Why you may not be as ethical as you think | Michael Hood | TEDxUniversityofMississippi

Summary

In this engaging talk, a former FBI agent explores the nuances of ethical decision-making. Through interactive tests and real-life examples, he challenges the audience to reassess their own ethical standings, highlighting the concept of 'psychological distance' that often rationalizes unethical behavior. The speaker delves into 'bounded ethicality' and 'ethical fading,' explaining how these cognitive biases can lead to morally questionable actions. He concludes with practical strategies to counteract these tendencies, emphasizing the importance of multiple perspectives and moral reminders to guide ethical conduct.

Takeaways

• 😌 The speaker begins by asking the audience to rate their own ethics on a scale of 1 to 10, with most identifying themselves as a 7 or above.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The speaker's background with the FBI involved investigating financial crimes, revealing that many criminals were ordinary people.
• 🤔 The speaker admits to being a 4 or 5 on the ethics scale, suggesting that most people may overestimate their own ethical standing.
• 📺 Sharing a Netflix password is presented as a common but ethically questionable behavior, with most people rating it as not very bad.
• 🍽️ In contrast, 'dine and dash' is seen as a severe unethical act, with most people rating it as very bad, illustrating a double standard.
• 🧠 'Psychological distance' is introduced as a concept explaining why some unethical behaviors seem more acceptable than others.
• 👀 The speaker suggests that viewing a company as a faceless entity can lead to rationalizing unethical behavior within it.
• 🚗 Speeding is used as an example of 'denial of injury,' where individuals don't see the harm in their actions despite the potential for causing accidents.
• 🏆 Nobel Prize-winning author Daniel Kahneman's concepts of 'System 1' and 'System 2' thinking are discussed to explain how people make decisions.
• 🚘 The Ford Pinto case study illustrates 'ethical fading,' where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making processes with dire consequences.
• 🤝 Encouraging multiple perspectives and being reminded of one's morality are strategies to counteract unethical tendencies and make better decisions.

Q & A

What is the initial ethical self-rating activity described in the script?

The initial activity involves participants rating their own ethical behavior on a scale of one to ten, with one being not ethical at all and ten being absolutely ethical.

Why does the speaker claim to rate himself a five or four on the ethical scale?

The speaker rates himself a five or four to illustrate that people often overestimate their own ethics and to challenge the audience to reconsider their self-assessment.

What is the significance of sharing a Netflix password with someone outside your family as discussed in the script?

Sharing a Netflix password is used as an example to highlight how people may rationalize unethical behavior as acceptable due to psychological distance, even though it's a form of theft.

How does the speaker contrast the act of sharing a Netflix password with dine and dash?

The speaker contrasts these acts to show the difference in how people perceive the severity of unethical behavior based on the perceived presence or absence of a victim.

What is psychological distance, as explained in the script?

Psychological distance is a mental construct that allows individuals to create a mental separation between their decisions and the consequences of those decisions, often leading to rationalizing unethical behavior.

Why do people find it easier to steal a wallet full of cash from a family in an amusement park versus finding money blowing in the wind?

People are more likely to return a lost wallet because they can imagine the direct impact on the family, whereas finding money with no immediate owner present creates psychological distance, making it easier to rationalize keeping it.

What concept does the speaker introduce to explain how people can engage in unethical behavior at work without feeling guilty?

The speaker introduces the concept of 'bounded ethicality,' which describes how psychological and social pressures can cause individuals to act unethically without their awareness.

What are the two systems of the brain described by Daniel Kahneman, and how do they relate to ethical decision-making?

Daniel Kahneman describes two systems of the brain: System 1, which is the reactionary and unconscious system that makes quick decisions, and System 2, which is the rational and conscious system used for thoughtful consideration. The speaker suggests that System 1 can lead to unethical decisions due to its fast, unconscious nature.

What is the Ford Pinto case mentioned in the script, and what ethical issue does it raise?

