tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/unethical-acts-28127/articlesUnethical acts – The Conversation2022-03-28T15:13:44Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1788212022-03-28T15:13:44Z2022-03-28T15:13:44ZSouth Africans have low trust in their police. Here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/454096/original/file-20220324-25-lrsaeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A culture of better service and use of minimal force are key to improving public confidence in the South African Police Service. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GCIS/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The legitimacy of legal authorities is recognised globally as crucial for the state’s ability to function in a justifiable and effective manner. This applies, in particular, to the police. Recently, South Africa’s Defence Minister Thandi Modise lamented the <a href="https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/sas-safety-and-security-machinery-will-be-restored-security-cluster/">low level of public trust</a> in law enforcement agencies in the country.</p>
<p>In particular, the minister, who also heads the country’s <a href="https://www.gov.za/about-government/justice-crime-prevention-and-security-cluster">Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster</a>, drew attention to a persisting legitimacy problem in the relationship between the police and the public.</p>
<p>To provide further context to the extent and nature of this challenge, we examine representative survey data on trends in police confidence since the late 1990s. The data shows that public trust in the police has been low throughout most of the democratic period. Between 2020 and 2021, however, there was significant drop in the level of trust ordinary people had in the police. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/media-briefs/dces/changing-patterns-of-trust-in-sa-police">Our research</a> outlines some of the drivers of general attitudes towards the law enforcement. We hope that this work will be used to design interventions to restore the public’s faith in the police. </p>
<h2>Tracking confidence in the police</h2>
<p>Views on crime and policing in the country have been a thematic priority in the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/departments/sasas">South African Social Attitudes Survey series</a> since its inception in 2003. This series is conducted annually by the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en">Human Sciences Research Council</a> using face-to-face interviews, and has been designed to be nationally representative of the adult population aged 16 years and above. Each year, between 2500 and 3200 people are interviewed countrywide. The data are weighted using <a href="http://www.statssa.gov.za/">Statistics South Africa</a>’s most recent mid-year population estimates.</p>
<p>The survey series builds on earlier representative public opinion surveying at the council known as Evaluation of Public Opinion Programme series. On certain topics (such as policing) this allows us to extend the period of analysis back to before the early 2000s.</p>
<p>The pattern of public confidence in the police over the 1998 to 2021 period is presented in Figure 1. Trust levels have remained relatively low over this period. Not once during this 23-year interval did more than half the adult public say that they trusted the police. It would seem that the issue of low trust in the police is not new. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1: Confidence in the police, 1998-2021 (% trust/ strongly trust)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HSRC EPOP 1998-2001; HSRC SASAS 2003-2021</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Between 1998 to 2010, the average level of trust in the police was relatively static. It ranged between 39% and 42% in all but a few years. This was followed by a sharp decline between 2011 and 2013, following the <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2021/08/16/the-marikana-massacre-s-effect-on-the-law-and-sa-s-union-landscape">killing by police of 34 striking miners at Marikana</a>, North West Province, in August 2012. But confidence had almost returned to the 2011 level by 2015. </p>
<p>The 2016 to 2020 period was characterised by modest fluctuation between 31% and 35%. The <a href="https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/president-ramaphosa-announces-nationwide-lockdown">hard COVID-19 lockdown</a> imposed by the state <a href="https://www.gov.za/covid-19/about/about-alert-system">in 2020</a> saw <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/pandemic-policing-south-africas-most-vulnerable-face-a-sharp-increase-in-police-related-brutality/">instances</a> of police brutality. However, we did not observe a decline in public confidence in the police during the the 2020 period.</p>
<p>In 2021 public trust in the police dipped to a low 27%. This appears to be linked to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lies-behind-social-unrest-in-south-africa-and-what-might-be-done-about-it-166130">July 2021 social unrest</a>. Many have <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2022/02/21/in-quotes-cele-explains-how-saps-fell-short-in-responding-to-july-unrest">criticised</a> the police for poor performance of during the unrest. </p>
<p>Substantial provincial variation in trust in the police underlies this national trend (Table 1). Looking at the 2011-2021 period, we find that adults in the Western Cape, Limpopo and Gauteng provinces have consistently reported lower levels of trust in the police than the national average. The country has nine provinces.</p>
<p>The distinct decline in trust observed between 2020 and 2021 was unevenly reflected across provinces. The largest decline was in the Western Cape. It fell more than 20 percentage points, greatly exceeding the national decline of 7 percentage points. This may reflect a failure to rein in <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/we-need-each-other-pleads-western-cape-police-boss-at-emotional-community-meeting-on-crime-20220315">gangsterism</a> in that province. More moderate (but still sizeable) declines were identified in Limpopo, Northern Cape, and Gauteng.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Table 1: Provincial trends in police confidence, 2011-2021 (% trust / strongly trust)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HSRC SASAS 2011-2021</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Factors affecting confidence in the police</h2>
