‘The devil made me do it’ and other unethical behavior rationalizations

Growing up, we all tried at some point or another to squirm our way out of being accountable for something we shouldn’t have done or said. (I admit to throwing my little brother under the bus a couple of times, but my parents were wise to that approach.) We spun the facts or rationalized our action to avoid punitive measures; in short, we wanted to preserve our standing in the family unit and stay in Mom and Dad’s good graces. But alas, many of us suffered some parental wrath as a consequence for our behavior — and the fictitious tales we told to rationalize it. Our parents knew something we kids didn’t fully appreciate: Rationalization allows us to wander further away on the far side of truth. As adults gaining experience in our respective professions, we learn about compliance and ethics, but we also add to our repertoire of rationalizations.

Rationalizations and entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship encourages founders to be persistent evangelists and wheeler-dealers for their fledgling enterprises. They have a lot to lose and must continually be on their “game” to woo venture capitalists, entice employees from other companies to come work for them, and win over skeptical market analysts. However, such a system conceals the treacherous waters that lure all who enter.

Back in the late 1990s, I worked at several high-tech startups, where I regularly witnessed instances of unethical — and even illegal — actions. In one company, the founders were golfing friends and fraternity brothers who would rationalize their actions to keep up the steady cash flow from venture capitalists. The founders were enthusiastic yarn spinners, painting vivid imagery of what the future could look like after their product launched in the marketplace in a few years. They were experts at dismissing objections with a smile, a half-truth and a rationalization.

But soon reality set in, replacing the hype after yet another scheduled delay, another request for additional funding and another round of layoffs.

Role of egocentric bias in rationalization

Entrepreneurship isn’t entirely to blame. People behave in ways that favor their self-interest due in part to egocentric bias (the tendency to believe that one’s own opinion is the correct one). Egocentric bias occurs when people allow their personal perspectives to distort their judgment of a situation. Entrepreneurial pursuits are just one area where this bias plays out.

Joseph Palmar, CFE, CEO of Palmar Forensics, tells Fraud Magazine that he’s encountered three reasons why people don’t act and rationalize reasons for not taking preemptive or proactive steps. First, they’re comfortable with inaction or a lack of urgency. Second, they don’t want to admit to a problem, so they rationalize with an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. Third, they fall into the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is a cognitive bias whereby their initial confidence exceeds their competence. (See “Why can we not perceive our own abilities? The Dunning–Kruger Effect, explained,” The Decision Lab.)

Palmar’s insights show how people resort to self-preservation behavior, which is an innate desire to keep oneself safe and out of harm’s way. It’s a powerful motivator that can lead people to do or say things they otherwise wouldn’t so as to preserve their physical, emotional or psychological safety. Self-preservation can lead to unethical rationalizations, as individuals try to justify their own actions or decisions while overlooking (or being willfully blind to) the potential harm they could cause.

Everyone uses rationalizations every day

Who are the rationalizers among us? To quote the comic strip “Pogo”: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” If you’ve ever had to defend yourself against feelings of guilt or protect yourself from criticism for something you did or said, you’re probably a rationalizer. Even if “things all worked out in the end anyway,” you’re using consequentialism (the theory that says that the consequences of your actions determine whether they’re good or bad) to rationalize a positive result from a questionable ethical action. If you’re a philanthropist who supports several charities, but the press has called you out for having an extravagant lifestyle, you may have to rationalize your position to assuage any inner emotional conflict.

This behavior bias is known as the licensing effect, which involves someone rationalizing bad behavior after doing something good. It’s an unconscious decision that can often go against one’s best interests in both personal and professional situations. (See “Licensing effect in consumer choice,” by Uzma Khan and Ravi Dhar, Journal of Marketing Research, 2006 and “Licensing effect,” behavioraleconomics.com.)

Slippery slope of rationalizations

In business, rationalization is a way of looking at an opportunity, position or proposal to make it appear more logical or defensible, even if it isn’t. Rationalizations can produce inaccurate assertions and ultimately lead to bad decisions. A project that uses minor but questionable rationalizations to receive “go-ahead” approvals or funding may escalate into more convoluted activities of a problematic moral and ethical nature (up to and including fraud) to keep the project moving forward — until it finally doesn’t and slides down the slippery slope of disaster.

As I’ve seen in my corporate and startup experiences, if the organizational culture tolerates unethical behavior, it’s more likely to become worse. If the organizational climate supports ethical values, it’s less likely to become worse.

Psychotherapist Dr. Michael Hurd precisely conveys the deception behind rationalizations: “The rationalizer doesn’t merely dodge facts and logic. He subverts them by pretending to be paying attention to them, when in fact he’s evading them. That’s how an ‘otherwise reasonable’ person manages to avoid facts while disguising this evasion as intelligent and sensible.” (See “The Slippery Slope of Rationalization,” by Dr. Michael Hurd, Nov. 22, 2011, at Drhurd.com.)

Unpacking the psychology of ‘the devil made me do it’

When trying to explain away our unethical or immoral behavior, “the devil made me do it” is a funny go-to excuse made famous by comedian Flip Wilson. But what does this saying actually mean? And what does it say about our psychology?