The Ford Pinto case refers to a car model that had a design flaw causing it to explode in rear-end collisions. Ford executives chose not to fix the flaw due to a cost-benefit analysis that prioritized financial considerations over ethical ones, leading to injuries and deaths.

How can generating multiple perspectives help in making ethical decisions?

Generating multiple perspectives can help individuals consider different viewpoints and potential consequences of their actions, which can lead to more ethical decision-making by reducing the impact of psychological distance and ethical fading.

What final question does the speaker pose to the audience regarding their self-rated ethics?

The final question posed by the speaker is a reassessment of the audience's self-rated ethics, encouraging them to reflect on their behavior and decisions after the insights provided during the session.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Ethical Self-Assessment and Psychological Distance

The speaker begins by engaging the audience in a self-assessment of their ethical standing on a scale of one to ten. The majority rate themselves as seven or above, indicating a generally positive self-perception. The speaker, a former FBI investigator of financial crimes, challenges this by suggesting that many ordinary people engage in unethical behavior without recognizing it. Using the example of sharing Netflix passwords versus dine and dash, the speaker illustrates how psychological distance can affect our ethical judgments. While sharing a password seems minor, dine and dash is seen as severe theft, despite both being forms of theft. The concept of psychological distance is introduced as a mental construct that allows us to justify actions by creating a perceived separation between our decisions and their consequences.

05:00

🚦 The Impact of Psychological Distance on Ethical Decisions

The speaker continues to explore the concept of psychological distance, using scenarios involving finding a lost wallet and encountering money blowing in the wind. The audience's reactions to these scenarios highlight how the presence or absence of a perceived victim can influence our ethical choices. The speaker then connects this to workplace ethics, questioning whether employees should selectively follow company rules. The idea of 'denial of injury' is introduced, where individuals justify unethical actions by convincing themselves that no harm is done. The speaker references Daniel Kahneman's work on 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' discussing the two systems of the brain: System 1, which is fast and intuitive, and System 2, which is slow and rational. The speaker suggests that most of our decisions are made unconsciously by System 1, leading to 'bounded ethicality,' where our ethical standards can be compromised by psychological and social pressures.

10:02

🚗 Ethical Fading and the Ford Pinto Case

The speaker delves into the concept of 'ethical fading,' where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making processes, using the Ford Pinto case as a prime example. The Ford Pinto had a design flaw that made it prone to exploding in rear-end collisions, a risk that Ford executives were aware of but chose to ignore due to cost considerations. The speaker criticizes the cost-benefit analysis that led to this decision, arguing that it omitted ethical implications. The speaker suggests that if the executives had considered the ethical dimensions, such as their own children driving the Pinto, they might have made a different choice. The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering multiple perspectives and ethical implications in decision-making to avoid unethical outcomes.

15:03

🌟 Strategies for Ethical Decision-Making

In the final paragraph, the speaker offers strategies to counteract ethical fading and make better ethical decisions. These include generating multiple perspectives, considering the opposite decision, and having a devil's advocate to challenge one's own views. The speaker also suggests that being reminded of one's moral identity can lead to more ethical behavior, as demonstrated by studies showing a decrease in unethical behavior when moral leaders' images were displayed. The speaker concludes by encouraging the audience to empower others to provide different perspectives and to remind themselves of their moral identity, thus promoting better decision-making and a better world. The speaker ends with a reflective question on the audience's self-assessed ethical standing, prompting them to reconsider their initial ratings in light of the discussion.

Keywords

💡Ethical

Ethical refers to the principles of right and wrong conduct, and is central to the video's theme of examining personal and corporate moral behavior. The speaker prompts the audience to rate their own ethical standing on a scale, which is a direct way of engaging with the concept of ethics. The video explores how people often perceive themselves as more ethical than they might objectively be, as indicated by the high self-ratings on the ethical scale.