<p>Based on the survey evidence, various factors influence public trust in, and legitimacy of, the police in South Africa. These are briefly summarised below. </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Experiences of crime:</strong> Those who had been recent victims of crime displayed significantly lower levels of trust in the police. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Fear of crime:</strong> Higher levels of fear are associated with lower trust in the police. This applies to classic measures such as fear of walking alone in one’s area after dark, as well as worrying about home robbery or violent assault. These associations have been found across multiple rounds of surveying. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Experiences of policing:</strong> Negative experiences with police have a bearing on how the public judge police. Those reporting unsatisfactory personal contact with police officers expressed lower trust levels than those reporting satisfactory contact. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Well publicised instances of police abuse or failure</strong>: These can also reduce public confidence in police. Apart from the the <a href="https://theconversation.com/marikana-shining-the-light-on-police-militarisation-and-brutality-in-south-africa-44162">2012 Marikana massacre</a>, another prominent example is the perceived ineffectiveness of the police in responding to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lies-behind-social-unrest-in-south-africa-and-what-might-be-done-about-it-166130">July 2021 social unrest</a>. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Perceptions of police corruption:</strong> These have a strong, negative effect on confidence in police. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Perceived fairness and effectiveness:</strong> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rego.12012">Past in-depth research</a> has shown that the South African public strongly emphasises both fairness and effectiveness as important elements in their overall assessments of confidence in police. The more the police are seen to be acting unfairly on the basis of race, class or other attributes, the more people are likely to view them as untrustworthy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Similarly, perceptions that the police treat people disrespectfully, lack impartiality in their decision making, or transparency in their actions, can also undermine public confidence. If the police are seen as ineffective in preventing, reducing and responding to crime, this will also diminish confidence. </p>
<p>Another factor influencing how the public view the police is the broader evaluation of the government’s democratic performance and trustworthiness. Importantly, public confidence in democratic institutions has shown a strong downward trend over the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/research-data/view/7843">past 15 years</a>. This has had a bearing on confidence in the police.</p>
<h2>Polishing the tarnished badge</h2>
<p>Low and diminishing confidence in the police, if left unchecked, will continue to undermine police legitimacy in South Africa. Recent recommendations put forward by the <a href="https://issafrica.org/">Institute of Security Studies</a> could improve public attitudes towards the police. </p>
<p>They include dispensing with an excessively hierarchical police culture, promoting <a href="https://issafrica.org/iss-today/sa-police-failures-demand-urgent-reform-before-its-too-late">competent and ethical police leadership</a>, as well as strengthening other parts of the overall system of police governance. </p>
<p>Key also is the implementation of a <a href="https://issafrica.org/iss-today/south-africas-police-a-rigid-bureaucracy-struggling-to-reform">non-militaristic policing ethos</a>. This should be framed around a service culture and use of minimal force. It also requires police to put more measures in place to monitor and control the use of force, and promote a <a href="https://issafrica.org/research/southern-africa-report/how-to-reduce-police-brutality-in-south-africa">culture of police accountability</a>.</p>
<p>These ideas warrant serious attention. They matter fundamentally for preventing further instances of <a href="https://mg.co.za/politics/2021-04-25-when-violence-is-policy-how-do-we-curb-police-brutality/">police misuse of force</a>, <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-22-the-collateral-damage-of-south-africas-police-leadership-feud-sees-civilians-vulnerable-while-crime-spirals/">corruption</a> among senior officials, and <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/560270/the-crimes-that-are-getting-worse-in-south-africa/">police ineffectiveness</a> in handling crime. This is crucial for stemming and reversing the eroding confidence in the badge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Roberts receives funding from various government and non-government institutions for commissioned research as part of the HSRC South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) series. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Gordon is employed at the Human Sciences Research Council. He is affiliated with the University of Johannesburg. </span></em></p>Perceptions that South African police treat people disrespectfully, lack impartiality or transparency, and are prone to brutality
undermine public confidence in them.Benjamin Roberts, Acting Strategic Lead: Developmental, Capable and Ethical State (DCES) research division, and Coordinator of the South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), Human Sciences Research CouncilSteven Gordon, Senior Research Specialist., Human Sciences Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1552572021-02-22T13:17:14Z2021-02-22T13:17:14ZPublic trust in the media is at a new low: a radical rethink of journalism is needed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384988/original/file-20210218-14-fsnk9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C0%2C5307%2C3234&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Kim Ludbrook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent <a href="https://sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SANEF-ethics-report-OK.pdf">report</a> by an independent panel on the ethics and credibility of South Africa’s news media makes for worrying reading. The panel, headed by retired judge <a href="https://www.ru.ac.za/communicationsandadvancement/alumnirelations/theorunion/distinguishedalumniawards/2019recipients/kathysatchwell.html">Kathy Satchwell</a>, was commissioned by the South African National Editors’ Forum following a <a href="https://theconversation.com/journalism-makes-blunders-but-still-feeds-democracy-an-insiders-view-146364">series of ethical lapses</a> by the <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/">Sunday Times</a>. The paper dominated the country’s media landscape for <a href="https://www.newsbank.com/libraries/colleges-universities/solutions/resources-location/sunday-times-archive-1906-today">over 100 years</a>. As the largest by circulation it was also considered the most powerful newspaper.</p>
<p>The lapses included factual inaccuracies in reports on allegations of <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/sunday-times-taco-kuiper-runnerup-award-revoked--a">police killings</a> as well as reports on <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30597414">alleged illegal deportations of Zimbabweans</a>. Another major story was about an alleged <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/lifestyle/2014-12-06-sars-suspends-rogue-unit-men-after-expos/">‘rogue unit’</a> within the South African Revenue Service. </p>
