2005/04/18 by Dolly Chugh, Max H. Bazerman, Mahzarin R. Banaji · 2 citations
Social Sciences · Health Professions · #Psychology of Social Influence #Social and Intergroup Psychology #Ethics in medical practice
paper · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610332.006
openalex publication_date 2005/04/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
But there is a more subtle question of conflict of interest that derives directly from human bounded rationality. The fact is, if we become involved in a particular activity and devote an important part of our lives to that activity, we will surely assign it a greater importance and value than we would have prior to our involvement with it. It's very hard for us, sometimes, not to draw from such facts a conclusion that human beings are rather dishonest creatures…. Yet most of the bias that arises from human occupations and preoccupations cannot be described correctly as rooted in dishonesty – which perhaps makes it more insidious than if it were. – Herbert A. Simon, 1983, pp. 95–96 Herbert Simon's perspective (1983) is broadly compatible with Moore, Loewenstein, Tanlu, and Bazerman's (2003) recent research on the psychological aspects of conflict of interest in the context of auditor independence. Moore et al. (2003) focus primarily on the work on self-serving interpretations of fairness. The current work broadens this theme, and develops a conceptual framework for understanding how unchecked psychological processes work against an objective assessment and allow us to act against personal, professional, and normative expectations when conflicts of interest exist.