Yuval Feldman, Edmond J. Safra Lab Fellow and Professor of Law at Bar Ilan University, presented his research at the February 15 Lab Seminar. Feldman’s research attempts to understand how individuals interpret laws that are ambiguous or unclear.
Feldman pointed out that one of the easiest ways for “good” people to do “bad” things is to legitimize their actions by believing that their behavior is within the boundaries of the law. The focus here is on subjective ambiguity, in which people don’t “know” that their current behavior violates any law. However, behavioral research on ambiguity seems to suggest contradictory implications. On one hand, more ambiguity can be good, based on theories related to autonomy, loyalty, and trust in the context of performance. On the other hand, ambiguity gives more room to motivated reasoning, self-deception and elastic justification rationales.
In relation to performance, less ambiguity (or greater specificity) may increase compliance, but will likely have a negative impact on performance. Also, specificity in rules or laws encourages people to look for loopholes.
Feldman went on to describe several projects he is working on: one will examine ambiguity and dual process in ethical decision making, and another will examine the effect of being reminded of one’s vulnerability on ethicality, compliance, and performance.