The effect of ego-depletion on unethical behavior, with personal sense of power as a moderator
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 20, 2016
Mark van Hesteren 2182238 Molukkenstraat 8 9715 NV, Groningen
0630125333 markvanhesteren@live.nl
Supervisor:
Jennifer Jordan
2 Table of contents
1. Abstract P. 3
2. Introduction P. 4
3. Theoretical framework P. 5
Conceptual model P. 7
4. Methods P. 9
5. Results P. 11
6. Discussion P. 15
7. References P. 19
8. Appendix A, B & C P. 23
3 ABSTRACT
Whenever persons participate in a task that requires self-control to resist temptations they can get exhausted. This exhaustion leads to a state of ego depletion. The danger of ego depletion is that this can result in negative behavior, among which unethical behavior. Unethical behavior causes a lot of losses in businesses, which makes it an important topic to study. A personal sense of power gives an individual positive feelings, which could make an individual less prone to act in an unethical way, because they feel less ego depleted, thereby reducing the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior. In this study I tested the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior in a laboratory study where I manipulated participants’ state of ego depletion.
Also, I tested whether the personal sense of power of those participants influences their state of ego depletion and their desire to cheat. Results showed no significant relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior. Also a personal sense of power did not significantly influence this relationship. However, a personal sense of power did significantly influence ego depletion.
Keywords: Ego depletion, unethical behavior, personal sense of power, self-control, cheating
4 INTRODUCTION
Sometimes when people have to resist temptations for a long time, they need self-control. Those attempts at self-control can be exhausting for an individual. Just as a muscle gets tired from exertion, acts of self-control cause short-term impairments in subsequent self-control, even on unrelated tasks (Baumeister, Vohs & Tice, 2007). These attempts of self-control lead to ego depletion. Ego depletion results from attempts at self-regulation, which are more likely to fail when they are preceded by previous acts of active self-control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). So if an individual has already exerted self-control, this can result in a state of ego depletion, which makes future acts of self-control more likely to fail. Acts of self- control increase the need to conserve energy and promote approach tendencies and reward- seeking behavior (Giacomantonio, Jordan, Fennis & Panno, 2014). This means that people will be more sensitive to choose to do something in which they can restock their energy sources, or choose for immediate rewards.
Previous research already showed that ego-depleted individuals display heightened aggression when faced with provocation, consume more alcohol, are more likely to smoke cigarettes and indulge in frivolous spending (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman & Gaillot, 2007; Muraven, Collins
& Nienhaus, 2002; Muraven, Collins, Shiffman & Paty, 2005; Vohs & Faber, 2007). Inadequate self-control may also be linked to emotional problems, school underachievement, lack of persistence, various failures at task performance and relationship problems and dissolution (Baumeister et al., 2007). Low self-control even appeared to be the single most important factor in producing criminal, antisocial behaviour (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). With all those negative effects resulting from a lack of self-control and ego depletion, it is not surprising that those variables are attracting increasing attention. Therefore, on a theoretical level, ego depletion is important to study because it holds important keys to understanding the nature and functions of the self (Baumeister et al., 2007). On a practical level, ego depletion can be used to explain and adjust to behavioral problems that are a result of ego depletion.
Some research already showed that ego depletion could lead to negative behaviors and to
dishonesty (Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweiter & Ariely, 2009). This is a result of the fact that
depletion reduces the moral awareness of individuals when they are faced with the opportunity to
cheat (Gino et al., 2011). So whenever people get ego depleted, they are more prone to act in
selfish, unethical ways, even if this could harm an organization and its stakeholders. According to
the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE, 2008) US businesses lose approximately
5 7% of their annual revenues to various forms of unethical behavior, an amount equal to $1 trillion in losses across the economy (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead & Ariely, 2011). Since unethical behavior means a lot less profit to organizations it is an important topic to study. And though literature on this topic is increasing, still more research has to be done.
This study aims to test the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior. More importantly, it also proposes a moderator to this relationship. Because of the losses to our economy as a result of unethical behavior it is very important to find factors that influence this relationship, so those moderators can be taken into account in practice. Factors that already proved to lessen the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior are individual differences in moral identity (Gino et al., 2011) and positive mood or emotion (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli & Muraven, 2007).
