Gradual escalation: The role of continuous commitments in perceptions of guilt

Hartson, Kimberly A.; Sherman, David K.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.005

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of our behavioral studies also favored an anticipatory regret mechanism over alternative mechanisms based on moral self-licensing (Effron & Conway, in press; Merritt et al, 2010; Miller & Effron, 2010), ego-depletion (Mead et al, 2009), or a slippery slope (Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Hartson & Sherman, 2012; Welsh et al, 2015). Each of these alternative mechanisms predicts that the more opportunities people have had to resist cheating in the past, the less likely they will be to resist cheating in the future.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Research also suggests that people are more likely to approve of behavior that crosses an ethical line gradually rather than abruptly (Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Hartson & Sherman, 2012; Welsh, Ordóñez, Snyder, & Christian, 2015). This slippery slope account suggests that people will cheat more at the end because their moral standards have gradually eroded.…”

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, ego-depletion(Mead et al, 2009), or a slippery slope(Gino & Bazerman, 2009;Hartson & Sherman, 2012;Welsh et al, 2015). Each of these alternative mechanisms predicts that the more opportunities people have had to resist cheating in the past, the less likely they will be to resist cheating in the future.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cheating at the end to avoid regret.

Effron¹,

Bryan²,

Murnighan³

2015

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people behave when they face a finite series of opportunities to cheat with little or no risk of detection? In 4 experiments and a small meta-analysis, we analyzed over 25,000 cheating opportunities faced by over 2,500 people. The results suggested that the odds of cheating are almost 3 times higher at the end of a series than earlier. Participants could cheat in 1 of 2 ways: They could lie about the outcome of a private coin flip to get a payoff that they would otherwise not receive (Studies 1-3) or they could overbill for their work (Study 4). We manipulated the number of cheating opportunities they expected but held the actual number of opportunities constant. The data showed that the likelihood of cheating and the extent of dishonesty were both greater when people believed that they were facing a last choice. Mediation analyses suggested that anticipatory regret about passing up a chance to enrich oneself drove this cheat-at-the-end effect. We found no support for alternative explanations based on the possibility that multiple cheating opportunities depleted people's self-control, eroded their moral standards, or made them feel that they had earned the right to cheat. The data also suggested that the cheat-at-the-end effect may be limited to relatively short series of cheating opportunities (i.e., n < 20). Our discussion addresses the psychological and behavioral dynamics of repeated ethical choices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cheating at the end to avoid regret.

Effron¹,

Bryan²,

Murnighan³

2015

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like with any form of extremism, racial radicalization does not happen overnight and is often the result of a gradually escalating process (Gilbert, 1981; Gino & Bazerman, 2009; Hartson & Sherman, 2012). Research on the psychological and situational factors that lead a person to embrace White nationalist ideologies suggests that these people have some common characteristics of those radicalized in other contexts (e.g., violent Islamic or political extremism).…”

Section: Part Iv: Recruitment and Radicalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of White Nationalism: Ambivalence Towards a Changing America

Reyna

Bellovary

Harris

2022

Social Issues Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise in White nationalist ideology in America is one of the pressing issues of our times. In this article, we make the case that White nationalists both extol the talents and virtues of White Americans and idolize and romanticize a former White‐dominated America, while simultaneously condemning and demonizing the current state of America for Whites. This fundamentally ambivalent ideology contributes to dangerous downstream consequences such as fomenting violence against groups that threaten Whites’ status and resources and even calling for outright civil war. This article also examines the psychological impact of rapid demographic and cultural changes on groups in positions of power, and how these changes make some Whites, especially those who might already be suffering from instability, disenfranchisement, and loss, gravitate to groups who validate their fears and transform them into aggrieved entitlement and moral outrage. Finally, this article proposes policies that decision‐makers and other leaders can take to undo the foundational ideologies that White supremacy is built upon and to help curtail its spread.

show abstract

“…Gino and Bazerman () have shown that people are more likely to accept others’ unethical behavior when the ethical lapses occur slowly over time rather than in one abrupt shift. Hartson and Sherman () have conducted empirical research showing that “gradual escalation of behavior can alter how individuals perceive the problematic behavior of others, reducing the severity of moral judgments and leading individuals to hold others less accountable for their actions” (p. 1287). Studies by Martens et al () using a novel bug‐killing paradigm have also obtained strong evidence for an escalation of harming effect.…”

Section: Contemporary Generalizations Focusing On Specific Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Explanatory Value of Milgram's Obedience Experiments: A Contemporary Appraisal

Miller

2014

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A contemporary appraisal of the explanatory value of the obedience experiments is presented, focusing upon a sample of recent generalizations linked to Milgram's theoretical interpretation. Processes emphasized include justification, the agentic shift, dehumanization, and resistance. These constructs have helped explain diverse phenomena in business ethics and corporate corruption, harmful obedience in legal practice, and whistleblowing, in addition to genocide. The major legacy continues to be the situational thesis that serious harm may be perpetrated upon protesting victims by ordinary, good people under the influence of authority. However, this thesis is still limiting and problematic in the view of many scholars, particularly with respect to the Holocaust. Unanswered questions are discussed. Individual differences in obedience (or disobedience) were noteworthy in Milgram's research, and convincing explanations for these differences remain unaddressed. An empirically validated theory, accounting for Milgram's entire set of observations, is needed, which would facilitate generalizations to relevant contexts.

show abstract

Gradual escalation: The role of continuous commitments in perceptions of guilt

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Cheating at the end to avoid regret.

Cheating at the end to avoid regret.

The Psychology of White Nationalism: Ambivalence Towards a Changing America

The Explanatory Value of Milgram's Obedience Experiments: A Contemporary Appraisal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About