8/12/2019 A Critique of Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior

1/3

8/12/2019 A Critique of Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior

2/3

In the first experiment, the researchers set up four different scenarios. These scenarios were

identical in all but a few ways. In each scenario, a group of participants were asked to solve a series of

simple arithmetic problems within a five-minute time period. They wrote down and submitted how many

they were able to solve. These participants were allowed to reward themselves with a certain amount of

money for every question they got right. They were asked to return the money they did not earn. Each

scenario was different based on some condition. In the control condition, the experimenter confirmed

that the participant only took the money that they earned. In the shredder condition, the participants

were allowed to shred the evidence of their work and take the money that they said they earned. In the

two identity conditions, everything was the same as in the shredder condition except an actor made it

obvious that he or she was cheating and walked away with the full reward. In the out-group identity

condition, the confederate wore a rivaling colleges t-shirt. In the in-group identity condition, he or she

wore a plain t-shirt. The second experiment had all the same conditions as with the first experiment

except, instead of the two identity conditions, there was a saliency condition. This saliency condition

was identical to the shredder condition except that there was an actor who spoke up and asked if it was

OK to cheat. Here the experimenter answered saying that the participants can do whatever they want.

The results of the study showed that individuals do indeed change their behavior based on the

unethical behaviors of other people around them. In the first experiment, the researchers took the

average number of questions each participant submitted as getting correct from within each condition.

Each condition varied in amount as follows: the control group had the least, the out-group the second

least, the shredder group the second most, and the in-group the most. These outcomes provided a good

defense for the social-norms hypothesis because the confederate from the two identity conditions

caused a change in cheating in comparison to the shredder condition. The social-identity theory was

supported by the fact that the in-group condition allowed for more cheating than both the shredder

condition and the out-group condition. These outcomes do not substantiate the cost-benefit mechanism.

If this mechanism was at play, then the occurrences of cheating would have been the greatest and

approximately identical in both of the identity conditions. The results of the second experiment showed

that the control condition had the smallest amount of arithmetic problems solved, the shredder condition

reported the most being solved, and the saliency condition reported an amount in between the other two

conditions. The important conclusion to draw from experiment two was that the saliency of the situation

8/12/2019 A Critique of Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior

3/3

decreased the dishonesty of the participants. This was derived by a comparison of the saliency condition

to that of the shredder condition.

As with any study, this one had its limitations. The researchers did have restrictions on how they

were able to design their scenarios to imitate real world situations. For example, the possible damage to

the participants self-image was the only negative consequence of cheating in this study. This lack of

negative consequence is not necessarily realistic. Of course, the researchers are limited by what is

ethical and reasonable to implement as a negative consequence for a participants unethical actions.

Another limitation of this study was the simple fact that the researchers were not able to really get inside

the minds of the participants. If the researchers were able to know the exact details behind each

participants decision making process, that information would have been helpful in understanding the

causes of each participants actions.

I believe this study was designed well. They kept the study very simple and straightforward. The

improvements that do exist were probably not implemented due to a lack of resources such as funding

or time. An improvement for this study would be to incorporate other forms of unethical behavior

(besides lying) into the experiments. This would possibly have provided us with a more well rounded

understanding of the cause and effect of different types of unethical situations. Another improvement tha

could have been implemented (and that tries to address the mind-reading limitation mentioned above)

would have been to interview each participant after their session was complete. This may have provided

additional insight into the thoughts behind their actions.

This study proved to be quite interesting and informative. This study, and the many others like it,

are important to helping us understand ethical human behavior. Ethics are central to many of our worlds

greatest problems. Many aspects of our lives are defined by what is right and what is wrong. Our

futures are structured based on our decisions and the decisions of those in our society. This study brings

us one step closer to defining the true nature of the mechanisms that influence our decision making

process. I am sure this study will be a solid stepping stone for future development in this area. It created

empirical evidence that supported a few theories and opposed others. These newly discovered

constraints on established theories will certainly advance research in this field.