It appears that positive personal states can decrease the tendency of a person to behave unethically, even when he or she is ego depleted. As a result of these positive personal states an individual can feel mentally stronger and because of this, less dejected. That is why it might be possible that a personal sense of power can influence the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior. Note that this study is not aimed at power itself, but at the psychological sense of power, which is the power that people feel that they possess. This is an area of research that is much less studied than power itself and because of the large body of research on power a very relevant topic to investigate (Anderson, John & Keltner, 2012). Also one’s subjective sense of power often had a greater influence on behavior than the amount of power one actually possesses (Smith, Wigboldus & Dijksterhuis, 2008).
In this study, first the most important concepts will be defined in order to understand the rest of this thesis. A literature review will be made to discuss those topics. Those definitions will result in hypotheses and a conceptual model. After that the design of the study will be explained in the method section, followed by the results and a section in which those results are discussed.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Ego depletion
As stated before, ego depletion is defined as attempts at self-regulation that are more likely to fail
when they are preceded by previous acts of active self-control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Muraven, & Tice, 1998). This is because an individual’s self-control draws upon a common
resource that becomes depleted with use (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Vohs and
6 Heatherton, 2000). So if someone is already depleted from one task that required self-control, he is more likely to fail at the next task that requires self-control. Research already showed that ego depletion leads to heightened aggression when faced with provocation, more consummation of alcohol, higher likeliness of people to smoke cigarettes and people who are more indulged in frivolous spending (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman & Gaillot, 2007; Muraven, Collins &
Nienhaus, 2002; Muraven, Collins, Shiffman & Paty, 2005; Vohs & Faber, 2007).
Freud (1961) compared the phenomenon of ego depletion very appropriately with a horse and rider. With the rider being the ego, who is mostly in charge of his behavior, but is sometimes unable to prevent the horse from doing something else. Freud argued that the rider needed some energy to control the horse. This is also the case for ego depletion and an attempt at self- regulation. Ego depletion is a result of both self-regulation and self-control. Since those two concepts can be mixed up they are shortly defined here. Self-regulation is the broader term;
encompassing both conscious and unconscious processes and sometimes referring to all behavior guided by goals or standards, whereas self-control refers more narrowly to conscious efforts to alter behavior, especially restraining impulses and resisting temptations (Baumeister, 2002).
Unethical behavior
Unethical behavior is defined as acts that have harmful effects on others (Gino et al., 2011) and are either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community (Jones, 1991). Examples of unethical behaviors are violations of ethical norms or standards, cheating, stealing and other forms of dishonesty (Gino et al., 2011). A reason why people can engage in unethical behavior is when they can benefit from this. If they have a strong relationship with the other (e.g. person, business or stakeholder), potential losses from harming this relationship are high. However, the gains from the unethical behavior can also be high, because the other party trusts the person which make the opportunities for unethical behavior arise. If the relationship is weak, there is less to lose if the relationship is ruined, but there is also less to gain from unethical behavior ( Brass, Butterfield &
Skaggs, 1998).
So people take their relationships in consideration before they act unethically. By nature people
are selfish, but their relationships can prevent them from acting dishonest (Baumeister & Vohs,
2007). Because people do not want to harm their relationships, they normally would not engage in
unethical behavior. However, by nature selfish acts, even when they require cheating are
tempting. So, because of their relationships, people resist the urges to behave unethically. But if
an individual already exerted self-control, the next attempts to resist those urges are more likely to
7 fail. Because of that, the individual gets more and more eager to act in the selfish, unethical way.
So the more an individual is ego depleted, the faster this individual can act unethically.
Whenever someone is ego depleted he could more quickly engage in selfish behavior, because of lessened self-control to act in a socially acceptable way. Therefore, an individual can be more prone to act in a dishonest way, if this benefits the self. Some research already argued that ego depletion results in unethical behavior (Mead et al., 2009). This is because an opportunity to cheat can create a motivational conflict between a socially responsible act or an act from which a person benefits more by itself. Depleted participants appeared to cheat for selfish gains more than non- depleted participants (Mead et al., 2009). This also could be because participants already did a task that required self-control, which makes them more likely to act in a more selfish way on the next task, even if this requires dishonesty.