💡Psychological Distance

Psychological distance is a concept that describes the mental separation people create between their actions and the consequences of those actions. In the video, this concept is used to explain why sharing a Netflix password is seen as less unethical than dine and dash, even though both involve stealing. The speaker illustrates how people can rationalize their unethical behavior by perceiving the victim (like a company) as less real or distant.

💡System One and System Two

These terms, introduced by Daniel Kahneman, refer to two different modes of thinking. System One is fast, intuitive, and automatic, while System Two is slow, deliberate, and logical. The video uses these concepts to explain how people often make ethical decisions unconsciously (System One), which can lead to ethical fading. Kahneman's theory is used to highlight how our quick, instinctive reactions can sometimes bypass ethical considerations.

💡Bounded Ethicality

Bounded ethicality is a term used to describe the tendency of people to act unethically without realizing it due to psychological pressures, social pressures, or normal cognitive processes. The video discusses how this concept explains why people might make decisions that are not in line with their ethical standards, such as exceeding the speed limit without considering the potential harm it could cause.

💡Ethical Fading

Ethical fading is the process by which ethical considerations are removed from a decision-making process. The video provides the example of a cost-benefit analysis, where the ethical implications of a decision might be overlooked in favor of financial considerations. This concept is used to critique the decision-making process that led to the production of the Ford Pinto, a car with a known design flaw.

💡Cost-Benefit Analysis

A cost-benefit analysis is a process where the pros and cons of a decision are weighed in terms of cost and benefit. The video criticizes this type of analysis for potentially leading to ethical fading, as it may not account for the ethical implications of a decision. The Ford Pinto case is used as an example where a cost-benefit analysis led to a decision that disregarded safety for cost savings.

💡Dine and Dash

Dine and dash is the act of eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying for the meal. In the video, this behavior is contrasted with sharing a Netflix password to illustrate how people perceive some forms of theft as more unethical than others. The audience is asked to rate the severity of this action, with most rating it very high on the unethical scale.

💡Multiple Perspectives

Generating multiple perspectives is a strategy for avoiding unethical decisions by considering different viewpoints or potential outcomes. The video suggests that considering the opposite of a proposed decision or imagining being on the receiving end of its consequences can help to maintain ethical standards. This approach is recommended as a way to counteract the tendency toward ethical fading.

💡Devil's Advocate

A Devil's Advocate is a person who argues against a proposal or decision, not necessarily because they disagree with it, but to ensure that all perspectives are considered. The video recounts how President Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as Devil's Advocate to generate alternative viewpoints and challenge decisions, thus promoting ethical decision-making.

💡Moral Reminders

Moral reminders are cues or prompts that remind individuals of their moral standards. The video discusses research showing that displaying images of moral leaders in the workplace can reduce unethical behavior by serving as moral reminders. This concept is used to suggest that being reminded of one's own morality can help maintain ethical behavior.

Highlights

The speaker begins by asking the audience to rate their own ethicality on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not ethical at all and 10 being absolutely ethical.

Most people rate themselves as a 7 or above, indicating a general positive self-assessment of ethical behavior.

The speaker, a former FBI agent, shares that many white-collar criminals were ordinary people, challenging the audience's self-assessment.

The speaker admits to being a 4 or 5 on the ethical scale, suggesting that ethicality is complex and not always straightforward.

The audience is asked to judge the ethicality of sharing a Netflix password, with most considering it a minor offense.

In contrast, the act of dining and dashing is seen as a severe ethical violation, highlighting a disparity in ethical judgments.

The concept of psychological distance is introduced to explain why some unethical behaviors are perceived as less severe.

The speaker discusses how people can commit unethical acts at work while maintaining a facade of normalcy.

The audience is challenged to consider the ethical implications of their actions in the workplace.

Daniel Kahneman's work on System 1 (reactive brain) and System 2 (thinking brain) is mentioned to explain decision-making processes.

The idea of bounded ethicality is presented, where everyday decisions are often made unconsciously and can lead to unethical outcomes.

Ethical fading is defined as the process where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making.

The Ford Pinto case study is used to illustrate the consequences of ethical fading and cost-benefit analyses that ignore ethical implications.

