1 IS THERE A MODERATING EFFECT OF MORAL IDENTITY ON THE RELATION OF
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC RULES ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOR?
Master’s Thesis Human Resource Management
R. Golstein
S2189011
Supervisor: L.B. Mulder
University of Groningen
2 Introduction
Rules are explicit ethical guidelines composed by authorities to induce ethical behavior (Mulder, Jordan & Rink, 2015). Rules appear to foster ethical behavior. If more would have been known about rules, specifically how they work. This may help in preventing huge scandals, such as for example the Enron scandal and consequently their bankruptcy (Anand, Ashforth & Joshi, 2005). The possibility to prevent scandals by efficiently applying rules makes it an important subject for research.
There are different ways to phrase rules. Rules may either be specifically or generally phrased. Specific rules concretely describe what behaviors are allowed and not allowed in a situation (Mulder et al., 2015), for example ‘always wear plastic gloves before making a sandwich’. General rules do not describe specific situations, but try to induce ethical behavior by communicating a ‘value’ in a more abstract way (Mulder et al., 2015). For example, ‘make sure that you work hygienically’.
Prior literature has found that specific rules work better than general rules (Mulder et al., 2015). However, general rules cover more situations at once. Therefore, less rules are needed, making general rules easier to compose and to implement. To my knowledge there has not been sufficient research about what makes general rules effective and how they can become effective. Therefore, in this paper I will focus on what may influence the effectivity of general rules.
3 why general rules become effective. Therefore in this paper the effects of moral identity on rules will be examined.
Researching moral identity provides theoretical relevance as it provides a starting point in filling the research gap. Because, to my knowledge, no research has been done about how differences in personal characteristics affect the way individuals react to rules. This paper contributes as it is the first time moral identity will be researched related to rules.
This research will also provide practical relevance. Authorities prefer to use general rules over specific ones, because general are more efficient. After all they cover more situations with one rule, while the sole use of specific rules goes hand in hand with big manuals and rulebooks. Employees might perceive this as an overload of rules, which makes working less comprehensive and they may perceive their work as less free. This research helps in understanding how authorities can make general rules work and how they should select their workforce for different positions. When the authorities know how they can make general rules work and know for what type of persons they should apply specific rules they might be able to prevent big scandals such as the before mentioned Enron scandal.
Theory
Unethical behavior is defined in prior research as “ a decision which is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community” (Jones, 1991; Gino & Bazerman, 2009). This definition will also be used in this paper. Unethical decisions therefore are decisions that negatively influence other individuals. Examples of unethical behavior are accepting bribes, stealing or giving false information to customers.
4 General and specific rules.
There are different kinds of rules and in this paper I will make a distinction between general and specific rules. Specific rules are clearly formulated in terms of specific behaviors (Mulder et al., 2015), for example ‘do not accept presents from customers’. General rules are formulated in a way that they cover more different situations. They do not describe specific situations, but communicate a value in an abstract way (Mulder et al., 2015), for example ‘do not engage in conflicts of interest’. So, general rules describe the desired behavior in more broad terms than do specific rules. As such they are more encompassing, meaning that general rules cover more situations within one rule than do specific rules. Since specific rules address for specific behaviors it is easier to enforce them, than general rules. Because, when the behavior is specified it is a lot easier to notice if an employee broke a rule (Mulder et al, 2015).
Moral rationalizations.
An important aspect of specific rules is that they, compared to general rules, leave less room for moral rationalizations. Moral rationalization is the thought process of individuals to change their interpretation of unethical actions so they appear moral to them (Tsang, 2002). So, moral rationalizations are excuses individuals come up with to make immoral actions appear morally acceptable.
