DOES BEING MOTIVATED BY COMPARISON LEAD TO LYING?

DOES BEING MOTIVATED BY COMPARISON LEAD

TO LYING?

A study into the moderating role of social comparison on the indirect relationship between regulatory focus and unethical behavior.

Nisa Broekema

Supervisor: Tim Vriend

Master Thesis June 2013

W.A. Scholtenstraat 26a 9712 KW Groningen n.c.broekema@student.rug.nl

Research shows how regulatory focus works as an intrinsic motivator for people, which may lead to experiencing eagerness or vigilance. However, there also might be negative aspects of being motivated and experiencing eagerness or vigilance, for instance behaving unethical. As many organizations nowadays use ranking structures, in addition social comparison might influence the relationship between eagerness or vigilance and unethical behavior. Therefore, social comparison within a ranking structure will take a central point in this research. In this study the effect from social comparison on the indirect relationship between regulatory focus and unethical behavior, through eagerness or vigilance, is studied by a laboratory experiment.

Keywords: Regulatory focus, eagerness, vigilance, ranking, social comparison, unethical behavior INTRODUCTION

take to try to reach specific positions within a ranking context.

Many organizations, just like the Tour de France, have a clear ranking structure, where the positions towards another are made explicit. People are likely to compare themselves with individuals who are doing better (i.e., an upward comparison) or who are doing worse (i.e., a downward comparison) (Brown, Ferris, Heller & Keeping, 2007). Comparing to someone else works motivating for people, because it provides individuals with the opportunity to do better than someone else, or it might provide an incentive for individuals to prevent from losing. These goals, to do better or to prevent loss from occurring, are in line with regulatory focus theory. Regulatory focus theory proposes that there are different ways of approaching or avoiding different types of desired end-states (Higgins, 1997). There is a distinction between individuals with a promotion or a prevention focus (Higgins, 1997, 2000). Whereas promotion focused individuals are eager to attain advancement and gains, prevention focused individuals are driven by vigilance, and are concerned with preventing negative outcomes (Higgins, 1997, 2000). In the case of Armstrong, one might say that he was a promotion focused individual, eager to attain advancement and gains and in comparison to others, he wanted to be the best. Using doping, and therefore behaving unethical, might have been a mean to obtain his goals. On the other hand, one might argue that Armstrong who already was the best, did not want to lose his position to others, and therefore that he was vigilant and used doping to maintain his

position as the best.

When an individual’s regulatory orientation and goal pursuit means are aligned a fit is experienced, and this fit increases the value of what individuals are doing (Higgins, 2000). This regulatory fit can be seen as motivational fit that explains why people choose to behave unethical, because of experiencing eagerness or vigilance. Therefore the central research question is: Does the interaction of regulatory focus and social comparison lead to

vigilance more likely to behave unethical?

In this research, to test the indirect effect from regulatory focus and social comparison on unethical behavior, through eagerness and vigilance, a laboratory experiment will be conducted. In this experiment students will be presented with a scenario where the ranking position and social comparison will be induced, in order to measure the experience of eagerness or vigilance and the effect on unethical behavior.

Because of the consequences unethical behavior might have, it is important to find out what motivates people to engage in unethical behavior. The aim of this study is to contribute to the existing research and provide insights on why certain individuals choose to behave unethical. Whereas in existing literature the focus especially lies on upward comparison as a motivator, in this research, in combination with a prevention focus, downward comparison will take a central point.

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES

Regulatory Focus

The internal motivation of individuals towards goal attainment can be described by regulatory focus theory. Regulatory focus theory suggests that distinct motivational systems govern people’s drive to attain desired outcomes (Jain, Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2007). And that self-regulation operates differently when serving fundamentally different needs, such as needs of nurturance or security (Higgins, 2000). Within regulatory focus theory a distinction can be made between a promotion and a prevention focus. For individuals with either a promotion or a prevention focus, their goals and necessities are different, as well as their self-regulatory states. For promotion focused individuals the desired end-state is to attain positive outcomes, for prevention focused individuals this is to prevent from negative outcomes.

promotion focused individual is achieving positive outcomes (Higgins, 2000). They see their goals as creating a path to gain or advancement and concentrate on the rewards that will accrue when they achieve them (Halvorson & Higgins, 2013). Hence, promotion focused individuals want to improve their current position. The self-regulatory state of a promotion focused individuals is eagerness, meaning that they are eager to attain advancement and gains (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997, 2000). When in a state of eagerness, this state should induce advancement tactics, and an inclination to approach accomplishments (Higgins, 1998). Eager individuals are approach oriented (Higgins, 1998), and they want to insure hits and insure against error of omission (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).