“The devil made me do it” rationalization is how people try to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. They didn’t want to do something, so they attribute their actions to some outside force that made them do it. If someone believes that they aren’t responsible for their actions, then they don’t have to face the fact that they did something wrong. But the saying also reveals something about human nature and even how our brains work in tricky circumstances.

The brain’s role in rationalization

Rationalization is the brain’s way of trying to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, which is a disagreeable emotional state brought about by a conflict between one’s actions and desires. (See the chart “Eight types of rationalized corruption” below and “On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort,” by A.J. Elliot and P.G. Devine, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994.) Cognitive dissonance experiments can measure before-and-after attitude changes accompanying rationalizations but can’t uncover the processes that kick-start those changes.

When a decision is unchangeable, or presents challenges, adjusting attitudes to feel comfortable with the decision can reduce cognitive dissonance. For instance, people will often favor the choice they have made after struggling between two options that had previously seemed equally attractive. A 2011 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study revealed that certain portions of the brain were associated with later decision-related attitude changes. A few of these results suggest that rationalizations linked with decision-making may be engaged instantaneously with those decisions. (See “The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making,” by Johanna M. Jarcho, Elliot T. Berkman and Matthew D. Lieberman, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Vol. 6, Issue 4, September 2011 and “The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making,” in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, by Johanna Jarcho, Elliot Berkman and Matthew Lieberman, September 2011.)

Tangled web of bounded ethicality

The concept of bounded ethicality explains how predictable organizational and environmental pressures as well as psychological forces can entice people to abandon their own ethical goals and behavior in favor of deferential, morally suspect behavior that contradicts their values. (See “Bounded Ethicality,” The University of Texas McCombs School of Business.)

Fixed perceptual, cognitive and social cognitive processes (egocentric bias) may lead to decision-making errors. Most leaders try to convey a stable self-image that’s confident, worthy and strong; which, in turn, conveys a perception of them being less prone to ethical challenges. But a leader with a strong egocentric bias is likely to believe they’re immune to the negative consequences of their questionable decisions or behaviors. And this attitude makes it more difficult for an organization and its leaders to identify and address actual ethical or moral conflicts.

Bounded ethicality is inherent to many organizational structures in the public and private sectors, and perhaps none more so than in the field of entrepreneurship, as previously explained.

Situational ethics rationalization: ‘It depends …’

People who behave in a manner in conflict with their character or lifestyle may be operating on the principal of situational ethics, wherein individuals are free to make choices that align with their own circumstances. Situational ethics contends that the context of an issue should determine the morality, rather than deferring to a comprehensive moral code for all situations. This more flexible approach to ethics arguably can create fertile ground for justifications to green-light behavioral ills that absolve proponents from personal accountability. (See “Situation ethics,” BBC, Ethics guide.)

Critics say the problem with situational ethics lies with individuals who can’t make meaningful choices. Instead, they rely on mitigating factors like convenience, efficiency or facing a “no-win scenario” in an “ends justify the means” approach, rather than relying on established ethical concepts and personal standards of accountability and responsibility.

Emerging field of behavioral ethics

Research into the emerging field of behavioral ethics (including cognitive and behavioral psychology, and evolutionary biology) reveals something we already knew: People are not completely rational. Most ethical decisions are intuitive, by virtue of feeling; they rarely have the luxury of resulting from methodical analysis. Usually, someone who makes a morally questionable decision has conscious and subconscious influences at play, including self-serving bias and the pressure to conform, as well as the situational factor. (See “Ethics Unwrapped: Behavioral Ethics,” The University of Texas McCombs School of Business.)

When people engage in post hoc moral rationalizations, they may be more likely to engage in additional unethical behaviors. This is especially true for people who attach less importance to morality for their personal identity. These “low moral identifiers” may even increase the intensity level of their unethical behavior over time. “High moral identifiers,” on the other hand, are less likely to follow this path. (See “Moral Rationalization Contributes More Strongly to Escalation of Unethical Behavior Among Low Moral Identifiers Than Among High Moral Identifiers,” by Laetitia B. Mulder and Eric van Dijk, in Frontiers in Psychology, Jan. 8, 2020.)

Damage done by rationalizing unethical behavior

It’s easy to rationalize unethical behavior. We tell ourselves that it’s not really that bad, or that everyone does it, or that we’ll make up for it later. But the truth is, rationalizing unethical behavior can damage business opportunities, careers, relationships, and a sense of self. It can erode our integrity and damage our reputation. It can also dull our sense of responsibility for wrongful actions, and lead to more serious problems, including a variety of fraudulent actions and consequences.

Donn LeVie Jr., CFE, is a Fraud Magazine staff writer and a presenter and leadership positioning/influence strategist at ACFE Global Fraud Conferences since 2010. He’s president of Donn LeVie Jr. STRATEGIES, LLC, where he speaks, writes, and leads programs that enhance leadership performance, increase executive influence, and cultivate deeper strategic connections. His website is donnleviejrstrategies.com. Contact him at donn@donnleviejrstrategies.com.