<p>The panel <a href="https://sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SANEF-ethics-report-OK.pdf">found</a> that the newspaper had ‘failed in the most basic tenets of journalistic practice’.</p>
<p>These failures included not giving any – or adequate –opportunity to affected parties to respond to the stories pre-publication. Others included failing to seek credible and sourced validation of the allegations made against individuals.</p>
<p>The panel concluded that the failures had caused great emotional and financial harm to the people concerned, their families and their careers.</p>
<p>The newspaper has since <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2018-10-13-we-got-it-wrong-and-for-that-we-apologise/">apologised</a> for the reports, and retracted them. </p>
<p>Having ethical lapses on such a major scale can only further erode the public’s trust in the media. More recently, investigative journalist Jacques Pauw’s admission that allegations he had previously made in a <em>Daily Maverick</em> <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-02-17-editors-note-on-retracted-jacques-pauw-column-about-his-arrest-at-the-va-waterfront-and-an-apology-to-our-readers/">column</a> were based on distorted facts led to a widespread outcry. It was <a href="https://mediamonitoringafrica.org/2021/02/17/media-release-jacques-pauw-didnt-merely-ruin-his-reputation-he-dealt-another-blow-to-media-credibility/">pointed out</a> that Pauw not only undermined his own credibility, but also further eroded trust in journalism. </p>
<p>It is clear that South African journalism has much work to do to rebuild this lost trust. Not only for their own sake, but in view of the growing crisis of disinformation. The panel’s report refers to the <a href="https://disinformationindex.org/">Global Disinformation Index</a> which suggests that 41% of South Africans distrust the media. And a worrying 70% have problems distinguishing news from “fake” news. </p>
<p>So, how should this rebuilding of trust be done? Clearly not by merely superficially papering over ethical cracks, nor overhauling the well-functioning <a href="https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/com/article/view/3726">media regulatory system</a>. While apologies for and corrections of mistakes are important to show public accountability, journalists should also recommit to the principles underlying these processes. </p>
<p>The country’s <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE">press code</a> highlights the public interest as the central guideline. This entails, aside from striving for truth, avoiding harm and acting independently, the reflection of a multiplicity of voices in the coverage of events, showing a special concern for children and other vulnerable groups, and being sensitive to the cultural customs of readers and the subjects of reportage.</p>
<p>This emphasis on diversity of voices and awareness of social context should be the starting point for any attempt to regain the public’s trust. As the code states at the outset: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE">The media exist to serve society</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One way of doing this is to adopt an <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/how-a-culture-of-listening-strengthens-reporting-and-relationships/">“ethics of listening”</a>. I explore this in my new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-ethics-of-engagement-9780190917333?cc=us&lang=en&#">The Ethics of Engagement</a>.</p>
<p>The central theme of my argument is that journalists must reach beyond their usual audiences to include those that normally appear only on the margins of media coverage. And they must review how those voices are reported, and how they appear in the media. </p>
<p>This approach will result in a more genuine dialogue and an approach that’s more participatory. This could, in turn, contribute to a thorough reassessment of the media’s relationship with the public in a way that could rebuild trust.</p>
<h2>Public journalism</h2>
<p>There are some examples of how this could be done. For instance Heather Robertson, former editor of <em>The Herald</em> newspaper in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province, conducted a series of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37070536/When_an_editor_listens_to_a_city">listening exercises</a> attended by community members, opinion leaders and journalists. Some interesting case studies can also be found in Australia, where community media journalists, media scholars and activists teamed up to design a <a href="https://tanjadreher.net/current-research/">“listening programme”</a>. </p>
<p>To some extent these projects are similar to the much older tradition of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02500167.2020.1862966">“public journalism”</a>. It provides that the media should address citizens not merely as spectators or victims, but empower them to solve their problems. One way this was done was to host public discussions and facilitate meetings to support deliberative democracy. More recently, the potential for<a href="https://digitalpublicsquare.org/"> digital media platforms</a> to connect journalists to audiences has also been explored. </p>
<p>Applying this approach in South Africa would have major benefits. The country is socially polarised and highly unequal. Making the extra effort to actively listen to voices outside the journalists’ normal target audiences, especially marginal voices, would transform the narratives being shared. </p>
<p>This would help journalists gain wider social legitimacy among those who may feel the media is disconnected from their everyday lives. </p>
<p>But ethical listening doesn’t merely accommodate voices from marginalised communities, only to treat them as victims or as objects of pity.</p>
<p>Instead, it requires a fundamental revision of the relationship between journalists and their various audiences, one in which power relations are radically revised or overturned. A more reciprocal relationship with their divergent audiences would require journalists to let go of their desire to control the narrative, or tendency to listen only to obtain answers to questions already formulated. </p>
<p>Of course this does not mean that journalists no longer have any say over their reporting. Nor that they don’t have to take any ethical responsibility for the questions they ask. The difference in this kind of listening is that it creates a true dialogue, in the sense that the responses are allowed to alter, shift and speak back to the original agenda rather than made to fit into it.</p>
<p>Listening can, therefore, be seen as fundamental to democratic politics because it constitutes a public sphere premised on participation, tolerance and inclusion. </p>