5 says so, as in the Milgram experiment of 1974.) 5) Diffusion of responsibility, responsibility for immoral actions can be divided and therefore diminished by division of labor (i.e. no one takes responsibility in a group decision). 6) Distortion of consequences, avoiding the harm caused by immoral actions (e.g. In the Milgram experiment participants were less likely to engage in immoral behavior when they saw and heard the person they were ‘harming’. 7) Dehumanization, striping victims of immoral behavior from their human qualities (e.g. Greek torturers called their victims ‘worms’).
Rules and ethical behavior.
Rules induce ethical behavior because they communicate rights and duties of people in a society, by which they shape society. They communicate the values and morals that are considered to be ‘normal’ for the societies they are installed in (Mulder et al., 2015). Because rules communicate these values and norms people pick up on them and exert more ethical behavior and make more ethical decisions compared to a no-rule situation (Mulder et al., 2015; Rawls, 1955; Feldman, 2009; Cooter 1998). Prior research has found that specific rules as well as general foster ethical behavior.
Mulder et al. (2015) state that “specific rules give a distinct mandate about what is right and wrong“, meaning that specific rules very clearly explain the situations and what behavior is morally acceptable in these situations, which leads to more ethical behavior.
6 H1: Specific rules lead to more ethical behavior than when there are no rules for employees.
H2: General rules lead to more ethical behavior than when there are no rules for employees.
General rules leave more room for moral rationalization because they do not describe specific situations or how one should act to behave morally. Therefore, more self-regulation is necessary (Weaver & Treviño, 1999). Meaning, employees have to do a lot of interpretation about what is moral by themselves and behave accordingly. Therefore, they might be more prone to engage in moral rationalization compared to a specific-rule situation (Mulder et al., 2015; Bandura, 1990; Jones 1991; Craft, 2015). For example, organizations may install a rule which states ‘employees should not engage in conflicts of interests’. Employees may still accept gifts from customers, because they do not perceive it as a conflict of interest. However, if a specific rule would be installed such as ‘do not accept gifts from customers’ it leaves less room for interpretation. Meaning, employees are less likely to make immoral decisions (i.e. accepting the gifts). Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Specific rules lead to more ethical behavior than do general rules
Moral Identity.
7 Moral identity predicts the importance individuals place on acting morally (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Aquino and Reid (2002) defined moral identity as “a self-conception organized around a set of moral traits”. This means each individual has certain values and everyone places a different amount of importance to these values. In this paper I will define moral identity as follows: “Moral identity reflects the significance and salience of moral values in one’s identity” (Blasi, 1984; Xu & Ma, 2016). The differences in moral identity exist because, for some individuals morality is a core aspect used to define themselves, while for others morality is less important in their daily activities and self-concept (Xu & Ma, 2016).
People with a low moral identity tend to have less self-regulation (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead and Ariely, 2011). Self-regulation is “the ability to override undesired behavioral tendencies and refrain to act upon them” (Gino et al., 2011). Meaning that when self-regulation is low people are more prone to engage in self-benefitting actions. In the following I will argue why moral identity will mainly affect the effectivity of general rules rather than specific rules.
8 fatigued faster and start putting less effort in comprehending the general rules and eventually engage in moral disengagement.
Moral Identity and General rules. General rules communicate a moral value as a message and do not describe specific situations (Weaver & Treviño, 1999). It seems logical to assume that people with a high moral identity are more likely to comply to these rules as a high moral identity leads to more self-control. These individuals may therefore be more motivated to interpret and stick to the general rules than individuals with a low moral identity (Hardy et al., 2015; Gino et al., 2011). This is because individuals with a low moral identity are not willing to interpret general rules as much as individuals with a high moral identity. Therefore, general rules are less effective for them (Hardy et al., 2015). For example, individuals with a low moral identity may have difficulties with interpreting a general rule like ‘do not engage in activities which may lead to conflict situations’. Besides that, general rules also give more room for interpretation and, therefore, for moral rationalizations. However, employees with a high moral identity will choose not to engage in moral rationalizations, because they have higher levels of self-control. Because of these reasons I propose the following hypothesis:
H4: Moral identity positively moderates the effect general rules have on ethical behavior. Moral identity and specific rules.
