The ends often do justify the means -- at least when it comes to political elections.
That's the conclusion of a recent study conducted by psychologists at the University of ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ at Boulder.
In the study, Professors Lyle Bourne and Charles Judd, along with graduate student Noelle LaVoie, found that the public's judgment of a politician's ethical conduct during an election may depend on the subsequent success or failure of his or her policies.
In previous experiments, Bourne and LaVoie had found that the public's willingness to infer that someone has cheated to attain a goal depends on that person's role in society.
"It was hard to get anybody to say that scientists cheated no matter how obvious we tried to make it," Bourne said. "It was very easy to get them to say that athletes and students cheated. But for politicians, it seems to depend on the outcome."
The differences in perceived honesty may reflect differences in the prestige and power associated with these social roles, Bourne said.
In the current study, 34 college students -- 18 Democrats and 16 Republicans -- read several short stories. Each story described a fictional male politician, his policy goals, and his success or failure in achieving those goals.
For half of the readers, the politician in each story was identified as a Republican; for the other half, as a Democrat. Otherwise the stories were identical.
In each story, there was a suggestion that the politician might have engaged in some unethical behavior -- such as ballot stuffing, or making promises to large corporations -- in order to win the election.
In general, participants in the study were reluctant to conclude that a member of their own party had engaged in unethical election behavior.
Politicians who were members of the "other party," though, were held to a different standard. Their election behavior was judged in light of their later success or failure as policymakers.
"If it is a member of the other group and they are successful you won't say that they cheated," reports LaVoie. "But if they're a member of the other group and they fail, then you definitely think they cheated."
The study also found that readers were more likely to conclude that the ends justified the means when the politician succeeded in accomplishing an important policy goal.
According to Judd, the study's results reflect an in-group/out-group effect -- a basic finding of research on stereotyping.
"A basic in-group/out-group effect is that you like members of a group that you belong to better than you like members of a group you don't belong to," Judd said. "Politics is such that there are always questions about motivations and ethics, and I think this research suggests you're more likely to question the ethics of out-group politicians than in-group politicians -- particularly in cases where they don't achieve their goals."