THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON INTERPERSONAL UNETHICAL CONTAGION
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 29, 2012
PAUL L MOL Studentnumber: 2038285
Krommejak 15b 8011 NP Zwolle tel.: +31 (0)38-7850121
e-mail: paul.louis.mol@gmail.com
Supervisor/ University S. Ponsioen Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Supervisor/ field of study K. Lekkerkerker Royal Haskoning, Nijmegen
Acknowledgment: helpful comments on earlier drafts of this thesis were given by Sanne Ponsioen and Kees Lekkerkerker. I also would like to thank Harm W. Mol and Klaas Oosterveld for their suggestions.
Abstract
Unethical behavior in organizations is a costly and widespread problem. Unethical behavior can have different forms, and this thesis will focus on interpersonal unethical behavior.
Interpersonal unethical behavior is unethical behavior that is targeted at people within an organization. We argue that unethical behavior spreads as a consequence of social interaction between people. Furthermore, we argue that the spread of this behavior is moderated by personality traits. In this thesis, we focus on the effects of empathy and Machiavellianism on interpersonal unethical contagion. The study shows that empathy and Machiavellianism have no effect on the contagion of interpersonal unethical behavior.
Introduction
Ethical decisions play a big role in business. Employees and employers are faced with ethical decisions everyday. People in marketing and sales often have to walk a fine line between what is puffery and what is fraud. Employers are asked to ensure the safety of their staff but also need to keep their organization running cost efficiently. That making the wrong ethical decision can have dire consequences is shown by the Sanlu case. Sanlu, a state-owned Chinese dairy products company added melamine to their products in order to make their products appear higher in protein and thus of a higher quality. Melamine however causes kidney problems which resulted in the death of six infants (Langman, 2009).
Unethical behavior is also very costly for society. Survey participants estimated that the typical organization loses 5% of its annual revenue to fraud. Applied to the estimated 2009 Gross World Product, this figure translates to a potential global fraud loss of more than $2.9 trillion (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners [ACFE], 2010).
Newspapers also show that this problem is not limited to a particular sector or field, making it a widespread problem. The reach and severity of unethical behavior explains why many researchers have tried to examine the antecedents of unethical behavior and why it is deemed a relevant topic for research.
One hundred and seventy-four articles have been published in top business journals regarding ethical-decision making in 1996 to 2003 alone (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), showing that the subject has already been studied intensively. However, we believe that there is room for more research into unethical behavior, based on the fact that the focus of the research is mainly on unethical behavior committed against the organization, instead of unethical behavior committed against people (Robinson & Bennet, 1995). Jones’ (1991) definition of unethical behavior is based on the assumption that unethical behavior is directed at people within the organization or at the organization itself and although Jones’
definition takes unethical behavior targeted at individuals into account, research on unethical behavior often focuses on unethical behavior that is harmful to the organization (Robinson
& Bennet 1995).
An example of research that focuses on unethical behavior that is targeted at the organization is that of Gino, Ayal and Ariely (2009). This research deals with students inclination to cheat on a task. They investigated this by giving students the opportunity to steal money from a university, making the organization the target of their unethical behavior. Scales measuring unethical behavior also mostly focus on unethical behavior targeted at the organization. An example is the research of Fu and Deshpande (2012) who used six items to measure unethical behavior. These items were about making personal calls, stealing from the organization, accepting kickbacks, bypassing organizational policies, not reporting violation of company polices, and breaking those company policies to get ahead.
All of these items describe unethical behavior directed at the organization.
While this type of unethical behavior is an important part of research into unethical behavior, interpersonal unethical behavior is also a presence within organizations.
Management showing favoritism or employees being withheld information are things that happen in the majority of organizations (Aydogan, 2012; Ryan & Oestrich, 1991). Other examples of interpersonal unethical behavior are: talking about someone behind his back, deliberately not sharing credit for a collaborative work, and undermining credibility in front of others.
Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout (2001) found that more than 70% of their sample experienced these types of interpersonal unethical behaviors in their workplace in the past five years. Laschinger, Leiter, Day, and Gilin (2009) found that these types of behaviors are associated with psychological distress, reduced job satisfaction, job withdrawal and career salience. So while interpersonal unethical behavior is present in most organizations and has very real consequences, there is still less research on this topic than on organizational unethical behavior
(Robinson & Bennet, 1995).