9 therefore individuals do not have to translate a moral value into actions, therefore I propose the following hypothesis:
H5: Moral identity has no moderating effect on the positive relation between specific rules and ethical behavior
To test these hypotheses an experiment has been conducted. The experiment consisted out of a survey and a selling game.
Method
Participants and design. This study had a 3 condition (no-rule, general rule or specific rule) between-subjects design with individual differences in moral identity as the moderating variable. To test the hypotheses proposed in the theory section, an experiment was conducted. The participants were recruited using a website (M-turk.com), the participants received $1.50 for their participation, with an additional opportunity to win $100. The sample size was 329 participants (45.6% female, M = 35.28, SD = 10.06). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Ethical behavior was the dependent variable and moral identity was measured.
10 selling the products for real. The value of each product was determined beforehand. The participants were told there would be a second stage of the experiment where ‘buyers’ had to choose which products they wanted to buy based on the advertisements. The goal of the ‘sellers’ was to earn as much money as possible by selling their products to the ‘buyers’. The ‘seller’ who made the most money would win the 100 dollar reward. The participants received a list of characteristics of the products and a picture. They were asked to write an advertisement based on this information and to select the current state of the products they were selling as ‘new’, ‘as good as new’ or ‘used’. Depending on the condition, participants were faced with a rule for the first time during this introduction. After this, everything was summarized and, in the specific and general rule conditions, the rule was given to the participants once more. After that, the products were presented one by one, in randomized order. For each product, the characteristics of the products included a small flaw. It was up to the participants how to use this information in writing their advertisement. For each product, participants then were asked to write an advertisement.
After the selling game the participants had to answer another short survey in which questions were asked concerning moral rationalization, manipulation checks and experience on sites such as e-bay.
Manipulation of rule. In the general rule condition the rule was: “Sellers should give accurate and clear information about the product” from this point forward named the ‘general rule’. For the specific rule condition the rule was: “Sellers should describe any defects or flaws of the product” from this point forward named the ‘specific rule’.
Measures.
11 gender (1=male, 2 = female) and income. For age the question was: “What is your year of birth?”. This was recoded to the ages of the participants. For income the participants had to choose between 12 options, starting at ‘Less than $10.000’ and ending at: ‘more than $150’. For each choice higher the range rose $10.000, with the eleventh choice as: ‘ranging from $100.000 to 150.000’
Rules condition. For the rule conditions variables were created. First the specific rule condition this variable was created (no rule = -1, specific rule =1 and the general rule was coded as a missing value). This variable was labeled as the specific rule variable. After that the variable for the general rule condition was created (no rule = -1, general rule = 1 and the specific rule was coded as a missing value). This variable was labeled as the general rule variable.
Moral identity. Moral identity was measured using a measurement developed by Aquino & Reed (2002). First the participants were given nine characteristics (Caring, Compassionate, Fair, Friendly, Generous, Hardworking, Helpful, Honest, Kind) and asked to visualize a person who has these characteristics. Then moral identity was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) by ten items (α = .85). The moral identity scale can be divided into two different measures, which are internalization (five items for example: “It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics” with α = .82) and symbolization (five questions, for example: “I often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics” with α = .89). The internalization measure will be used as the moral identity variable. Internalization reflects how important moral identity is to the self-concept, while symbolization represents the degree to which moral identity is presented to others (Aquino & Reed, 2003). For this research internalization is more important, as the participants are at home meaning symbolization does not play a role.
12 defect in any product to mentioning the defect of a product in all six advertisements. The scale was created by reading and coding the advertisements participants wrote (1 = mentioned defect, 0 = did not mention defect).
