Why Good People do Bad Things

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, once said that because of their bestial character, people have a tendency to prioritize their own interests over those of others. (Kaptein 10). The claim is consistent with traditional economic theories, which state that people are typically egoistical and only concerned with meeting their own needs. As a result, ever since science was invented, people have tried to describe what causes human behavior, whether it stems from human nature’s inherent evil or from environmental factors. It has interestingly become a subject of interest following the realization that major crimes have since been noted to be associated with leading white collar professionals. The complication of the work settings, inherent and one’s perceived beliefs justify the reason why good human beings tend to be involved in socially unacceptable acts.

A central factor that has been suggested to explain the situation where people tend to engage in unethical behavior is that there is a tendency of a self-serving bias. It is unlikely that someone would perceive themselves to be average individuals as psychology dictates that human beings tend to think that they are smarter and are more moral that those in their immediate environment. It is thus natural that when one gets a promotion, feelings of injustice arise and they would not be convinced that it is due to performance but rather something else that is unfair to them. A related reasoning believed to make people become more willing to engage in wrong acts is the element of conspicuous consumption where money makes people be selfish. Environments that depict extreme wealth and material possessions or the general presence of money lead to an increased likelihood to engage in unethical behavior. As in the case of egocentric beliefs due to the self-serving bias, researchers have found that employees receiving excessive bonuses leads to feelings of jealousy. The research by Kathleen Vows underscores the fact that the presence of money in the mix s enough to complicate the scenario and will thus lead the associated parties to pursue their individual interests and satisfy their own needs over other factors.

The pygmalion effect also explains the trend of high-profile crimes among white collar employees and students who are expected to exercise a high level of professionalism. The theory is named after a myth that was proposed by Ovid who was a Roman poet and who believed that the way people are seen in their environment determines the manner in which they act over some time. The initial research into this concept was conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson who found that students who were thought to be more intellectual and treated fairly by the teachers ended up having an improved intelligence quotient than the other students (Kaptein 22). Thus, when people are treated suspiciously or perceived to be criminals, they are more likely to be tempted to become what they are thought to be because expectations become reality, based on the research conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (Kaptein 24).

The other models used to explain the occurrence of high-profile crimes among those who are least likely to commit them is that people tend to follow the reactance theory in setting where there are rules. Ideally, rules are intended to limit the chance for wrong and unethical acts, but when they are imposed in an unfair manner, they might provoke the affected team to behave in a countering manner. The role of prohibitions on people’s behavior was initially investigated by James Pennebaker and Deborah Sanders who found that it applies to adults just as it is noted among teenagers who are instructed to follow rules that they believe are oppressive. The opposite reaction is a consequence of reactance theory that leads people to resent threats citing their rights and freedom and they might feel obliged to flout rules to meet their demands (Nisen and Groth). Many other studies have since built on the assertions because humans tend to devise ways that will accommodate them into the system regardless of the rules that have been put in place.

Being bound to a deadline and operating under pressure from the authority can also make someone engage willingly in crime or immoral activity without feeling that they are responsible. The need to be accountable to the authority is an inherently ingrained trait in our society and workplace. When someone in power requests a junior to engage in an unethical activity, they are less likely to refuse because they are made to believe that they are required to be obedient (Riggio). Such characters would feel less attached to the wrong behavior because they see themselves as instruments of another person’s wishes. It is the same effect when people are pressed for time and feel they are more likely to feel that they should meet the deadline especially when they were requested to do so. A study on a group of theology students proved how this concept is relevant because after the students were required to narrate a story they were told that they should go to the next building as fast as possible for filming (Nisen and Groth). When desperately late considering the orders they were given, many would even opt not to help a man in distress but were only focused on ensuring they met the required deadline.

The galatea effect that is founded on the principles of self-image and behavior further explains why people would engage in bad activities without their intention assuming the complication never arose. The images and expectation that people have in themselves also play a critical role in the manner in which they behave and is believed to have a more powerful outcome than the pygmalion theory (Kaptein 25). People who have a strong sense of themselves are less likely to become tempted to be involved in unethical practices. However, those who think that they are less in control of their fate and believe that they are determined by their environment and want choices made for them are more likely to bend the rules to suit them as they feel they are less responsible (Nisen and Groth).

Thus, it is important to emphasize that the science and psychology of crime primarily rest on the role of the environment and the complications that make individuals feel obliged to break the law. Among the primary reasons include the theories of pygamion effect. the model of galatea, reactance theory, self-serving bias, and being accountable to a person in power or deadline. Thus, it is recommended that leaders should factor these issues when designing rules and when making orders while encouraging the teams to be mindful of the chance of being tempted to break the law.

Works Cited

Kaptein, Muel. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: 52 Reflections on Ethics at Work.” Ethics Management (2015): n. pag. Web.

Nisen, Max, and Aimee Groth. ”27 Psychological Reasons Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Business Insider Aug. 2012. Web.

Riggio, Ronald E. ”The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Psychology Today (2014): n. pag. Web.