The speaker suggests generating multiple perspectives as a method to counteract ethical fading and make more ethical decisions.

The concept of having a Devil's Advocate within decision-making processes is proposed to encourage ethical consideration.

The presence of moral leaders' images in the workplace can serve as a reminder of ethical standards and reduce unethical behavior.

The speaker concludes by encouraging the audience to reflect on their ethicality and consider the impact of their decisions on others.

Transcripts

[Music]

thank you

all right how about we start this

session with a test

no no worries here this test is not

going to be hard but what I want you to

do is I want you to rate yourself

ethically on a scale of one to ten one

you are not ethical at all

10 you're absolutely ethical five you're

in the middle

so go ahead give yourself a number

how many of you gave yourself a number

higher than seven let's hear you clap if

you gave yourself a number higher than

seven that's it we got a lot of sevens

out there you know I've asked about 3

000 people this question

and 95 to 98 of them say I'm a seven or

above

but when I was with the FBI

I specialized in financial crime white

collar crime embezzlement

fraud

and what I found is that a lot of the

people who I investigated were ordinary

people just like you just like me your

neighbor your colleague your co-worker

and so now

I'm going to say something's probably

going to surprise you

looking at this scale right here

I am a five

in reality I'm probably a four

and I think by the end of this session

by the end of our time together I think

you're going to find out that you

are closer to a five than what you care

to admit

so are you ready for the next part of

the test

let's do it right

so in this one I'm going to give you a

behavior and what I want you to do with

these behaviors right here is Judge them

on how bad they are one not bad at all

who cares 10 whoa that is bad hold on

now five in the middle

so here comes your first Behavior

how bad is it to share your Netflix

password with someone outside your

family

oh I hear the laughing I see the faces

right now remember FBI taught me

non-verbal there may be a few guilty

people out there right

when I ask this question to people I

usually get a run of answers between one

and ten but predominantly

I get people that say it's a one it's a

two three at most

and then they give me the excuses

they're like everybody does it so who

cares

and then it's like I paid for my Netflix

subscription it says I can do whatever I

want with it because I paid for it

and then finally

I usually get

it's Netflix they're not even real

who cares

so keep that in mind because I'm going

to ask you a second question I want you

to use the same scale that we're using

right now

how bad is it to go into a local

restaurant order food eat it and leave

without pay

even though you have the means to pay

the food was fine the service was fine

it's a classic dine and dash what number

would you give that how many Clapper

allowed if you're going to give it above

an eight

there we go so you're telling me that's

really really bad isn't it

why if we look at both those behaviors

together

aren't they both stealing

but yet one is accepted you'll say one

oh Netflix one two or three but a dine

and dash oh that that's a ten that's

that's bad you don't do that

and so as I started working my cases in

the FBI one of the things that just

fascinated me was how did people do this

how could they come into work and just

say hey how you doing

and in the meantime they're stealing the

company blind

and I became fascinated I wanted to know

how and so I started looking into these

things and what you just experienced

is something called psychological

distance

and it's a mental construct it's our

ability in our brains to create a

distance between our decisions

and the consequences of those decisions

and so when you think of Netflix like

that's not even a real person

but when you see that waiter that

waitress all of a sudden that becomes

very real

so now I want you to imagine this for me

imagine that you are in an amusement

park

and you see a family up ahead of you

about 50 feet ahead of you

husband wife whoever it is they got

their wallet out they get something out

of their wallet they put it in their

pocket their purse their backpack

whatever they have and as they place it

back there

it falls on the ground

you yell at them

but they don't hear you

so you finally get up to that spot where

the wallet fell you bend down you pick

it up

and as you pick it up you see it is

loaded with cash hundred dollar bills

how many of you are going to return that

wallet with all the cash intact

all of you

right

all of you I have no doubt

but let's contrast that with this

you're going to the amusement park with

your family but you hate crowds so you

go an hour late because you don't want

to deal with the rush of people coming

in

and so you have to park a little bit

farther back and it's a windy day but as