In trying to explain the causes of unethical behavior, an ongoing debate amongst organizational ethics research is whether unethical decision making and behavior are more a function of “bad apples” or “bad barrels” (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). According to the bad apples argument, one can attribute unethical behavior to the personal characteristics of individuals. The bad barrels argument, in contrast, points to the primacy of organizational and societal variables in influencing the unethical decisions and behaviors of organizational
members (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). We believe that bad barrels and bad apples both have an effect on unethical behavior.
Supporting the bad barrel argument is that if people within organization often interact, it is possible that they learn behavioral norms by observing others. When unethical behavior is a part of these norms, it is possible that by observing others, this unethical behavior becomes a norm for the ones observing this behavior. Proof for this is the research of Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) who found a positive relationship between the level of antisocial behavior exhibited by an individual and that exhibited by his coworkers.
Supporting the bad apple argument is the fact that people differ in their response to observed unethical behavior. We believe this is caused by personality differences. Also, personality is known to be a predictor of an employee’s tendency to commit unethical behavior (Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006). As such, they can influence one’s inclination to engage in unethical conduct. Here, we expect Machiavellianism and empathy to be moderating the contagion effect.
Machiavellianism produced fairly consistent results in its link with unethical behavior. O'Fallon & Butterfield (2005) found that in seven of the ten articles they studied, Machiavellianism was negatively related to the ethical decision-making process (e.g., Bass et al., 1999). Empathy, especially perspective taking, is an inhibitor of interpersonal aggression (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner & Signo, 1991). Using this information, we suggest that unethical behavior spreads in an organization because people learn unethical norms from others. Depending on their personality, they will either copy this behavior or not. We therefore believe that the spread unethical behavior is an interplay between personal characteristics and outside influences.
In the upcoming section we will elaborate on the concepts that are used within this study. Interpersonal unethical behavior will be explained and its possible causes. We then move on to the contagion of interpersonal unethical behavior, followed by a description of the two personality factors Machiavellianism and empathy and why we believe they can be a cause of interpersonal unethical contagion. In the research part of this paper we will investigate if there is a link between empathy, Machiavellianism and people’s own unethical behavior if they have observed this behavior in members of their team.
Theory and Hypotheses Interpersonal Unethical Behavior
Interpersonal unethical behavior occurs when misconduct is targeted at specific stakeholders within the company, for example misconduct against coworkers or managers.
This misconduct can range from gossiping about other coworkers to sexually harassing them (Robinson & Bennet, 1995). One cause for this type of behavior is found in the research of Pulich and Tourigny (2004). They state that when employees perceive “a sense of entitlement often associated with exploitation” they are prone to commit interpersonal unethical behavior. These people feel they are entitled to act this way because of seniority, expertise or previous accomplishment. They use these reasons as justification for their behavior when they deviate from organizational norms. This sense of entitlement is accompanied by feelings of superiority and the perception that others are not adequate or acceptable. They also feel that because of this, they have a right to exploit others who are deemed lesser then themselves. (Pulich & Tourigny, 2004).
Robinson and Bennet (2000) argue that interpersonal deviance also has other causes. In their research, they predicted that frustration leads to unethical behavior, because the relationship between frustration and aggression has been shown in studies in the past (Berkowitz, 1978; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Scores on their Frustration Scale were found to be positively associated with scores on the Interpersonal Deviance Scale. Frustration thus causes members of an organization to behave unethical against other people.
Normlessness was another cause of interpersonal unethical behavior. It refers to the lack of acceptance of social expectations about behavior (Shepard, 1972). According to bonding theory (e.g. Akers, 1973) and social control models of deviance (e.g. Hirschi, 1969), individuals who are "bonded" to a social environment (i.e., individuals who feel attached to social conventions and institutions and who have a commitment to conformity) will be less inclined to engage in deviant acts. As such, they expected normlessness to be related to workplace deviance. Consistent with their predictions, they found that scores on the Normlessness Scale were related to scores on their Interpersonal Deviance Scale. Using these facts, we argue that interpersonal unethical behavior can have many different causes and once someone commits interpersonal unethical behavior it can spread to others.
