Withstanding moral disengagement: Attachment security as an ethical intervention☆
Introduction
While Albert Bandura (1986) never actually said those words, he did first put forth the notion of moral disengagement and perhaps, the subsequent literature on moral disengagement is captured in that hypothetical quotation. Moral disengagement enables ordinary people to do unethical things, free from the stomach-churning and self-flagellation that such behavior usually evokes (Bandura, 1990). Much like the hours after midnight, the mind after moral disengagement seems to welcome transgressions, both the everyday and trivial sort as well as the cruel and egregious (ranging from taking home office supplies to perpetuating genocide: Bandura, 1999, Bandura et al., 1996, Fiske, 2004, Moore, 2007, Moore et al., 2012, Ntayi et al., 2010). The current paper investigates a condition under which this seemingly tight linkage between moral disengagement and ethical transgressions might not hold. Specifically, we hypothesize and test an ethical intervention based on attachment theory that enables individuals to withstand moral disengagement.
Section snippets
Moral disengagement
Moral disengagement is a psychological process by which individuals engage in sanctionable behavior without distress or self-condemnation (Bandura, 1990). More specifically, moral disengagement refers to a set of eight cognitive mechanisms which serve to disinhibit an individual's unethical behavior (Bandura, 1986): moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregarding or distorting the consequences,
Attachment theory
In its original form, attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978, Bowlby, 1982) captured the idea that early close-relationships experienced by children shape the psychological template for the relationships that the child will eventually form as an adult. Attachment orientations are characterized as secure (anticipating that one's needs will be met), anxious (uncertain if one's needs will be met), avoidant (withdrawing so that the dependence on others for meeting needs is less), or fearful
Attachment, ethics, and threat construal
Attachment orientation has been linked to ethical beliefs and behavior (Albert and Horowitz, 2009, Ennis et al., 2008, Gillath et al., 2010, Van Ijzendoorn and Zwart-Woudstra, 1995). For example, attachment security generated the most ethical beliefs in a consumer context (Albert & Horowitz, 2009) and attachment security enhanced authenticity and honesty in relational contexts (Gillath et al., 2010). In this paper, we explore why the anxiously attached behave less honestly than the securely
Participants and design
Fifty-six people were recruited through a national on-line subject pool via Qualtrics in the United States and were paid for their participation. Eighteen percent of the sample was male; the mean age was 21.8 (S.D. = 2.15). Twenty-seven percent had completed high school, 70% had completed at least some college, and 3% had an advanced degree. Participants were randomly assigned to either the secure or anxious attachment conditions.
Procedure
Participants read a paragraph priming attachment state (e.g.,
Participants and design
One hundred one students at a Northeastern U.S. university participated to fulfill a course research requirement. Forty-three percent were male, and the average age was 20.93 (S.D. = 3.09). Forty-two percent reported being American, 17% were Chinese, 4% were from the Dominican Republic, and the remaining 37% reflected nationalities represented by fewer than 3%. Participants were randomly assigned to either an attachment security or anxiety condition.
Procedure
Attachment was primed as in Study 1.
Participants and design
Three hundred and fifteen individuals were recruited via Mturk to participate for $1.00 plus a potential performance bonus of up to $1.00. Fifty percent were male and the average age was 33 years (S.D. = 11.57). All participants reported speaking English as a first language. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: secure or anxious attachment.
Procedure
Participants were told that the study would take place in five parts. In Part 1, they completed a 24-item measure of moral
General discussion
The link between moral disengagement and unethical decision-making (Detert et al., 2008, Moore et al., 2012) is well-established. We investigated an ethical intervention grounded in attachment theory that breaks the link, allowing individuals to withstand their propensity to morally disengage. One of the most influential theories in developmental and social psychology is attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982, Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007) and the insights of attachment theory provide the foundation
Conclusion
We have drawn from the attachment and moral disengagement literatures to posit that state-based attachment interacts with moral disengagement in predicting ethics. The current paper contributes to the theoretical understanding of unethical behavior, deepening our knowledge of its basis and mitigating circumstances, and in the future, we are hopeful that this understanding will grow in this line of research. Our goal was to develop an ethical intervention that could diminish the impact of moral
References (36)
- et al.
Do agents negotiate for the best (or worst) interest of principals? Secure, anxious and avoidant principal-agent attachment
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2011) - et al.
The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(2003) - et al.
Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
(1991) - et al.
Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation
(1978) - et al.
Attachment styles and ethical behavior: Their relationship and significance in the marketplace
Journal of Business Ethics
(2009) - et al.
Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1996) Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
(1986)Selective activation and disengagement of moral control
Journal of Social Issues
(1990)Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities
Personality and Social Psychological Review
(1999)- et al.
Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1996)
Self‐efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories
Child Development
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Attachment and loss
Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes
Journal of Applied Psychology
Attachment and exploration in adulthood
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Individual differences and lying in everyday life
Journal of Personality and Social Relationships
Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology
Cited by (67)
Gender similarities and differences in dishonesty
2022, Current Opinion in PsychologyWhy so defensive? Negative affect and gender differences in defensiveness toward plant-based diets
2022, Food Quality and PreferenceA personal adversity model of justifying the costs of entrepreneurial action: The case of oil thieves in the Niger DELTA
2022, Journal of Business VenturingA relational account of low power: The role of the attachment system in reduced proactivity
2021, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesCitation Excerpt :Study 1 through 3 utilized a recall task, asking participants to recall a time when someone else had power over them or when they experienced attachment anxiety. Although vividly recalling past experiences is a powerful way to induce a sense of power (Galinsky et al., 2003) or sense of attachment anxiety (Chugh et al., 2014), it is important for generalizability to induce power in multiple ways. To do so, we ran a pre-registered study (https://aspredicted.org/m798e.pdf) in which all participants were put in a low power position with an ostensible interaction partner whose task it was to evaluate the participants’ performance.
Moral disengagement, locus of control, and belief in a just world: Individual differences relate to adherence to COVID-19 guidelines
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesThe general factor of personality and moral hypocrisy: A moderated mediation model
2024, Psychology in the Schools
- ☆
The authors thank Steve Blader, Joseph Garcia, David Mayer, and Julia Turret for their assistance, as well as Shelly Gable and two anonymous reviewers. The first two authors contributed equally to this work; first authorship was determined by a coin toss.