The status quo (“0”) can be used to further explain the need for improvement of promotion focused individuals. Because an individual with a promotion focus is concerned with achieving positive outcomes (Higgins, 2000), the status quo (“0”) is not a neutral position, because it gives up the possibility of gain (Higgins, 2012). Remaining at “0” therefore is a failure and what is needed is a movement from “0” to “+1”. Therefore an individual with a promotion focus is eager to obtain advancement, growth and accomplishment, and is concerned with the presence and absence of positive outcomes. Therefore the first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: A promotion focus is positively related to eagerness.

absence and presence of negative outcomes (Higgins, 1997, 2000). The self-regulatory state of vigilance induces precautionary tactics, and an inclination to avoid mistakes (Higgins, 1998). Vigilant individuals are avoidance oriented (Higgins, 1998), and have an inclination to avoid mistakes. They want to insure correct rejections and insure against errors of omission (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).

For an individual with a prevention focus the status quo can be used as well to further explain the goals a prevention focused individual has. For prevention focused individuals “0” is the status quo. Losing the status quo is failure, and what is needed when loss occurs is to stop that action and maintain or restore “0”. A negative outcome for an individual with a prevention focus therefore is moving from the status quo (“0”) to “-1” (Higgins, 2012). Therefore an individual with a prevention focus is vigilant and the desired end-state is to prevent from negative outcomes. The second hypothesis therefore is:

Hypothesis 2: A prevention focus is positively related to vigilance.

Ranking and social comparison

does tend to evaluate his abilities by comparisons to others who are similar to the self, a person does not tend to evaluate his abilities by comparison with others who are too divergent from himself. If some other person’s ability is too far from his own, either above or below, it is not possible to evaluate his own ability accurately by comparison with this other person (Festinger, 1954). Therefore, in a ranking scenario, it is possible to compare with rivals who have either a higher or lower position in the ranking in comparison to the individual itself. Therefore, the comparisons that individuals make can be either upward or downward. Hence, within this research adjacent positions within the ranking will be used, because it is likely for individuals in this position to compare themselves with the other, higher or lower ranked,

individuals.

Second of all, upward comparison can deflate people’s view about themselves (Yip & Kelly, 2013). Despite that upward comparison can be self-threatening, it can also be a self-enhancing experience (Muller & Fayant, 2010). In contrary to upward comparison, downward comparison can improve one’s mood and boost self-esteem (Yip & Kelly, 2013). Regulatory focus in a ranking structure

Hypothesis 3: Individuals with a promotion focus will be more likely to experience

eagerness when they make upward comparisons rather than downward comparisons.

Whereas promotion focused individuals are concerned with improving their ranking, prevention focused individuals are concerned with negative outcomes and prevention from losses (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). This means that individuals with a prevention focus are concerned about falling below the status quo (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010), and are expected to be motivated to maintain or restore the status quo (“0”). Therefore within a ranking structure prevention focused individuals are motivated to maintain their current position. Because individuals with a prevention focus are concerned about losing their current position to a worse position it is likely for them to compare themselves to others in a worse position, because they might pose a threat on losing the current position. Therefore downward comparison is likely to occur. Downward comparison is a comparison to someone else who is worse off (Brown, Ferris, Heller & Keeping, 2007), in a ranking structure therefore a comparison to someone with a lower position on the ranking. In general, downward comparison is less likely to influence competitive behavior, but for an individual with a prevention focus downward comparison is expected to be a motivator because downward comparison increases the awareness of the worse situation. In a ranking situation this means that an individual with a prevention focus who risks losing the current rank to a lower rank, will be motivated to maintain or restore the current position. Upward comparison is not expected to be a motivator of an individual with a prevention focus because improving the situation is not the goal, but maintaining the current position is. As a result, for prevention focused individuals while comparing downwards, it is expected that they experience vigilance. Therefore the fourth hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 4: Individuals with a prevention focus will be more likely to experience

