarperCollins; 2012. This paper demonstrates that people are more willing to express attitudes
Dan Ariely, examines the contradictory forces that drive us to cheat and that could be viewed as prejudiced when their past behavior has estab-
keep us honest. Drawing on original experiments and research, Ariely lished their credentials as non-prejudiced, and discusses the general
reveals — honestly — what motivates these irrational, but entirely conditions under which people feel licensed to act unethically.
human, behaviors.
23. Sachdeva S, Iliev R, Medin DL: Sinning saints and saintly sinners
4. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D: The dishonesty of honest people: a  the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychol Sci 2009,
 theory of self-concept maintenance. J Market Res 2008, 45:633- 20(4):523-528.
644. This paper demonstrates the moral pendulum, showing that, on the one
This paper is one of the important starting points of the research on hand, good deeds lead people to feel licensed to act immorally, but on the
behavioral ethics. In a series of six experiments, this paper demonstrate other hand, bad deeds threaten the moral-self and prompt people to
how people behave dishonestly enough to profit but honestly enough to compensate for the violation with good deeds.
delude themselves of their own integrity, and offers practical applications
for curbing dishonesty in everyday life. 24. Effron DA, Cameron JS, Monin B: Endorsing Obama licenses
favoring whites. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009, 45(3):590-593.
5. Barkan R, Ayal S, Gino F, Ariely D: The pot calling the kettle
black: distancing response to ethical dissonance. J Exp 25. Krumm AJ, Corning AF: Who believes us when we try to conceal
Psychol Gen 2012, 141(4):757. our prejudices? The effectiveness of moral credentials with in-
groups versus out-groups. J Soc Psychol 2008, 148(6):689-710.
6. Festinger L: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University
Press; 1962. 26. Kouchaki M: Vicarious moral licensing: the influence of others’
past moral actions on moral behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011,
7. Wicklund RA, Brehm JW: Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. 101:702-715.
Psychology Press; 2013.
27. Bradley-Geist JC, King EB, Skorinko J, Hebl MR, McKenna C:
8. Shalvi S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ayal S: Self-serving justifications: Moral credentialing by association: the importance of choice
 doing wrong and feeling moral. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2015, and relationship closeness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2010,
24:125-130. 36(11):1564-1575.
This paper presents the role of self-serving justifications that enable
people to do wrong while feeling moral. Written clearly (and understand- 28. Jordan J, Mullen E, Murnighan JK: Striving for the moral self: the
able to students as well as faculty) this paper offers an integrative view of  effects of recalling past moral actions on future moral
the expanding research on unethical behavior. behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2011, 37(5):701-713.
This paper shows that recalling one’s own (im)moral behavior leads to
9. Shalvi S, Handgraaf MJ, De Dreu CK: Ethical maneuvering: why compensatory action as a way to restore the moral self. Compensatory
people avoid both major and minor lies. Br J Manage 2011, effects were related to the moral magnitude of the recalled event.
22(s1):S16-S27.
29. Effron DA: Making mountains of morality from molehills of
10. Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F: Lies in disguise — an virtue: threat causes people to overestimate their moral
experimental study on cheating. J Eur Econ Assoc 2013, credentials. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2014, 40(8):972-985.
11(3):525-547.
30. Cascio J, Plant EA: Prospective moral licensing: does
11. Hilbig BE, Hessler CM: What lies beneath: how the distance anticipating doing good later allow you to be bad now? J Exp
between truth and lie drives dishonesty. J Exp Soc Psychol Soc Psychol 2015, 56:110-116.
2013, 49:263-266.
31. Nelissen RM: Guilt-induced self-punishment as a sign of
12. Schweitzer ME, Hsee CK: Stretching the truth: elastic remorse. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2012, 3(2):139-144.
justification and motivated communication of uncertain
information. J Risk Uncertainty 2002, 25:185-201. 32. Klaassen JA: Punishment and the purification of moral taint. J
Soc Philos 2008, 27(2):51-64.
