The purpose of this paper is to present research on motivated bias and self-deception in ethical decision-making in public relations. Self-deception might explain how professionals evade mental stress in conflicting situations and manage to be persuasive even when they have to act contrary to their own morals or to public interests. Since self-deception impedes moral reasoning, the research purpose is to gain insights on its origins so that effective counter-measures can be developed.,First, the state of research on moral dilemmas in public relations and on self-deception in psychology is outlined. Second, four professionals are interviewed to explore typical conflicts of interest and to develop a realistic scenario that gives rise to a moral dilemma. Third, a small sample of professionals (n=9) is confronted with the developed scenario in a qualitative online questionnaire to analyze their reasoning.,Results indicate that self-deception in response to moral dilemmas exists in public relations practice. Typical conflicts of interest, boundary conditions for motivated bias and counter-measures are identified. Experienced professionals in leading positions seem to have the confidence to reject mandates they perceive as immoral. Counter-measures against self-deception should therefore address young professionals and practitioners with low advisory influence.,While public relations research mostly presumes professionals as rational actors, this study sheds light on irrational practices. In contrast to common practice of expert interviews, an indirect and implicit methodological approach is applied to capture unconscious processes of motivated reasoning.

中文翻译：

---

聪明，友好，有偏见的骗子？探索公共关系中的动机推理和道德决策

本文的目的是介绍公共关系伦理决策中的动机偏见和自欺欺人的研究。自我欺骗可能解释了专业人士在冲突情况下如何规避精神压力并设法说服力，即使他们必须采取违反自己道德或公共利益的举动。由于自欺欺人会阻碍道德推理，因此研究的目的是了解其起源，以便制定有效的对策。首先，概述了公共关系中的道德困境和心理学中的自我欺骗的研究现状。 。其次，对四位专业人员进行了采访，以探讨典型的利益冲突，并提出引起道德困境的现实方案。第三，在定性的在线调查问卷中，一小部分专业人员（n = 9）正面临着已发展的情景，以分析他们的推理。确定了典型的利益冲突，动机偏见的边界条件和对策。经验丰富的专业领导职位似乎有信心拒绝他们认为不道德的任务。因此，应对自欺欺人的对策应针对咨询影响力较小的年轻专业人员和从业人员。虽然公共关系研究大多假定专业人员为理性行为者，但本研究为非理性做法提供了启示。与专家访谈的常规做法相反，