Another explanation for the relationship between unethical behavior and ego depletion could be that ego depletion results in recuperation and conservation of resources on the one hand, and active indulgence and reward-seeking on the other (Giacomantonio et al., 2014). This means that ego depletion results in passivity or in sensitivity to immediate rewards (Giacomantonio et al., 2014). Recuperation and conservation of resources could lead to unethical behavior, whenever the
‘easy’ option is an option that requires cheating for example. The study by Baumeister et al.
(1998) also points in that direction by concluding that resisting temptation leads to less persistence. In their study, participants forced themselves to eat radishes instead of enticing chocolates, which resulted in participants who gave up easier in a puzzle-solving task if their resources were recuperating. However, mainly the sensitivity to immediate rewards might be tempting, because the more acts of self-control an individual has to make, the more future attempts for self-control are likely to fail. This means that more attempts at self-control provoke immediate reward seeking. If those immediate rewards require unethical behavior, this behavior will become more tempting, the more an individual has already exerted self-control. Based on these findings by previous literature, the first hypothesis is as follows:
H1: Ego depletion is positively related to unethical behavior.
Personal sense of power
Personal sense of power is defined as the perception of one’s ability to influence another person or
other people (Anderson et al., 2012). While a personal sense of power is much less studied than
power by itself, this is a much more relevant variable to this study. This is because a personal
8 sense of power is more of a determinant of behavior for people than their actual power (Haidt &
Rodin, 1999; Anderson and Berdahl, 2002). Whenever objective and subjective appraisals of power conflict, the subjective power determines behavior (Bugental, Lyon, Krantz & Cortez, 1997).
Prior research already stated that possessing power leads individuals to experience more positive and less negative affects, pursue a more assertive approach to the world, and enjoy a higher self- esteem, physical health and longevity (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Barkow, 1975;
Bugental & Cortez, 1988; Keltner et al., 2003; Marmot, 2004). This power can also affect the personal sense of power that one feels, so this feeling of power has positive effects on a person’s psychological state. Because of those more positive states resulting from a personal sense of power, the individual could feel mentally stronger and because of this less dejected in certain depleting situations. Therefore it could be that the individual will feel less ego depleted under the same circumstances than a person who has a low personal sense of power. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: A higher personal sense of power is negatively related to ego depletion.
The positive states that result from a personal of sense of power could lessen the effect of ego depletion on unethical behavior. As stated before, prior research showed that a high moral identity (Gino et al., 2011) and a positive mood or emotion (Tice et al., 2007) are factors that lessen the relationship between ego depletion and unethical behavior. A high sense of power also leads to more positive psychological states. These positive states should lessen the effect of ego depletion on unethical behavior.
Furthermore, while the relationship between a personal sense of power in relation to ego depletion and unethical behavior is not yet studied, research by Smith, Wigboldus and Dijksterhuis (2008) showed that abstract thinking leads to a higher personal sense of power. This is a result of the fact that abstract thinking allows more freedom and flexibility and because of this way of thinking, people can take more control of their environment. In the meanwhile, a study by Agerström &
Björklund (2013) showed that a higher level of abstract thinking leads to more moral concerns
and thus less unethical behavior. The reason for this is that moral principles form abstract
psychological constructs. Therefore, if personal sense of power is higher, unethical behavior gets
lower. This is because people who have a high sense of power think more abstract and this
abstract way of thinking also makes people behave less unethically. So abstract thinking can be
9 used to explain the relationship between personal sense of power and unethical behavior. Also I argued in the previous hypothesis that a personal sense of power is negatively related to ego depletion, because of the positive mental states that a personal sense of power gives. So, personal sense of power could influence both ego depletion and unethical behavior and thus the relationship between those two variables in a negative way. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: A higher personal sense of power weakens the relation between ego depletion and unethical behavior.