Suspicion check. After the selling game a suspicion check was performed the participants were asked if they had a suspicion what the goal of the study was. The participants who answered that the research was about the effect of the rules or how rules affected the way people lied, were excluded. This was just 1 person. Also, 13 participants who did not fill in the advertisements seriously were excluded. These participants just copied and pasted the description into the advertisement, used only one word in their advertisements or wrote something unrelated to the task. This left 316 participants (146 female, mean age 35.23 years).
Comprehension check. To test whether the participants noticed the defects in the products, they were asked if the products they had to sell had some flaws or defects. They could either choose “no”, “Some products had flaws, but not all” and “Yes all of them had flaws or defects”.
Experience. Then, participants were asked to answer some questions regarding the experience they have on e-bay . First the participants were asked if they had an e-bay account (yes or no) and if so, they were asked how often they used e-bay as a buyer as well as a seller (1 = never, 7 = weakly), how long they have had an account (1= less than a month, 7 = more than 5 years) and if they saw themselves as experienced (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These questions combined gave α = .71 for experience.
13 defect”. These questions were based on the moral disengagement mechanisms of Bandura (1999).
Manipulation check. Finally, some manipulation checks were performed, the participants were shortly explained the difference between general and specific rules by using the examples of “drive safely” and “Keep within the 50 mph limit” . After which they were asked if the rule they received was specific or general on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Very specific, 7 = very general). After this they were presented both the general and the specific rule and had to score them both on the same scale.
Results
The data was analyzed using SPSS. Correlations are presented in table 1.
Manipulation check. A one-way Anova was performed to test how specific participants perceived their rule when they only were confronted with only their own rule. Specificity of the rule was used as the dependent variable. The rule-condition was used as the independent variable. The participants had to score how specific they perceived the rules to be in their own condition. The ANOVAS confirmed that the manipulations were successful. A direct effect was found between the condition of the participants and the perceived specificity of the rules F (2,315) = 38.20, p = <0.001. People in the rule conditions perceived their rules as more specific (General rule; M = 4.15, SD = 1.66, Specific rule; M= 3.16, SD = 1.88) than people in the no-rule condition (M= 5.11, SD = 1.29). Also the people in the specific no-rule condition perceived their rule as significantly more specific than the participants in the general rule condition.
14 Comprehension check. It was measured if the participants noticed the defects in the products. 219 participants noticed a defect in all products. 93 participants noticed a defect in some products, remaining 4 participants who did not notice any defects. I chose to maintain the 97 participants which answered incorrectly. I did so because there could be several explanations for why they answered incorrectly. Firstly, it may be a possibility that participants did not remember what defects each product had and therefore chose the ‘safe’ answer, which would be to say there were defects in some products. Secondly, the defects were small, meaning the product was still working properly and therefore these flaws may not be perceived as a defect. Control variables. As can be seen in the correlation table the control variables age and gender both correlated significantly with moral identity and ethical behavior. Therefore, these control variables are taken into account when performing the moderation analyses while testing the hypotheses, in order to control for their effects.
Rule inducing.
Correlation Table 1
Correlations, means and standard deviations of variables.
Table 1
** Correlation significant at the .01 level
* Correlation significant at the .05 level
1 In this correlation table a dummy was created for the general rule variable (No rule = -1, General rule = 1) as well as for the specific rule variable (No-rule = -1, Specific rule =1). For the gender variable 1 = male and 2 = female.
