CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 422Ethics in Business and EducationPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEmotions and Moral Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-Serving Justifications: Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral

Open access
Shalvi, Shaul, Gino, Francesca, Barkan, Rachel, Ayal, Shahar·2015·Current Directions in Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/0963721414553264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Unethical behavior by “ordinary” people poses significant societal and personal challenges. We present a novel framework centered on the role of self-serving justification to build upon and advance the rapidly expanding research on intentional unethical behavior of people who value their morality highly. We propose that self-serving justifications emerging before and after people engage in intentional ethical violations mitigate the threat to the moral self, enabling them to do wrong while feeling moral. Pre-violation justifications lessen the anticipated threat to the moral self by redefining questionable behaviors as excusable. Post-violation justifications alleviate the experienced threat to the moral self through compensations that balance or lessen violations. We highlight the psychological mechanisms that prompt people to do wrong and feel moral, and suggest future research directions regarding the temporal dimension of self-serving justifications of ethical misconduct.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0963721414553264

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gibson K. W., 2009, Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethics, 265
  2. 10.5465/amr.1991.4278958 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–421 of 421

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Harvard Business School, Harvard University
  • Reichman University (IL)
ORCID
Venue
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-04
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
125-130
ISSN
  • 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8721
DOI
10.1177/0963721414553264
OpenAlex
W2097587915
Cited by
422
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15
FWCI
70.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 333745)
  • Research Executive Agency (FP7/2007-2013)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
moral self, moral dissonance, moral licensing, moral compensation, moral self-presentation, ethical violations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review