<h2>What next</h2>
<p>The panel’s report identified much larger, systemic problems in the wider South African media landscape. These include revenue challenges to media outlets, shrinking resources for training and for the effective exercise of editorial checks and balances. It also listed the pressure, fuelled by social media, to break stories ever faster amid competing misinformation and disinformation narratives as well as societal pressures.</p>
<p>Linked to the rebuilding of trust should be a strong commitment to support community media and the public broadcaster to add to the diversity of voices.</p>
<p>There can be little doubt that ethical lapses have added significant dents to the public’s trust in the media. </p>
<p>An appropriate response to the ethical problems plaguing the South African media requires thinking about the question of ethics as a more radical project – one which requires a reaffirmation of journalism’s central values, a recommitment to media diversity, and exploration of new practices that can reconnect journalists to citizens. </p>
<p>These are the tasks that journalists need to take seriously if they are to restore relationships of trust with the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155257/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Herman Wasserman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To rebuild lost trust in the media will require more commitment and effort than just papering over ethical cracks.Herman Wasserman, Professor of Media Studies in the Centre for Film and Media Studies, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/921972018-02-23T12:16:49Z2018-02-23T12:16:49ZWhat Oxfam can learn from charities that survived scandals<p>The <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-oxfam-staff-paid-haiti-quake-survivors-for-sex-mhm6mpmgw">Oxfam scandal</a> has brought to the fore the relationship between the public and charitable organisations. Accusations that Oxfam covered up claims that senior members of its staff in Haiti used prostitutes has brought the reputation of the organisation into question.</p>
<p>The unethical behaviour of its staff is a short-term issue for Oxfam to deal with, but its long-term impact could have a profound effect on the charity’s work. Oxfam is not the first high-profile charity to be caught up in a scandal. But past examples show that some fared better than others when it came to surviving the media and public backlash that followed.</p>
<p>Prominent Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Oxfam have come to occupy an important position in the modern political landscape. This is due in part to the expertise that these organisations obtain on specific matters such as humanitarian aid, the environment and human rights. This expertise can be used by politicians to inform government policy and by journalists to set the media agenda around these issues.</p>
<p>Alongside this, throughout the 20th century, people have come to increasingly <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-politics-of-expertise-9780199691876?cc=gb&lang=en&">trust the work of NGOs more than political figures</a>. This demonstrates a shift, with experts now occupying an important part of modern political life. The trust and respect for the work of NGOs is visible in the financial donations given by members of the public wishing to support the ideals of organisations such as Oxfam.</p>
<p>What happens when this trust is challenged by scandal? Are the consequences an end to these donations, as reports suggest that more than <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-7000-brits-stop-oxfam-12059318">7,000 people in Britain have done</a>, or are there more deep seated effects? Are the NGOs themselves ruined by the events, or are there mechanisms by which they can defend their work?</p>
<h2>Amnesty</h2>
<p>Amnesty International occupies a central position in how human rights are understood in the modern world. Its campaigns regularly attract significant media attention and it has been rightly heralded as making a genuine change to peoples’ lives <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1961/may/28/fromthearchive.theguardian">since its foundation in 1961</a>. Yet the history of the organisation is not without scandal. Amnesty’s founder Peter Benenson was unceremoniously removed from a senior post in the organisation in 1967 following allegations that the NGO <a href="https://academic.oup.com/tcbh/article-abstract/15/3/267/1702572?redirectedFrom=fulltext">had been infiltrated</a> by British intelligence agents and had distributed secret funds.</p>
<p>This was particularly damaging at the height of the Cold War, where accusations of secret government funding <a href="http://grantabooks.com/Who-Paid-The-Piper">brought other organisations to their knees</a>. Similar scandals occurred in the late 2000s when Amnesty was found to have paid substantial pay-offs to senior members of the organisation, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html">drawing the ire of the press</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this, Amnesty continues to flourish. This is in part due to the philosophy that binds the organisation together – protecting victims of human rights violations. This powerful ethos, <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100173990">which has been likened to a secular religion</a>, has allowed Amnesty to deflect these controversial events and maintain its efforts unhindered.</p>
<h2>Greenpeace</h2>
<p>Similar controversies have affected environmental NGOs. Greenpeace has been involved in several scandals throughout its history. This is in part due to its tactic to attract media attention <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/McLuhan_s_Children_The_Greenpeace_Messag.html?id=TALZBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y">through its campaigning efforts</a>. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/23/greenpeace-losses-financial-disarray">Scandals of financial mismanagement</a>, the short-haul aeroplane commutes of some of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-greenpeace-executives-commute-is-a-flight-of-fantasy-28368">its leading figures</a> and the adoption of morally dubious policies to identify climate change sceptics <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-it-matter-that-greenpeace-journalists-lied-in-order-to-expose-academics-for-hire-52192">in the pay of energy companies</a> have all impacted its public image. Yet Greenpeace still maintains public support, again arguably due to the strong ideals binding the group together.</p>