16 Moral Identity as a moderator.
General rules. The fourth hypothesis suggests a moderating effect of moral identity on the relation between general rules and ethical behavior. To test this, a moderation analysis was performed using the process macro of Hayes on SPSS. The moral identity variable was standardized. Ethical behavior was used as the DV, the general rule variable as the IV and age and gender as control variables and moral identity as the moderating variable. The complete model explains 13.48 percent of the variance with F (5,208) = 6.92 with p = <.001. The control variables were both found to be significant as can be seen in table 2. For moral identity only a main effect was found for the general rule (p < .001), but not for moral identity (p = .20). No general rule variable * moral identity interaction was found (p = .71). As can be seen in table 2. Therefore, H4 is rejected. B SD p LLCI ULCI Constant 1.32 .62 .03 .10 2.54 Moral identity .19 .15 .20 -.10 .49 General rule .52 .14 .00 .25 .80 Interaction .05 .14 .71 -.23 .34 Gender .61 .30 .04 .03 1.19 Age .03 .01 .01 .00 .06 table 2
17 B SD p LLCI ULCI Constant 2.14 .62 .00 .93 3.36 Moral identity .22 .16 .17 -.10 .53 Specific rule .97 .14 .00 .70 1.24 Interaction .04 .14 .78 -.27 .36 Gender .24 .28 .37 -.30 .80 Age .04 .02 .01 .01 .07 table 3
Moral rationalization. Moral identity is expected to lead to less moral rationalizations as people with a high moral identity are more willing to put in some effort to interpret and comprehend rules. Therefore, they should be less prone to engage in moral rationalizations. To test whether moral identity affects moral rationalizations and whether this depends on the presence of a rule (general or specific) a moderation analysis was performed. Moral rationalization was used as the DV and the rule condition and the internalization of moral identity were used as the IV.
First the moderator analysis for the specific rule variable was performed. A regression was performed with moral rationalization as the DV, the specific rule variable as the IV and the interaction specific rule variable * moral identity as the moderating variable. The complete model explained 5.3 percent with F(3,210) = 3.84, B = 4.45 and p = .01. Only main effects were found for the specific rule variable (p = .07, B = -.24) and moral identity (p = .01, B = -.15). No interaction was found (p = .98, B = -.01).
18 This means that a high moral identity significantly helps in decreasing moral rationalizations when confronted with a general rule (figure 1). This might be interesting for future research.
Figure 1
Discussion
In this study some interesting findings were found, but to interpret these findings it is important to consider the strengths and limitations of this research. The main goal of this study was to gain knowledge about the effectivity of general rules. I tried do so by investigating if implementing rules affected ethical behavior and what the differences were between the effects of general rules and specific rules on ethical behavior. Moral identity was tested as a possible moderator for the effect between rules and ethical behavior. Especially for general rules I hypothesized that moral identity would have a moderating effect.
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
no rule General rule
19 Specific and general rules. In support of the hypotheses I found that both general and specific rules increased ethical behavior compared to a no-rule situation. However, specific rules increased ethical behavior more than general rules.
The findings in this study can be explained by the way rules communicate what is perceived as morally correct behavior. For specific rules this entails the fact that they explicitly explain what behavior is acceptable in what situation (Mulder et al., 2015). For general rules the effect can be explained by the values general rules communicate into an organization. These communicated values lead to more respect in the workplace (Weaver & Treviño, 1999) and therefore lead to more ethical behavior. However, general rules do leave more room for moral rationalization than do specific rules and general rules require more effort to be interpreted well (Weaver & Treviño, 1999), which explains why support was found for a stronger effect of specific rules on ethical behavior.
These findings are consistent with what has been found in prior research. It provides additional support for the positive effect of rules on eliciting ethical behavior, for specific rules (Mulder et al, 2015) as well as general rules (Weaver & Treviño, 1999). Besides that, it provides additional support for the suggested stronger effect of specific rules on ethical behavior, compared to general rules.
Moral identity as a moderator. No supporting evidence was found for moral identity as a moderating variable for the relation between specific rules and ethical behavior, as expected in the hypotheses. However, the results also did not provide supporting evidence for moral identity as a moderating variable for general rules and ethical behavior, which opposes what I proposed in the hypotheses.
20 general rules by employees. This may be explained by the possibility that moral identity is not the only factor that influences the relation between general rules and ethical behavior. This study only investigated individual variables as a possible moderator, perhaps there are more factors combined that do influence the relation. For example a combination of high moral identity and a low creativity may have a moderating effect on the relation between general rules and ethical behavior.