Unethical behavior

Whereas challenging goals powerfully drive behavior and boost performance, there are also side effects of goal setting. Goal setting for instance can induce unethical behavior when people fall short of their goals (Ordónez, Schweitzer, Galinsky & Bazerman, 2009). Unethical behavior is a decision that is either illegal or morally unacceptable for the larger community. The decision is made by an individual who has the choice to do so freely (Jones, 1991; Schweitzer, Ordónez & Douma, 2004). A study by Schweitzer, Ordónez and Douma (2002) confirms that goal setting is positively related to unethical behavior. First of all, the study shows that individuals with specific, unmet goals, are more likely to cheat that individuals without goals. Second of all, individuals with specific unmet goals are more likely to cheat than individuals with specific met goals. Thirdly, the proximity to the goal influenced the relationship between goal setting and unethical behavior. Individuals with an unmet goal who are close to the goal are more likely to engage in unethical behavior than someone with an unmet goal who is far from the goal (Schweitzer, Ordónez & Douma, 2002).

With regard to regulatory focus theory and social comparison, when regulatory focus and comparison are aligned and thus either eagerness or vigilance is experienced, when unethical behavior is an option for goal attainment, it is likely for the individual to decide to behave unethical. Eager means include considering more alternatives, maximizing gains, being creative, enthusiastic, and riskier as these maximize the presence of positive outcomes that is of concern to promotion-focused individuals (Boldero & Higgins, 2011). Therefore the fifth hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 5: Eagerness is positively related to unethical behavior.

2011). Although vigilant means include being cautious, when an individual who experiences vigilance is in the position to fall short of his goal (e.g. prevention from loss), this can induce unethical behavior. The prevention focus is critical for explaining the risky choice under loss from the status quo (“0”) (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010). When risking a position below the status quo (“-1”), prevention focused individuals should do whatever is necessary to return to the previous status quo (“0”), even if that entails risk seeking and the risky choice offers the way to restore the status quo (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010). Therefore when vigilance is experienced and unethical behavior provides the opportunity of goal attainment, although this is a risky choice, it is expected that individuals will be motivated to behave unethical. Therefore the sixth hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 6: Vigilance is positively related to unethical behavior.

The moderating role of social comparison

For an individual who experiences eagerness, it is expected that upward comparison has a moderating role in the relationship with unethical behavior. When experiencing eagerness an individual is focused on gains, rewards, and is playing to win (Higgins, 1997; Halvorson & Higgins, 2013). Comparison with superior others can provide a goal to reach or even enhance self-esteem by acknowledging, then diminishing the distance between the self and the superior target (Yip & Kelly, 2013). Therefore noticing that someone else has a higher position, and thus experiencing upward comparison, is likely to motivate the individual. And the upward comparison contradicts the tendency that eager individuals have, that is to seek the best possible performance (Festinger, 1954; Muller & Fayant, 2010). Therefore when making an unethical decision provides an opportunity for goal achievement, it is likely for an individual who is experiencing eagerness to make this decision and therefore behave unethical. Therefore the seventh hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 7: The indirect relationship between a promotion focus and unethical

behavior, through eagerness, is more positive while comparing upwards and less

positive while comparing downwards.

“-1”) resembles a loss (Camacho, Higgins & Luger, 2003; Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010), a vigilant individual while comparing downwards, is more likely to behave unethical in an attempt for goal attainment. Therefore the eighth and concluding hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 8: The indirect relationship between a prevention focus and unethical

behavior, through vigilance, is more positive while comparing downwards and less

positive while comparing upwards.

The hypotheses are presented in the following conceptual model (figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the effect from regulatory focus on unethical behavior, through eagerness and vigilance, moderated by social comparison.

