↓ Skip to main content

Moral Credentialing and the Rationalization of Misconduct

Overview of attention for article published in Ethics & Behavior, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 357)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 X users
patent
15 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
7 Redditors
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Moral Credentialing and the Rationalization of Misconduct
Published in
Ethics & Behavior, February 2011
DOI 10.1080/10508422.2011.537566
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Recent studies lead to the paradoxical conclusion that the act of affirming one's egalitarian or pro-social values and virtues might subsequently facilitate prejudiced or self-serving behavior, an effect previously referred to as "moral credentialing." The present study extends this paradox to the domain of academic misconduct and investigates the hypothesis that such an effect might be limited by the extent to which misbehavior is rationalizable. Using a paradigm designed to investigate deliberative and rationalized forms of cheating (von Hippel, Lakin, & Shakarchi, 2005), we found that when participants had credentialed themselves (versus a non-close acquaintance) via a set of hypothetical moral dilemmas, they were more likely to cheat on a subsequent math task, but only if cheating was highly rationalizable. When cheating was difficult to rationalize, moral credentialing had almost no impact on cheating.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Colombia 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 92 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 10%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2026.
All research outputs
#985,568
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Ethics & Behavior
#7
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,104
of 256,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ethics & Behavior
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them