<p>So what next for Oxfam? The increased size and scale of NGOs in the modern world means that scandals are increasingly inevitable. How these organisations respond to them will rely on drawing upon the philosophy that binds them together. Oxfam is not its CEO Mark Goldring, its international executive director Winnie Byanyima or Roland van Hauwermeiren – the former Oxfam official who is at the centre of the current controversies. It is a broader idea about making the world a better place. Perhaps it is this ideal that will come to protect Oxfam’s integrity. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended on February 23 to remove a reference to the Kids Company collapse, which could have been misinterpreted. We are happy to make this change and apologise for any confusion.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Hurst does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oxfam is not the first charity to be drawn into a high profile scandal. If it is to survive it needs draw on its core ideals.Mark Hurst, Lecturer in the History of Human Rights, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/738282017-03-14T00:20:18Z2017-03-14T00:20:18ZWhy powerful people fail to stop bad behavior by their underlings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160609/original/image-20170313-9620-9nczny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who you gonna listen to?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ethical dilemma via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you were recently promoted at work. You now command a higher salary, lead more people and control more of the organization’s resources. As such, you have more influence over strategy, more authority to hire and fire and more responsibility for your team’s outcomes. </p>
<p>As you undertake your new role, however, you are also faced with evidence of an unethical business practice that plagues your organization. This practice is harmful, potentially embarrassing at best and possibly illegal at worst. In your new, more powerful position, would you be more or less likely to stop it than in your previous role?</p>
<p>This situation is hardly unheard of and might even be common. Leaders often set goals but delegate responsibility for how they are achieved, providing leeway for unethical practices to creep in. Leaders also inherit business practices from their predecessors and gain visibility only as they achieve higher rank in the hierarchy. Unethical practices <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308503250012">can become routine and taken for granted</a> when embedded in the organization’s structures and processes. </p>
<p>Consider the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-wells-fargos-high-pressure-sales-culture-spiraled-out-of-control-1474053044">salespeople at Wells Fargo</a> who were reaching their goals by opening fake accounts, the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-probe-in-germany-extended-to-chairman-1478429066">engineers at Volkswagen</a> who installed software to cheat on emissions tests or the <a href="https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/sac-capital-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-insider-trading/">traders at the hedge fund SAC</a> who were using inside information to make investment decisions. In each of these situations, unethical practices emerged on the front line, and higher-ups failed to stop those practices.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">recent research</a>, we asked: Why do powerful people so often fail to stop unethical practices such as these, even after learning of them? </p>
<h2>People in power</h2>
<p>After all, plenty of <a href="http://amj.aom.org/content/56/4/1002.short%22%22">psychological theories</a> say that individuals in a position of power <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1988-12437-001">are situated</a> to respond well to such practices. </p>
<p>After a promotion, people are particularly motivated to ensure the long-term success of the business, and unethical practices might put that success at risk. People in power also command the necessary authority and influence to intervene. They are often seen as more personally responsible when ethical lapses are exposed by whistle-blowers or the press. So you might expect a promotion to increase the likelihood that you would stop such practices in your group or organization.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">our research recently published</a> in <a href="https://www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes/">Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</a> suggests the reverse is true: Holding higher rank makes it less likely someone will object to an unethical act. We call this behavior “principled dissent.”</p>
<h2>Taking a stand</h2>
<p>Principled dissent is an effort to protest or change a morally objectionable practice. It challenges the status quo. </p>
<p>For instance, when <a href="https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber">Susan Fowler at Uber</a> protested the refusal to provide jackets to women engineers, she was expressing principled dissent.</p>
<p>This is often the first step toward correcting ethical failures in organizations. It is typically less costly for the organization than alternative forms of correction, such as political pressure from external parties or free market discipline. </p>
<p>For example, as reluctant as some Uber executives might have been to respond respectfully to Fowler’s claims, they probably are finding the public outcry generated by her blog post and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/uber-sexual-harassment-investigation.html">related New York Times article</a> more painful. Worse yet could be free market discipline, whereby unethical practices lead to the company’s demise over the long term.</p>
<p>Sometimes principled dissent is enough to stop an unethical practice completely – such as when the person expressing it holds higher rank. In light of this fact, the relation between hierarchical rank and principled dissent is important to understand.</p>
<h2>How rank affects principled dissent</h2>
<p>To learn more, we conducted a study in which we randomly assigned participants to hold a high- or low-ranking position in a group, or assigned them to a control condition where they had no information about their rank in a group. We then gave participants an ethical dilemma to discuss, asking them to decide whether to lie to another group in a way that would benefit their own team financially but harm the other one.</p>
<p>A key element of our study was that before participants were asked what to do they learned that four of the other five members in their group were apparently willing to lie for monetary gain. We wanted to know whether participants would then openly disagree with this supposed consensus (which we concocted). That is, would they recommend telling the truth even if it goes against what their peers preferred?</p>
<p>We found that almost 40 percent of participants in the low-rank and control conditions disagreed with the group’s dishonest decision. In other words, a sizable number of those people went against the grain and engaged in principled dissent. </p>