you come up to them you come through the

cars you look in between two cars and

you see something moving something

blowing in the wind

and it catches your eye because it's

green

and you bend down

you pick it up it's three fresh 100

bills

you look around

nobody's there

how many of you are going to be like me

and in the investigation right there and

puts that money right in my pocket

right

that's what we're talking about with

psychological distance

we create this mental distance in our

head that makes it seem there is no

victim

when you think of Netflix

that they don't matter they're not real

so what you're doing is you're denying a

victim

what I want you to do right now

think about the organization you work

for

think about the organization you want to

work for

what is the first image that pops in

your head

because if it's a logo a slogan a

product

then you may have already created the

psychological distance you need

to rationalize your behavior

whereas if you thought of a colleague

you thought of a client you thought of a

person

that makes a little bit different that's

like the waiter or the waitress when

they're right in front of you

so now if you're ready

I've got one more behavior for you

how bad is it to exceed the posted speed

limit

how many of you going to say negative

numbers on this one right

right but since again if we go back to

the workplace our workplace is full of

rules policies and procedures

are we allowed to choose which ones we

want to follow and which ones we don't

and what this is called is denial of

injury

yeah I'm breaking the speed limit but

I'm not hurting anybody

but aren't speed limits put in place to

protect people from accidents and even

death

and so I started thinking like how do

these people how do they go home at

night and not feel bad

what goes on in their brains

that make them say it's okay that I'm

doing this

and so I ran across an author by the

name of Daniel Kahneman

he wrote a book called Thinking Fast and

Slow actually won a Nobel prize in

economics for the book and he describes

the brain in two different ways

the first one is he calls it system one

okay and so imagine this imagine you're

on a country road it's late at night

Sun's going down but you still have

light you're going about 30 40 miles an

hour you come around the corner and you

see a deer in the middle of the road

what are you going to do

are you going to honk are you going to

stop you're going to break

you're going to Swerve

or if you're like me I'm gonna speed up

and hit it then I'm going to take it

home and eat it

right

so in that moment

did you just react to the stimulus in

front of you

Kahneman calls that system one your

reactionary brain

then he has this thing called system two

and how many of you have ever had the

wonderful experience of buying a car

and negotiating with that salesperson

back and forth and you consider does

this fit in my budget is this a fair

price

and you use that brain you have to think

Kahneman calls that system two that is

your rational thinking brain and so now

what I want you to consider

which do you spend more time in each and

every day

system one your reactionary brain or

system two your thinking brain

and let's do another test

I'm going to ask you a simple question

Kahneman and other researchers have used

this question to kind of illustrate the

difference between system one and system

two so as you know the answer and most

of you will know the answer go ahead and

say it out loud

okay here we go

how many of each animal did Moses take

on the ark

zero I hear some zeros there I hear some

twos whoever said zero

is correct

because Moses

didn't take anybody on the ark it was no

uh

system one makes 95 of your decisions

every single day

and it does it

on an unconscious level where you're not

even aware it's happening those of you

chose two what happened system one shot

that answer to the front of your brain

and before you even thought about it you

said two

that's the power

of system one and it leads to something

called bounded ethicality

it's described as the

psychological pressures

the social pressures and the normal

processes of your brain

that cause us to act in certain ways

that sometimes are unethical without our

knowledge

two professors Dr Max bazem and Dr Anne

Tim Brunson have done a lot of work on

this and what they found is that bounded

ethicality

when we have an interest in an outcome

it causes us sometimes to deviate from

our ethical baselines in other words

it causes us to do things that we

ordinarily wouldn't do

Dr Tim buncele also worked with an

individual named Dr David Messick and

they came up with a concept called

ethical fading

and you see the definition right there

ethical fading

is when you system one specifically

makes a decision

and somehow your brain has taken the

ethical Dimensions out of the decision

completely

and what we may be doing today

in the business schools at this

University at universities all around

the United States all around the world

