IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ufajxx/v63y2007i6p17-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Decision Making: More Needed Than Good Intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Robert A. Prentice

Abstract

The flourishing field of behavioral finance indicates that people often do not engage in optimal decision making when investing. The same cognitive biases and mental heuristics that cause suboptimal investing may also cause people to make unethical decisions. For that reason, good intentions are necessary, but they are not sufficient for finance professionals who desire to act ethically. Insights presented in this article can assist the well-intentioned to do the right thing in difficult circumstances.The aim of this article is to underline for finance professionals that, although good intentions are essential to ethical behavior, they are not sufficient. Even well-intentioned people can stumble into ethical minefields if they do not keep their ethical antennae up and guard against errors in judgment that are commonly made—errors that, indeed, people are often predisposed to make. The first part of the article describes many of the cognitive biases and decisional heuristics (mental shortcuts) that can create ethical traps. These concepts form the basis of behavioral finance and have been addressed in relation to their adverse impact on investment decisions. But many people do not fully realize how the same cognitive limitations may also lead to judgments that are unethical. The limitations I discuss are obedience to authority; conformity bias; “incrementalism”; “groupthink”; overoptimism and overconfidence; a self-serving bias we all share; the influence of framing and of sunk costs; the power of the more vivid, tangible, and contemporaneous; and loss aversion.The second major part of the article suggests attitudes and actions that can assist those acting in good faith to minimize, even if not eliminate, their unethical decisions. The first correction is to “debias” ourselves. This step may require playing devil”s advocate with our decisions. Cognitive biases are vigorous phenomena, however, and not easy to neutralize or eliminate. The forces behind the self-serving and optimism biases, for example, not only warp the decision-making process in a particular direction but also make it difficult for a person to debias his or her own decision making. The article describes the necessary elements of debiasing as recognition of bias and its magnitude and direction, motivation to correct it, and the ability to adjust one’s response.The second correction for the finance professional who truly wishes to act ethically is to be vigilant, to think about ethics in every situation. Third, one must watch out for rationalizations. Most white-collar criminals do not view themselves as corrupt, as bad people, or as criminals. Rather, they rationalize their actions as normal in the business world. Finally, ethical behavior may call for courage—the gumption to advocate for pursuing the moral course.The good news is that just as normal people commit most of the evil acts in the world, they also commit most of the heroic acts. Most people who behave heroically do not resemble the characters in action movies. Whether charging a machine gun nest on Iwo Jima or blowing the whistle on Enron, heroic acts are generally performed by ordinary people who exercise vigilance, determination, self-reflection, and a little courage.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert A. Prentice, 2007. "Ethical Decision Making: More Needed Than Good Intentions," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(6), pages 17-30, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:63:y:2007:i:6:p:17-30
    DOI: 10.2469/faj.v63.n6.4923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2469/faj.v63.n6.4923
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2469/faj.v63.n6.4923?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:63:y:2007:i:6:p:17-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ufaj20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.