Decades of behavioral ethics research demonstrates that well-intentioned people deviate from their moral standards on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, and that ignoring this reality only increases the chances of misconduct. Indeed, no one is perfect and ignoring this reality can be problematic. However, does believing that oneself is susceptible to deviant behavior lead to more or less actual deviance? By operationalizing the construct of moral fallibility and developing a measure, we unravel the nuanced relationship between moral fallibility and deviant behavior. Drawing upon social cognitive theory, we argue that moral fallibility has countervailing effects on deviant behavior through moral anxiety. On the positive side, moral anxiety caused by moral fallibility promotes proactive moral problem-solving (a “fight” response), which reduces deviant behavior. Conversely, moral anxiety caused by moral fallibility also has the potential to induce moral disengagement (a “flight” response), which leads to an increase in deviant behavior. Further, whereas one’s level of motivation to behave ethically is critical to moral self-regulation in social cognitive theory, we also predict that those high in moral identity are less likely to disengage their moral standards in response to moral anxiety. Across three studies, we find converging support for our theoretical model. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