<p>However, a paltry 14 percent of participants in the high-rank condition did the same. Very few people who were given high rank were willing to disagree with their group’s unethical choice.</p>
<p>We wondered: Did holding high rank corrupt people somehow? That is, did high-ranking participants simply prefer lying to honesty? </p>
<p>The answer was no. Holding high rank led people to accept the group’s preference more readily, regardless of whether that preference was ethical or not. We included another condition in that study in which participants were told that the rest of their group wanted to be honest, even if it incurred some monetary cost to their group. In these conditions, high-ranking participants were still less likely to go against the grain than participants in low-ranking or control conditions.</p>
<p>We also explored the impact of organizational rank on principled dissent in a study of over 11,000 randomly selected government employees. In that study, holding higher rank was again associated with less principled dissent – specifically reporting illegal or wasteful practices – even after we statistically accounted for a variety of factors such as tenure in the organization, education, knowledge of rules about retaliation for reporting unethical practices and other demographic variables. </p>
<p>This study thus suggested that the patterns we observed in the laboratory extend to the real world, when unethical practices are real and have more severe consequences.</p>
<h2>Group identification</h2>
<p>Although the failure to stop an unethical practice is often attributed to character problems such as greed, sexism or the relentless pursuit of self-interest, our explanation is subtler.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">our studies</a>, ethical failures like these can also stem from a psychological factor endemic to very successful teams: identification with the group or organization. Identification is a feeling of oneness with the group. When you identify highly with a group or organization, you define yourself in terms of your membership in it. When asked, “Who are you?” your answer will reflect a category (e.g., you might refer to yourself as a man, a Texan, a Yankees fan, an environmentalist, a Christian). You focus on the traits that you and other group members share, rather than on personal traits that distinguish you.</p>
<p>We found that holding higher rank increases identification. People in high-ranking positions feel more connected to their group or organization and value their membership in it to a greater degree than do lower-ranking people. This trend has benefits for the group, as strong identifiers cooperate more readily and contribute more to the group’s goals. </p>
<p>But stronger identification has an ethical cost: It makes it more difficult to perceive ethical problems within the group. </p>
<p>For example, people who identify strongly with a group are more likely to consider unethical acts committed by its members to be more ethical than someone with a weaker connection to it. So one reason high-ranking people might fail to stop unethical practices is that their stronger identification blinds them: They don’t see the act as unethical in the first place. They fail to step in and intervene because they do not see any need to do so.</p>
<p>In another study, we made it easy or difficult for participants to identify highly with their other group members. We randomly assigned them to positions of high or low rank, and then tasked their group with making a decision based on a popular business ethics case study. Participants were led to believe that their group wanted to price-gouge hospitals in the aftermath of a hurricane. High-ranking participants engaged in principled dissent less frequently than low-ranking participants only when they identified strongly with the group.</p>
<h2>Silver lining</h2>
<p>There is some good news. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40575061?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Earlier research</a> found that people who strongly identify with their group are more likely to engage in principled dissent than weak identifiers – as long as they recognize a problem as unethical. That is, while these strong identifiers may have trouble recognizing that certain activities are unethical, when they do realize it, they’re more likely to intervene and try to put a stop to the bad behavior. </p>
<p>This shows just how important it is to instill a strong moral compass in future business leaders, and for companies to find ways for them to maintain it as they climb the corporate ladder. </p>
<p>The other option is to make it easier for managers to leverage the ethical perspectives of lower-ranking employees who, according to our research, have a clearer eye for spotting wrongdoing. In other words, a more democratic approach to management could offer an ethical advantage that could be more profitable in the long run.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Higher-ups at Wells Fargo, Volkswagen and Uber all failed to stop unethical practices that had significant repercussions. New research offers some clues on why.Jessica A. Kennedy, Assistant Professor of Management, Vanderbilt UniversityCameron Anderson, Professor of Leadership and Communication, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/684182016-11-17T23:46:06Z2016-11-17T23:46:06ZThe emotions at play when customers con businesses<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146342/original/image-20161117-13380-1fzxehb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Customers are more likely to behave unethically when they are angry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Customers who are fearful are more likely to be ethical in a tricky situation as the stakes increase, while angry customers will behave unethically no matter what the stakes, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304747110_Anger_Strays_Fear_Refrains_The_Differential_Effect_of_Negative_Emotions_on_Consumers'_Ethical_Judgments">our research shows</a>.</p>
<p>In our study, we emotionally manipulated people to either feel angry or fearful. Participants were asked to write about three or four experiences or situations from their past that had made them experience the specific emotion (anger or fear).</p>
<p>Following this, they were asked to pick the one situation that made them most angry/fearful and to describe in detail the emotions and feelings they experienced during that situation. Participants in the control group were asked to write about their daily routine. </p>
<p>We studied these two emotions specifically not only because anger is estimated to be one of the <a href="http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/lernerlab/files/lerner_tiedens_2006.pdf">most often experienced emotions</a>, but also because there is an interesting contrast with these two emotions, although both are negative. <a href="http://emotionresearcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SE1985.pdf">Anger is associated with certainty and control</a> about what has happened or might happen, whereas fear is characterised by a lack of certainty and control.</p>
