Self-Concept Maintenance
Version:1 / 1 Updated Date:11/11/2014 Original Contributor:Jake Frederick Latest Contributor:Jake Frederick
| Clarity: | Logic: | Support: | Based on 1 rating(s) | ||||
Key Words
Categorization, Honest, Self-concept
Background / Metatheory:
The traditional cost/benefit explanation of when people cheat and when they don’t relies on the 1) expected benefits of cheating, 2) probability of being caught, and 3) the magnitude of punishment. This theory suggests that people also avoid cheating to maintain positive perceptions of themselves. Because most people like to think of themselves as moral, they will reinterpret dishonest behavior in a moral way. People will enjoy the benefits of cheating until the behavior clearly violates their positive self-view.
Mazar, Nina, On Amir, and Dan Ariely (2008) "The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance." Journal of Marketing Research 45:633-44.
Terms & Definitions:
- categorization - reinterpretation of or rationalization for negative behavior
- cheat - deceiving others for a gain that will cost them
- moral_standards - beliefs about what is right and wrong
- self-concept - one's impression of themself as a good person
- dishonest_behavior - lying, cheating, or stealing
- malleability - the ease with which categorization can occur based on the context
Scope Conditions:
- P must value a positive self-concept.
- There is a threshold at which the external reward will be so high that it outweighs the self-concept.
Propositions:
- The higher categorization malleability, the more people will categorize their dishonest behavior.
- The more attention is focused on moral standards, the lower ability to categorize behavior.
- The more categorization occurs, the more people can cheat without harming their self-concept.
- The more people can cheat without harming their self-concept, the more people will cheat.
Derivations:
Evidence:
Mazar, Nina, On Amir, and Dan Ariely (2008) "The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance." *Journal of Marketing Research* 45:633-44.