These findings contribute to the current literature as it is, to my knowledge, the first time moral identity has been researched in combination with rules. Furthermore this research has contributed as a whole as it provided a starting point for researching the characteristics of individuals in order to investigate the effectiveness of general rules.
Moral Rationalizations
A negative moderating effect of moral identity between the relation of general rules and moral rationalization was found, despite the fact moral identity was not found to be a moderating variable for the relation between general rules and ethical behavior.
These findings suggests that a high moral identity leads to less moral rationalizations. This implies further that moral rationalizations are not the only factor that weakens the effect of general rules on ethical behavior compared to specific rules. However it should be taken into account that moral rationalization was measured post-hoc, which means the effects are somewhat debatable as the ‘selling game’ was already over when these questions were asked. This might affect how the participants answered the questions concerning moral rationalizations as there was no incentive anymore to engage in moral disengagement.
21 rationalizations in general rules. However, these findings open up the possibility that more factors play a role the difference of effectiveness between general and specific rules.
Implications for practice
This research has some implications for practitioners in the field. It suggests that general rules do work, compared to a no-rule situation, therefore it does make sense for practitioners to keep using general rules in order to overcome unethical behavior. However, specific rules are even more effective. Meaning practitioners should use rules, preferably specific rules. But when the practical disadvantages or side-effects become too large, general rules do provide a useful alternative.
Furthermore, it was found that people with a high moral identity are less likely to show unethical behavior. Meaning that organizations should try to find out which positions in their organizations are high-risk positions for unethical behavior and with a high potential influence on the organization. For these positions the organizations should invest in ways to measure the internalization of moral identity of their potential employees thoroughly.
Limitations, strengths and directions for future research.
The first strength of this paper is that it reenacted a believable situation for all participants. A realistic situation was created, as most participants have sold products online and if they did not it was quite easy to imagine one had to sell an old product. This situation therefore made it likely that participants would act the same as they would when they would sell their own products, making the set-up of this research realistic as well. Besides that, the rules used in the experiment were official rules of the Dutch online selling platform ‘Marktplaats’ and ‘eBay’. The realistic situation of the experiment ensures a high external validity of the experiment.
22 high education or low education, young and old participants, and with a variance in income. The heterogenous sample also contributes to the external validity of the experiment as it makes the study generalizable. However, it should be noted that the sample consisted solely out of American participants, there may be differences in the measured variables depending on different cultures. This may be a possible direction for future research.
Another strong point of this experiment is that there was a 100 dollar reward and that the participants were told there would be ‘buyers’. By doing so I tried to prevent quick fill-ins by giving the participants an incentive to put in an effort.
Furthermore I tried to prevent biases in the selling game by using filler items between the moral identity questionnaire and the ‘selling game’ itself. By doing so the participants were not primed with the moral identity measure when they started the ‘selling game’. This contributed to the internal validity of the experiment.
Besides the strong points of this study there are also some limitations to keep in mind while interpreting the findings. This study focused mainly on the possibility of moral rationalization as the cause of the differences in interpreting general and specific rules. However, there may be more differences between general and specific rules that cause the fact that specific rules elicit more ethical behavior besides moral rationalization. Future research should investigate what other factors influence the effectiveness of general rules and take these into account when new models are investigated in which general rules and specific rules are compared with each other.
23 feel safer when rules are installed, because they offer a form of protection. Future research should focus on other possible consequences of rules in order to create a more complete image of what influences rules may have on employees. This will also help in determining when general rules become effective.
Finally, this survey did not compare to a working situation. The effect of rules might differ between situations. For future research it may be interesting to see how generalizable this study is to other contexts, because there may be differences in how people react to rules in different situations, for example between a home-situation and a working-situation.
References
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2005). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 9-23.
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed II, A., Lim, V. K., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(1), 123.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. Morality, moral behavior, and moral development, 128-139.
Cooter, R. (1998). Expressive law and economics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27(S2), 585-607.