METHODS

Sample and procedures

Participants and design. One-hundred-and-eighty-four students (Meanage = 20,97 ,

SDage = 2,26 , 50% male) from the faculty of Economics and Business at the University of

Groningen participated in this study. The students were compensated with money or research points. We randomly assigned participants to a condition in our 2 (Regulatory Focus: Promotion Focus vs. Prevention Focus) x 2 (Comparison: Upward vs. Downward)

Procedures. Students had to fill in a pencil-and-paper questionnaire, which consisted of several parts. In the first part they were presented with a scenario and afterwards they had to answer questions based on this scenario. The scenario was based on a sales division within a company where every six months a ranking list was published on the internal website. The message was as following: “You have been working at the same company for a couple of years already. The sales division where you are working contains 50 employees in total. Every six months the results of sales over the past half year are published on the internal website. In this publication, a rank ordered list is presented in which all employees are ranked from worst (#50) to best (#1)”. In addition to this message the position of both the participant was provided as well as the position of the rival, in order to induce the level of comparison, which was either upward (“Based on the results you are currently ranked #25 within your division. You have a rival within your division, who is currently ranked #24”) or downward (“Based on the results you are currently ranked #25 within your division. You have a rival within your division who is currently ranked #26”). The last statement in the scenario was the respondent’s goal, either induced to be a promotion (“Your goal is to obtain a higher position than you currently have”) or a prevention goal (“Your goal is to maintain your current position”).

Measures

Eagerness. To asses eagerness four items on a 7-point scale ( 1= strongly disagree, 7

= strongly agree) were used (α = .86) The items included: “Given this scenario I am eager to

strongly agree) were used (α = 0.90) The items included: “Given this scenario I only take

actions when I am sure that they will not jeopardize my ability to attain my goals”, “Given this scenario I am careful to not do anything that might harm my ability to attain my goals”, “Given this scenario I carefully reject all strategies that might potentially harm my ability to reach my goals”, and “Given this scenario I have strong desire to reject all possibilities that might potentially harm my ability to attain my goals”.

Unethical Behavior. After answering the questions to assess eagerness and vigilance, the respondents were provided with the following message: “Imagine that you have the chance to lie about you results and increase the chance of attaining your goal. The chance that anyone finds out about your lie is small, therefore the chance of getting caught is unlikely. How likely is it that you would lie?”. Therefore, the unethical behavior in this research contains a deliberate action, which is illegal or unacceptable for the larger community, performed by an individual who is motivated to obtain a certain goal (Jones, 1991; Schweitzer, Ordónez & Douma, 2004). Unethical behavior was measured on a 7-point scale (1= not very likely, 7= very likely).

Analytic strategy

bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013). For hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis of no indirect effect is rejected at the α level of significance if 0 lies outside the confidence interval (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007).

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the results for Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. The first hypothesis, the effect from promotion focus on eagerness, is not supported (B= .31, p= .55). The second hypothesis, which tested the effect from prevention focus on vigilance, is not supported as well (B= .13, p= .85). The interaction between promotion focus and upward comparison is not significantly related with eagerness (B= -.27,

p= .40), therefore Hypothesis 3 is not supported. The interaction between prevention focus

and downward comparison is not significantly related with vigilance (B= -.08, p= .84), therefore also Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

Table 1: Regression results for eagerness and vigilance

Eagerness Vigilance

Variable B S.E. p B S.E. p

Constant 5,450 ,815 ,000 4,735 1,024 ,000

Regulatory Focus ,307 ,514 ,551 ,126 ,646 ,846

Comparison ,147 ,514 ,775 -,027 ,646 ,967

Regulatory Focus x Comparison -,272 ,323 ,401 -,084 ,406 ,836

R² ,026 ,004

Note: n = 147. Regulatory focus is coded as 1 = prevention, 2 = promotion. Comparison is coded as 1 = downward, 2 = upward.

behavior, the results are not significant (B= -.003, p= .98), therefore the hypothesis is not

supported.