13. Erat S, Gneezy U: White lies. Manage Sci 2012, 58:723-733.
 33. Tangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ: Moral emotions and moral
This paper characterizes white lies according to the profit for the liar behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 2007, 58:345-372.
and the profit for another person. Accordingly, a typology of four
types of lies includes: selfish lies (liar profits at the expense of 34. Inbar Y, Pizarro DA, Gilovich T, Ariely D: Moral masochism: on
another person), altruistic white lies (benefiting another person at the connection between guilt and self-punishment. Emotion
the expense of the liar), Pareto white lies (benefiting both the liar and 2013, 13(1):14-18.
another person), and spiteful lies (hurting both the liar and another
person). 35. Bastian B, Jetten J, Fasoli F: Cleansing the soul by hurting the
flesh: the guilt-reducing effect of pain. Psychol Sci 2011,
14. Gneezy U: Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev 22(3):334-335.
2005, 95:384-394.
36. Schnall S, Benton J, Harvey S: With a clean conscience:
15. Conrads JI, Rilke RM, Walkowitz G: Lying and team incentives. J cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychol
Econ Psychol 2013, 34:1-7. Sci 2008, 19:1219-1222.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior Barkan, Ayal and Ariely 161

37. Zhong CB, Liljenquist K: Washing away your sins: threatened 46. Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G: Cues of being watched
 morality and physical cleansing. Science 2006, 313:1451-1452. enhance cooperation in real-world setting. Biol Lett 2006,
This paper demonstrates an association between bodily purity and moral 2:412-414.
purity, showing that using antiseptic wipes alleviated the upsetting con-
sequences of unethical behavior and reduced threats to one’s moral self- 47. Shu LL, Mazar N, Gino F, Ariely D, Bazerman MH: Signing at the
image.  beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-
reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proc Natl Acad Sci
38. Ayal S, Gino F: Honest rationales for dishonest behavior. In The 2012, 109(38):15197-15200.
 Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and This paper demonstrated the effectiveness of an easy-to-implement
Evil. Herzliya Series on Personality and Social Psychology. Edited method to discourage dishonesty: signing at the beginning rather than at
by Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Washington, DC, US: American the end of a self-report. This simple intervention enhances anticipated
Psychological Association; 2012:149-166. ethical dissonance and prompts people to uphold their ethical stan-
Using real-life examples and elaborating on the underlying psychological dards.
mechanisms, the authors identify the main strategies people use to
reduce ethical dissonance. 48. Shalvi S, Eldar O, Bereby-Meyer Y: Honesty requires time (and
lack of justifications). Psychol Sci 2012, 23(10):1264-1270.
39. Pe’er E, Acquisti A, Shalvi S: ‘‘I cheated, but only a little’’ —
partial confessions to unethical behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 49. Ruffle BJ, Tobol Y: Honest on mondays: honesty and the
2014, 106:202-217. temporal separation between decisions and payoffs. Eur Econ
Rev 2014, 65:126-135.
40. Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D: Contagion and differentiation in
unethical behavior the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. 50. Gneezy U, Imas A, Madarász K: Conscience accounting:
Psychol Sci 2009, 20(3):393-398. emotion dynamics and social behavior. Manage Sci 2014,
60(11):2645-2658.
41. Monin B, Merritt A: Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and
the struggle for moral integrity. In The Social Psychology of 51. Zhong CB, Liljenquist K, Cain DM: Moral self-regulation:
Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil. Herzliya Series on licensing and compensation. In Psychological Perspectives on
Personality and Social Psychology. Edited by Mikulincer M, Shaver Ethical Behavior and Decision MakingDe Cremer DNew York:
PR. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; Information Age Publishing; 2009:75-89.
2011:167-184.
52. Welsh D, Ordóñez LD, Snyder D, Christian M: The slippery slope:
42. Rustichini A, Villeval MC: Moral hypocrisy, power and social  a self-regulatory examination of the cumulative effect of minor
preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 2014, 107:10-24. ethical transgressions. J Appl Psychol 2015. (in press).
43. Valdesolo P, DeSteno D: Moral hypocrisy: social groups and the Many recent corporate scandals have been described as resulting from a
flexibility of virtue. Psychol Sci 2007, 18:689-690. slippery slope in which a series of small infractions gradually increased
over time. This paper demonstrates the gradual changes that lead to
44. Aquino K, Reed IA: The self-importance of moral identity. J Pers unethicality, highlighting the role of depleted self-regulation and
Soc Psychol 2002, 83:1423-1440. increased moral disengagement.
45. Ayal S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ariely D: Three principles to REVISE 53. Kirchler E, Hoelzl E, Wahl I: Enforced versus voluntary tax
people’s unethical behavior. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015. (in compliance: the ‘‘slippery slope’’ framework. J Econ Psychol
press). 2008, 29(2):210-225.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6:157–161