Conceptual model
METHODS
Participants
The sample consisted of 106 participants. Of the participants, 67 were female (63%) and 39 were male (37%). The age of respondents varied between 18 and 33 with an average age of 22 (SD = 1.73). All respondents were students. The range of study years was between first year students and master students with the average study year being 2.90 (SD = 1.54). The race of the respondents varied between Dutch (23.6%), Western European (non-Dutch) (21.7%), Eastern European (27.4%), Hispanic/Latino (2.8%), Asian (non-Indian) (19.8%), Indian (1.9%) and 2.8% originated from other ethnicities.
Seven participants did not finish the study and eight participants missed attention checks. I excluded these from the final analyses. Thus, the final analyses consisted of 91 respondents. The only sampling criterion that had to be met in order for participants to join the study was that participants did not join in a similar study before, since this could affect the test results.
Ego depletion
Personal sense of power
Unethical
behavior
10 Design
I used a design in which participants were randomly assigned to either a depleted or a non- depleted state (i.e., a 1-way between subjects design). Also participants filled out a survey in which I measured their personal sense of power.
Procedure
When participants entered the laboratory I guided them to a cubicle. In the cubicle they found a computer and a workbook. At first, I manipulated participants’ ego depletion via a task on the computer. Participants then completed a task in the workbook where I measured their cheating behavior. Furthermore, participants received a questionnaire, which measured their personal sense of power. After this, I asked participants for some demographic variables and personality related questions and whether they had an idea what the research was about. Lastly, participants read a debriefing and received their money for participating.
Manipulation of ego depletion. Participants received either a manipulation of ego depletion or did not receive such a manipulation. I assigned participants to write a story of half a page. The ego depleted participants were not allowed to use the words ‘I’ and ‘we’ and they had to finish the story in 7 minutes. The participants in the control condition also wrote a story of half a page, only they received no restrictions in which they wrote the story and they had no time pressure. This manipulation was similar to the study from Schmeichel & Vohs (2009). To check whether participants were really ego depleted, I used 8 questions to check this manipulation. I used a 7- point Likert scale here. Examples of questions were ‘Please think back to the first task of writing a personal story. To what extent was this exhausting?’ or ‘To what extent was this depleting?’ The questions regarding the manipulation checks had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79.
Measures
Unethical behavior. To measure unethical behavior, I put the participants in a position in which
they could cheat. They believed that if they cheated they would earn more money. After the ego
depletion task, respondents received a workbook. In this workbook they received questions
similar to the experiment by John, Loewenstein and Rick (2014). Within the workbook, there was
a list of questions. The participants had to write the most common response to these questions
down. For example, if the question was ‘name a quiet animal’, the answer was ‘cat’. Whenever
they guessed this word correctly, they received 0.15 euros on top of the base payment they
received for participating.
11 After this assignment the participants received the option to self-score, or to have the experimenter check the answers. In the self-scoring option they had an opportunity to cheat, since they could score their own scores higher. And a higher score meant a higher financial gain. Also they received instructions to throw the workbook away after they checked their answers. Because of this participant had the idea that I could not check whether they cheated. However the workbooks were removed from the trash later, so those answers could still be checked. I could match the participants with the workbooks from the trash, because each participant secretly received a number when they started the experiment, and I also hid this number in their workbook, so the participants were traced back to their workbooks. To measure cheating behavior I used two scoring options. The first was yes/no scoring in which I scored participants who did not cheat as -1 and participants who cheated as 1. Also I used a continuous scale in which I measured on how many items the participants cheated.
Personal sense of power. To measure personal sense of power, I used the scale by Anderson and Galinsky (2006). I measured personal sense of power by eight items using a 7-point Likert scale, where ‘1’ meant they strongly disagreed with the question and ‘7’ meant they strongly agreed.
Examples of questions were, “In my relationship with others, I can get people to listen to what I say” and “In my relationship with others my wishes do not carry much weight” (this question was reverse scored). The Cronbach’s alpha for personal sense of power was .81.
RESULTS
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Ego depletion 0.50 0.50 --
2. Personal sense of power 5.15 0.84 .02 --
3. Unethical behavior (continuous) 1.11 3.85 .15 .07 --
4. Unethical behavior (categorical) -0.68 0.74 .11 -.05 .67
**--
*