In Hypothesis 7 and Hypothesis 8 the indirect effect from comparison on the relationship between eagerness and vigilance on unethical behavior is tested. Hypothesis 7, the moderating effect from upward comparison on the relationship between eagerness and unethical behavior, is not supported (95% CI = -.20, .07, ), because 0 lies within the confidence interval. Hypothesis 8, the moderating effect from downward comparison on the relationship between vigilance and unethical behavior (95% CI = -.09, 0.08), is not supported because 0 lies within the confidence interval.

Table 2: Regression results for conditional indirect effect

Predictors B S.E. p Constant 3,591 ,993 ,000 Eagerness ,051 ,158 ,747 Vigilance -,003 ,127 ,982 Regulatory Focus -,515 ,289 ,077 Eagerness Vigilance

Bootstrapped confidence intervals for the moderating mechanism of social comparison.

Boot LL UL Boot SE Boot LL UL Boot SE

95% CI 95% CI

1 ,002 -,047 ,093 ,034 -,000 -,090 ,082 ,038

2 -,012 -,195 ,067 ,059 ,000 -,089 ,083 ,040

Note: n = 147. Reported confidence intervals with bootstrap sample size = 1000. CI = confidence interval, LL= lower limit, UL = upper limit. 1 = downward comparison, 2 = upward comparison.

DISCUSSION

earlier research, as Boldero & Higgins (2011) state that situations can temporarily induce a promotion or a prevention focus. Tasks framed in “gains” activate a promotion focus whereas those framed in “losses” activate a prevention focus (Boldero & Higgins, 2011). It was expected that by framing a message in this way (e.g. “your goal is to maintain your current position”, for a prevention focus with a lower ranked rival), that this would lead to either eagerness or vigilance. However, it might be possible that the framing of the messages in the scenario was too subtle and therefore not strong enough to induce eagerness or vigilance. In addition, according to Yip & Kelly (2013), downwards comparison can act as a motivational tool by representing a potential future for an individual if change is not enacted. In the scenario emphasis was only placed on the goal (e.g. “your goal is to maintain your current position”, for a prevention focused individual with a lower ranked rival), but the scenario did not entail information about future consequences. For a prevention focused individual for example, it could have been indicated that the lower ranked rival posed a threat in the future.

For prevention focused individuals, when the risky option is the only option that provides a potential to fulfill the needs (i.e. prevention from loss), they should choose the risky option (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010). In the scenario, behaving unethical can be seen as a risky option. However, when prevention focused individuals can both choose between a conservative and a risky option, they should choose the conservative option, because it provides a safer probability of fulfilling the needs that a prevention focused individual has (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner & Higgins, 2010). Therefore, it might have been that in the scenario more emphasis had to be placed on the fact that that unethical behavior was the only option for goal attainment, instead of mentioning that it would increase the possibility of goal attainment.

However this study did not contribute to the existing literature by providing statistical evidence, the subject of study is still interesting for further research. Because in earlier research the relationship between regulatory focus and unethical behavior has been shown (Gino & Margolis, 2011), for organizations it is important to further research the effects of regulatory focus on unethical behavior. Whereas many organizations nowadays place importance on performance and therefore rank their employees, it is important to realize that comparison within such ranking might lead to unethical behavior. Because unethical behavior might be a measure for goal attainment, as in the example of Lance Armstrong, who has won the Tour de France seven times while using doping. Therefore within organizations which are using such ranking structures, it might be important to know why certain employees choose to behave unethical. Because unethical behavior might have certain consequences.

Limitations

There are several limitations in this study which should be taken into account, because they might have been a reason that the results are not statistically confirming the expectations.

and therefore less inclined to behave unethical.

Secondly, the participants in the experiment where all students, and therefore the sample was quite homogenous, based on occupational level and age. A more heterogeneous sample, with more differences in age and occupational background, therefore is advisable for

further research.

Suggestions for future research

The combination of the several concepts, regulatory focus, ranking, social comparison, and unethical behavior, is rather unique and might provide more insights in the motivational reasons for unethical behavior. Because several organizations use ranking structures and unethical behavior can be a negative consequence, the concepts used in this research remain interesting for future research. For future research however some suggestions can be made.