24 Feldman, Y., & Harel, A. (2008). Social norms, self-interest and ambiguity of legal norms: An experimental analysis of the rule vs. standard dilemma. Review of Law and Economics, 4(1), 81-126.
Feldman, Y. (2009). The expressive function of trade secret law: Legality, cost, intrinsic motivation, and consensus. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 177-212.
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 445.
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of experimental Social psychology, 45(4), 708-719.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203.
Hall, J. A., & Pennington, N. (2013). Self-monitoring, honesty, and cue use on Facebook: The relationship with user extraversion and conscientiousness. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1556-1564.
Hardy, S. A., Bean, D. S., & Olsen, J. A. (2015). Moral identity and adolescent prosocial and antisocial behaviors: Interactions with moral disengagement and self-regulation. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(8), 1542-1554.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of management review, 16(2), 366-395.
Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2017). Moral identity predicts doping likelihood via moral disengagement and anticipated guilt. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 39(4), 293-301.
25 Mulder, L. B., Jordan, J., & Rink, F. (2015). The effect of specific and general rules on ethical decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 115-129.
Mulder, L. B., & Nelissen, R. (2010). When rules really make a difference: The effect of cooperation rules and self-sacrificing leadership on moral norms in social dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 57-72
Nunner-Winkler, G., Meyer-Nikele, M., & Wohlrab, D. (2007). Gender differences in moral motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(1), 26-52.
Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. The philosophical review, 64(1), 3-32.
Reed II, A., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(6), 1270.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.
Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 25.
Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and Values Oriented Ethics Programs: Influenceson Employees’ Attitudes and Behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(02), 315-335.
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2009). Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-in-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199-214.
Xu, Z. X., & Ma, H. K. (2016). How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 537-549.
Appendices
26 Listed alphabetically below are some characteristics that might describe a person:
Caring, Compassionate, Fair, Friendly, Generous, Hardworking, Helpful, Honest, Kind The person with these characteristics could be you or it could be someone else. For a moment, visualize in your mind the kind of person who has these characteristics. Imagine how that person would think, feel, and act. When you have a clear image of what this person would be like, answer the following 10 questions using the scale provided.
1. It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics. I 2. Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am. I 3. I often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics. S
4. I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics. I R
5. The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbies) clearly identify me as having these characteristics. S
6. The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these characteristics. S
7. Having these characteristics is NOT really important to me. I R
8. The fact that I have these characteristics is communicated to others by my membership in certain organizations. S
9. I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these characteristics. S
10. I strongly desire to have these characteristics I
I = internalization of moral identity, S = Symbolization of moral identity, R = Recoded Appendix B: Creativity
The goal in this task is to find a word that is logically linked to all three of the words provided. For example:
27 The word "table" is the solution because it links the words "Manners-round-table" (i.e., table manners, round table, table tennis).
Another example: Playing, Credit, Report
The word "card" is a solution because it links the words "playing-credit-report" (i.e., playing card, credit card, report card).
You will see seven 3-word combinations that you need to solve. You can write the correct solution in the space below the three words. Work as fast as you can without sacrificing accuracy. You are given 2 minutes to work on this. Please, do not use any help other than your own knowledge.
Word 1 Word 2 Word 3 Solution
Blank White Lines Paper
Magic Plush floor Carpet
Thread Pine Pain Needle
Stop Petty Sneak Thief
Envy Golf Beans Green
Chocolate Fortune Tin Cookie
Barrel Root Belly Beer
Appendix C: Moral rationalization
28 Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statements below:
1. By not mentioning defects of a product, nobody is really harmed 2. Not mentioning a defect in a product is better than lying about it.
3. It is the buyer's responsibility to engage in an effort to find out whether the product that they want to buy, has a defect.
4. At websites like E-bay it is part of the game to make your product look as good as possible, which makes it okay to keep silent about any defects.
5. Telling a white lie is acceptable.
