Article | Perspectives on Psychological Science | March 2010

In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis

by Max Bazerman and Joshua D. Greene

Abstract

Bennis, Medin, and Bartels (2009) have contributed an interesting paper on the comparative benefit of moral rules versus cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Many of their specific comments are accurate, useful, and insightful. At the same time, we believe they have misrepresented CBA and have reached a set of conclusions that are misguided and, if adopted wholesale, potentially dangerous. Overall, they offer wise suggestions for making CBA more effective, rather than eliminating CBA as a decision-making tool.

Keywords: Cost vs Benefits; Moral Sensibility; Adoption; Performance Effectiveness; Decision Making; Management Analysis, Tools, and Techniques;

Format: Print

4 pages

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Bazerman, Max, and Joshua D. Greene. "In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis." Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, no. 2 (March 2010): 209–212.

Is your judgment influenced by personal biases? In situations requiring careful judgment, we're all influenced by our own biases to some extent. But, with Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, you can learn how to overcome those biases to make better managerial decisions. The text examines judgment in a variety of organizational contexts and provides practical strategies for changing your decision-making processes and improving these processes so that they become part of your permanent behavior. Throughout, you'll find numerous hands-on decision exercises and examples from the authors' extensive executive training experience that will help you enhance the quality of your managerial judgment. Past editions have been used in top universities, in business schools, and in public policy, psychology, and economics classes. In addition, the text has been widely recognized by practitioners in the world of behavioral finance.

This article compares direct deception with deception via an intermediary in the bargaining context. It describes a growing experimental literature that suggests how perceived ethics surrounding transactions with multiple partners can encourage misbehavior. It is noted that causing harm indirectly through another can protect harm doers. Harm doers are apparently protected from punishment as well. The hypothesis that intermediation reduces punishment runs counter to predictions coming from a model in which solely unfair actions are punished. Experiments are also presented that show a phenomenon about the attribution of responsibility and subsequent blame (and praise) in negotiation and conflict resolution settings. It is believed that by making people more aware of their failure to notice and punish indirect unethical behavior, others can create a world where the use of intermediation will no longer provide harm doers an easy escape from public awareness.

Many written forms required by businesses and governments rely on honest reporting. Proof of honest intent is typically provided through signature at the end of the document, e.g., tax returns or insurance policy forms. Still, people sometimes cheat to advance their financial self-interests—at great costs to society. We test an easy-to-implement method to discourage dishonesty: signing at the beginning rather than at the end of a self-report, thereby reversing the order of the current practice. Using lab and field experiments, we find that signing before rather than after the opportunity to cheat makes ethics salient when it is needed most and significantly reduces dishonesty.

General Information

Academic Programs

Alumni

Faculty & Research

Recruit

Resources

Faculty & Research

In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis

Abstract

About the Author

More from the Author

Contact

Related Links

Resources