<p>Once the participants were made to feel either angry or afraid, we presented them with a scenario where a customer receives an incorrect amount of change in a retail outlet. The amount of incorrect change (the stakes) increased from US$1 to US$10 and US$50.</p>
<p>Our results showed that these two emotions led to different patterns in ethical judgement in the scenario. While fearful individuals show restraint, angry individuals go ahead and confidently, act unethically. </p>
<p>A successful marketplace works because of the implicit assumption that both retailers and customers will follow moral and ethical norms. Past research has largely focused on unethical behaviour on the part of the businesses, for example child labour in developing countries, following environmentally unfriendly manufacturing practices, and not being socially responsible. However, an often overlooked and understudied aspect involves unethical behaviour on the part of customers.</p>
<p>Unethical behaviour by consumers can include shoplifting small consumer goods, using a coupon for merchandise not purchased, and consuming a product in-store and not paying for it. While in many instances these items are worth just a couple of dollars, the impact on businesses can be surprisingly substantial when tallied up. </p>
<p><a href="https://nrf.com/resources/retail-library/national-retail-security-survey-2015">According to a report</a>, shoplifting causes 38% of the retail shrinkage in the United States. It <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/oct/19/shoplifting-costs-retailers-consumers">costs an estimated £12 million a day</a> in the United Kingdom (with a third of this attributed to employees). </p>
<p><a href="https://www.qut.edu.au/business/about/news/news?news-id=53042">In Australia, it’s responsible for the loss</a> of items worth A$7.5 billion per year. At 39%, shoplifting was the leading cause of retail shrinkage in Australia in 2015. What makes it worse is that these costs are then passed on to other customers. <a href="https://www.insideretail.com.au/blog/2015/11/05/shoplifting-and-employee-theft-hurting-retail/">Current estimates put</a> the cost of retail shrinkage (due to shoplifting and employee theft) at more than A$424 to the average Australian household.</p>
<p>Misbehaviour towards a business can be expected or justified if the customer is experiencing emotions that arise because of a bad experience (for example, anger arising because of rude server or bad service). It’s less obvious as to how and why incidental emotions (for example, you are angry because of an incident in the parking lot at work) should impact unrelated judgements and decision making.</p>
<p>In our study, we found the difference in ethical behaviour is because of the level of perceived control that a consumer feels in the situation, especially when the stakes are relatively large. A fearful person incorrectly attributes the lack of control from the emotion situation onto the ethical scenario, and becomes more careful and ethical in the unrelated situation. </p>
<p>By contrast, angry individuals experience an increased sense of control because of the emotion and overlay it on the ethics situation. This in turn lowers their ethical judgement in the situation, regardless of the stakes involved.</p>
<p>Fear appeals might be more successful in countering customers’ unethical behaviours in situations where stakes are naturally high, such as medical and insurance fraud. But a different approach might be necessary in the normal retail setting. </p>
<p>Given that a large amount of unethical customer behaviour occurs in low stakes situations (worth a few dollars) where the loss to the retailer is perceived to be small and insignificant, the trick will be to amplify the stakes while inspiring fear. Campaigns would be more successful in curbing unethical consumer behaviour if the marketing is designed in a way that upped the stakes for unethical behaviour so that they are perceived to be high. For example, this could be done by highlighting the huge cost of small unethical behaviour by customers.</p>
<p>At a broader, policy level, the strategy of encouraging more “ethical, moral” behaviour by elaborating on the downside of seemingly minor transgressions which could potentially have a huge, downstream impact, could be particularly useful in social marketing campaigns.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68418/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nitika Garg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Customers who are angry are more likely to behave unethically, no matter how high the stakes, new research shows.Nitika Garg, Associate professor, Marketing, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/597272016-06-07T10:04:51Z2016-06-07T10:04:51ZWe behave a lot more badly than we remember<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125414/original/image-20160606-13043-1nm51pa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why do we forget our dishonest actions?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sclafani/4386592324/in/photolist-7FCr59-aNbsFD-cSDB5-99Wftd-61d2ct-85pA3M-9Gh5SG-5GhQd-dei4BD-a5ia3k-6BZfVV-pXRGG-7gJzX5-xafPC-7dZJtF-dEF2qd-asKYgh-6JqhNP-3KFGXb-egNRs4-iCYJkb-aT6JB2-4FdMfB-3KFFeA-bodcjL-5awETL-bvQRDW-8DEdiz-7t2Mbs-ftLVW-q9t45-ftLXu-pxRq11-egNV7V-oundf8-GBoLse-pc8EM-wj4PDb-9rtvN2-aT6FDF-3KFpJU-5VMLay-3KBdwx-azfTst-ftLWo-egUvUo-egNQ66-egNTRK-egUxf9-egUCaC">Sclafani</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a 1997 <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QrCENRx6klUC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=U.S.+News+and+World+Report+survey+who+will+go+to+heaven+mother+teresa&source=bl&ots=hwkPMol8pi&sig=lEy0tlvPH1tLm2FFTDo_V_Fy5GY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlxILI35PNAhXlxYMKHU3EATEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=U.S.%20News%20and%20World%20Report%20survey%20who%20will%20go%20to%20heaven%20mother%20teresa&f=false">U.S. News and World Report survey</a>, 1,000 Americans were asked the following question: “Who do you think is most likely to get into heaven?” According to respondents, then-president Bill Clinton had a 52 percent chance; basketball star Michael Jordan had a 65 percent chance; and Mother Teresa had a 79 percent chance. </p>
<p>Guess who topped even Mother Teresa? The people who completed the survey, with a score of 87 percent. Apparently, most of the respondents thought they were better than Mother Teresa in regards to their likelihood of getting into heaven.</p>
<p>As the results of this survey suggest, most of us have a strong desire to view ourselves in a positive light, especially when it comes to honesty. We care very much about being moral. </p>