we may be inadvertently teaching our

students how

to make decisions with ethical fading

taking the ethical Dimensions right out

of it

and it's called a cost benefit analysis

yep a cost benefit analysis I'm an

accountant and I know there's value in a

cost benefit analysis but as you look at

the calculation you look at the cost you

look at the benefit you make your

decision

you don't always take the ethical

implications of the decision

and so I take you to this case that has

been researched over and over again it

involves a car called the Ford Pinto

and for those of you younger than me the

Ford Pinto with this strange looking car

that if you hit it from behind at 30

miles per hour or more

it exploded

and the people inside would suffer

severe burns or even death

here's the thing

Ford Executives knew prior to creating

the first Pinto that there was a design

flaw and that this was going to happen

and they okayed the production of the

pinto anyway

and so as they looked into it they said

how did this happen

they came down to that cost benefit

analysis and they figured out that to

fix the design flaw in the Ford Pinto it

would cost are you ready

eleven dollars per car

eleven dollars now move that to today's

dollars it's a little bit more but not

too much

but when they did the cost benefit

calculation

the cost to fix the pinto was way more

than the anticipated lawsuits the

anticipated brand damage

and so what did they choose

they choose to manufacture the pinto and

people died and suffered because of it

but if you look at the basis of the

decision that cost benefit analysis

there was no ethical implications but

if I could have asked the Ford

Executives one question

one question that would have brought the

ethical Dimensions right back in front

of their face

I would have asked them he says imagine

that your 16 year old son or daughter

comes up to you and says Mom Dad I'd

like to get a pinto for my 16th birthday

if you were the Ford Executives who have

this information

what would you have said to your kid

that ain't happening

but you see right there how the ethical

Dimensions all of a sudden can come into

play if we think about them so how what

can we do as people to make sure that we

don't go down that unethical path we

don't succumb to ethical fading and one

of those ways is to generate multiple

perspectives

how many of you have ever made a

decision or you're talking to somebody

and you made a comment says wow you know

what I hadn't thought about that

one of the things that you can do as a

person is when you come to a decision

ask yourself what would happen

if I made the exact opposite decision

or what would happen if the decision I'm

about to make would affect me how would

I feel if I had to suffer the

consequences because that would change

your perspective

another method that you can do to create

these multiple perspectives is have

somebody a colleague a friend someone

you trust be your Devil's Advocate

President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs

invasion a massive failure realized that

they had not generated enough

perspectives and so they made a bad

decision

he went to his brother Robert the

Attorney General of the United States

and he gave him this instruction he said

Robert your job from this point forward

is to find out how I'm going to decide

on any topic

and then argue the exact opposite

even if you don't agree with it

and what he was doing he's trying to

generate perspectives that he hadn't

thought of looking at the problem from

multiple formats trying to see different

ways to handle it

and if you do that research shows that

you're more likely to make ethical

decisions

two other professors Dr Miriam kuchaki

Dr Street Hari Desai did some

interesting work in organizations

and what they did is imagine your

workplace

they put up pictures of morally moral

leaders

people that as you look at their picture

you just you accept them as moral

leaders people like Gandhi people like

Mandela and they study the ethical

profiles of the organization after they

put up these pictures and guess what

happened

unethical Behavior dropped

because you see when we're reminded of

our morality

we act more ethically

so if you can find a way to remind

yourself that you are a moral person

you may stay true to your ethical

baselines

and isn't that what you want

I spent 25 years of my life as an FBI

special agent putting people in jail

I want to spend the next 25.

trying to keep people out

and so if you Empower people around you

to give you the opinion that you may not

want to hear

you empower the people around you to

generate these different perspectives

and you remind yourself that you are a

moral person

then maybe we can overcome psychological

distance

and ethical fading

and maybe we can make better decisions

and if we make better decisions

can we make this a better world

now I've got one last question for you

before we go

how ethical are you again

thank you everybody

[Applause]

[Music]