When studying the effects by using an experimental design it is important to take some things into account. First of all, it is important that the framing of regulatory focus and goals are not too subtle and that they seem relevant to the respondents. For instance, the respondents in this research were solely students, but the scenario was based on an organizational situation. For future research therefore it might be advisable that when the respondents are students, that the regulatory focus and goals are framed in a situation relevant for students. For measuring regulatory focus, another suggestion is to measure a respondents’ chronic regulatory focus instead of framing it, in that case manipulations do not have to be made and therefore the chance diminishes that a scenario is too subtle.

Thirdly, in the case of unethical behavior, more emphasis has to be placed on the consequences and benefits that behaving unethical has for the respondent. According to Yip and Kelly (2013) who state that by representing a potential future when change is not enacted, downward comparison can act as a motivational tool. In this research the respondents where provided with the information that behaving unethical would increase the opportunity for goal attainment. But for future research it might be useful to mention both the consequence for behaving unethical (e.g. higher opportunity for goal attainment) and the consequence for not enacting to choose unethical (e.g. chance to lose position to lower ranked rival when the respondent has a prevention goal). Perhaps placing more emphasis on the consequences raises the respondents’ awareness and increases motivation for goal attainment, and consequently influences unethical behavior.

A final suggestion for future research is to further examine the consequences of social comparison and take these into account in the research. For instance, upward comparison can be threatening (Muller & Fayant, 2010), whereas downward comparison can boost self-esteem (Yip & Kelly, 2013). It might be interesting to take these concepts into account when further researching the interaction of regulatory focus and social comparison, because it can be expected that these concepts influence the level of eagerness or vigilance that an individual experiences.

CONCLUSION

Alongside with these individual consequences of his unethical behavior, also on a larger scale the consequences are felt for the Tour de France and the cycling sport in general. The

numerous doping affairs namely have caused an enormous damage to the image of the cycling sport. Therefore, regulatory focus and social comparison within ranking structures remain important concepts for future research, as it might cause great problems for individuals and organizations.

REFERENCES

Boldero, J.M., & Higgins, E.T. (2011). Regulatory focus and political decision making: when people favor reform over the status quo. Political Psychology, 32(3), 399-418.

Brown, D.J., Ferris, D.L., Heller, D., & Keeping, L.M. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 59-75.

Camacho, C.J., Higgins, E.T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: what feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84(3), 498-510.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

69(2), 117-132.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 117-140. Garcia, S.M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: a theory of competition.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 970-982.

Garcia, S.M., & Tor, A. (2007). Ranking, standards, and competition: task vs scale comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 95-108. Gino, F., & Margolis, J.D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: how regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 115, 145-156.

Halvorson, H.G., & Higgins, E.T. (2013). Know what really motivates you. Harvard Business

Review, 117-120.

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

a regression-based approach. New York, Guilford Press

Hayes, A.F. (2013, 4 June). SPSS indirect macro syntax reference. Available online:

http://www.afhayes.com/public/indirect.pdf.

Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 1280-1300.

Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.

Higgins, E.T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 1217- 1230.

Jain, S., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2007). When more may be less: the effects of regulatory focus on responses to maximal/minimal comparative frames. Advances in

Consumer Research, 34, 200-205.

Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.

Locke, K.D. (2011). Interpersonal moderators of the effects of upward comparison on ability judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 37-46.

Muller, D., & Fayant, M.P. (2010). On being exposed to superior others: consequences of self-threatening upward social comparisons. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,

4(8), 621-634.

Ordónez, L.D., Schweitzer, M.E., Galinsky, A.D., & Bazerman, M.H. (2009). Goals gone wild: the systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 6-15.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

Scholer, A.A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S.J., & Higgins, E.T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 215-231.

Schweitzer, M.E., Ordónez, L., & Douma, B. (2002). The dark side of goal setting: the role of goals in motivating unethical decision making. Academy of Management Proceedings &

Membership Directory, 1-6.

Schweitzer, M.E., Ordónez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422-432.