<p>In fact, psychological <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab220/t/569fafbbd82d5ea920307b0d/1453305787311/Gino+2015+-+Understanding+Ordinary+Unethical+Behavior.pdf">research</a> on morality shows that we hold an overly optimistic view of our capacity to adhere to ethical standards. We believe that we are <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/08-012.pdf">intrinsically more moral</a> than others, that we will behave more ethically than others in the future and that transgressions committed by others are morally worse than our own. </p>
<p>So, how do these beliefs of our moral selves play out in our day-to-day actions? As researchers who frequently study how people who care about morality often behave dishonestly, we decided to find out.</p>
<h2>Unethical amnesia</h2>
<p>One key result of our <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/6166.full">research</a> is that people engage in unethical behavior repeatedly over time because their memory of their dishonest actions gets obfuscated over time. In fact, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/6166.full">our research shows</a>, people are more likely to forget the details of their own unethical acts as compared to other incidents – including neutral, negative or positive events, as well as the unethical actions of others. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125415/original/image-20160606-13051-29ah0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What do we forget?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomswift/4457197466/in/photolist-7MSiwb-kV33TM-d36gF-rpdW6H-bQv72Z-3eh4RX-6itRpW-fw2hXg-9kSzg-aLrCpv-6oWsHa-cshAj9-f6RFsR-7f3Jx9-dyVKDa-4pAjgo-be296R-inVQi-ojbsDF-7K9ZyD-5rAkSH-8TkXQR-be1PpF-hL2QhR-az8Wki-egsRxT-8ZNv6Y-n9R76T-oHAqed-6cZb53-5bVgq-7nnDPK-nYb8PY-3AsGGg-ehJNHL-avrPfq-8qbxV2-a3DRhw-9qBouj-LF7j9-qKwCJj-nPgkEV-bKa9hP-6Zib1S-ebYpF3-4FbQ3r-75P3DF-bUhkrM-7hViuZ-6LiCoW">Lew (tomswift) Holzman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We call this tendency “unethical amnesia”: an impairment that occurs over time in our memory for the details of our past unethical behavior. That is, engaging in unethical behavior produces real changes in memory of an experience over time.</p>
<p>Our desire to behave ethically and see ourselves as moral gives us a strong motivation to forget our misdeeds. By experiencing unethical amnesia, we can cope with the psychological distress and discomfort we experience after behaving unethically. Such discomfort has been demonstrated in <a href="http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Mazar_Dishonesty_forthcomingJMR.pdf">prior research</a>, including <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab220/t/55e872c4e4b051470ecd23b3/1441297092685/Psychological+Science-2015-Gino-983-96.pdf">our own</a>.</p>
<h2>How forgetting works</h2>
<p>We found evidence of unethical amnesia in nine experimental studies we conducted on diverse samples with over 2,100 participants, from undergraduate students to working adults. We conducted these studies between January 2013 and March 2016.</p>
<p>We chose a wide range of populations for our studies to provide a more robust test of our hypotheses and show that unethical amnesia affects not only college students but also employed adults. </p>
<p>In our studies, we examined the vividness and level of detail of people’s memories when they recalled unethical acts as compared with other acts.</p>
<p>For instance, in one of our studies, conducted in 2013, we asked 400 people to recall and write about their past experiences: some people recalled and wrote about their past unethical actions, some about their past ethical actions, and others recalled and wrote about other types of actions not related to morality.</p>
<p>We found that, on average, participants remembered fewer details of their actions and had less vivid memories of unethical behaviors as compared to ethical behaviors or positive or negative (but not unethical) actions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125418/original/image-20160606-13045-3xwew9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We have less vivid memories of unethical behavior.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/remember/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=412619059">Brain image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In follow-up studies conducted either in the laboratory at a university in the northeast United States or online in 2014 and 2015, we gave people the opportunity to cheat on a task. A few days later, we asked them to recall the details of the task. </p>
<p>For instance, in one study, we gave 70 participants the opportunity to cheat in a dice-throwing game by misreporting their performance. If they did, they would earn more money. So, they had an incentive to cheat.</p>
<p>When we assessed their memory a few days later, we found that participants who cheated had less clear, less vivid and less detailed memories of their actions than those who did not.</p>
<h2>Why does it matter?</h2>
<p>Is having a less vivid memory of our misdeeds such a big problem? As it turns out, it is. </p>
<p>When we experience unethical amnesia, our research further shows, we become more likely to cheat again. In two of the studies we conducted out of the nine included in our <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/6166.full">research</a>, we gave over 600 participants an opportunity to cheat and misreport their performance for extra money.</p>
<p>A few days later, we gave them another chance to do so. The initial cheating resulted in unethical amnesia, which drove additional dishonest behavior on the task that participants completed a few days later.</p>
<p>Because we often feel guilty and remorseful about our unethical behavior, we might expect that these negative emotions would stop us from continuing to act unethically. </p>
<p>But we know that is not so. Our experiences and news headlines from across the globe suggest that <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab220/t/55eef24de4b067774289457d/1441722957978/REVISE+-+R2.pdf">dishonesty is a widespread and common phenomenon</a>.</p>
<p>Our work points to a possible reason for persistent dishonesty: we tend to forget our unethical actions, remembering them less clearly than memories of other types of behaviors.</p>
<p>So, what if people actively pursued scheduled time to reflect on their daily acts? In our research we showed that unethical amnesia most likely happens because people limit the retrieval of unwanted memories about when they engaged in dishonesty. As a result, these memories are obfuscated. </p>
<p>Perhaps creating a habit of self-reflection could help people keep such memories alive and also learn from them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We come across dishonest acts in our day-to-day lives. Perhaps we commit them as well. But, guess what? Most of us care so much about being moral that we tend to forget our unethical behavior.Francesca Gino, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard UniversityMaryam Kouchaki, Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations, Northwestern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.