Interpersonal Unethical Behavioral Contagion
Behavioral contagion' refers to an increased tendency for a behavior to be performed when socially related persons have already performed it (Jones & Jones, 1994).
The fact that unethical behavior is contagious has been shown by Robinson and O’Leary- Kelly (1998). Their research focuses on examining how individuals’ antisocial behavior in their workplace is influenced by antisocial behavior of their co-workers. They found a positive relationship between the level of antisocial behavior of an individual and the anti social behavior of their co-workers.
Social information processing theory supports this finding that antisocial behavior in a group influences the antisocial behavior of individual members. According to this theory, individuals use information from their environment to make sense of events, develop appropriate attitudes, and comprehend expectations concerning their behavior and its consequences (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Applying this perspective to antisocial behavior suggests that individual group members, working in a shared social environment, will receive similar social cues that convince them that certain types and levels of antisocial behavior are acceptable adaptations to their shared working conditions.
Interpersonal unethical behavior therefore spreads because a person will adapt his norms to the norms of the group that they are in. If they commit an act of interpersonal unethical behavior (which is already a norm within the group), the group will deem this as appropriate behavior because the group has already rationalized it as an acceptable adaption to their shared working conditions. Since there is no retribution for the interpersonal unethical behavior, it is likely the person will do it again.
This behavior gets even worse when we consider people are punished for not committing the same unethical behavior as their group. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998), found that is that when there is a mismatch between the unethical behavior of an employee and his group, he became less satisfied with his coworkers. This means that people who do not commit the same types of unethical behavior as their coworkers are more likely to be unhappy within the group and are therefore more likely to leave the group. This in turn causes an already unethical group to only retain members who join in their unethical behavior.
This argument is also supported by the attraction selection-attrition framework. The basic assumption of this is that people carefully analyze their work environments and adjust their individual actions accordingly (Schneider, 1975). Individuals with antisocial tendencies are more likely to be attracted to, and selected into, the group environments that fit well with those tendencies. So if there is already a group in place which as unethical behavior as a norm, a newcomer will likely only be able to stay if he can adjust his individuals action to this group. This causes unethical behavior to quickly spread to newcomers within a group.
There is however a difference in the amount of influence one person can exert over another and not all members in a group copy unethical behavior. We believe that certain personality factors create this difference.
Empathy
Despite the strong expectation that interpersonal unethical behavior is contagious, we argue that not everyone will copy such observed behavior and indeed, when taking into account the “bad apple” argument, personality differences may cause variation in one’s response to observed unethical behavior. Here, we argue that empathy is an important personality trait that can act as a buffer against copying unethical behavior. Empathy is known to be an influencing trait with regard to moral behavior (Moore, Detert, Treviño, Baker & Mayer, 2012). Empathy is an emotional response that makes a person have feelings more congruent with another's situation than with his own situation (Hoffman, 2000). According to this definition, empathy does not necessarily require that the subject and target feel similar emotions, even though this is most often the case.
There are several reasons why empathy can be a buffer against interpersonal unethical behavior. The first reason is that empathy is negatively correlated with aggression but positively related to responses constructive to interpersonal conflict Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner and Signo (1991). The second reason is that people who score high on empathy perceive decisions more often as ethical decisions (Vetlesen, 1994). The third reason is that people scoring low on empathy enjoy the pain of others (Decety, Michalska, Akitsuki & Lahey, 2008).
Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner and Signo (1991), showed that dispositional empathy was negatively correlated with self-reported aggression and with
responses that reflect little concern for the needs of others. Empathy was however positively related to responses that were constructive to interpersonal conflict. This shows that people who score high on empathy are less aggressive, making it likely that when they observe interpersonal unethical behavior, they will not copy this behavior. The link between aggression and unethical behavior has been shown in research done by Buckley, Wiese and Harvey (1998) who show that people who score high on aggression are more likely to commit unethical behavior. It also shows that they seek to solve interpersonal conflict rather than be a part of it which suggest that when people high on empathy observe interpersonal unethical behavior, they will seek ways to solve this conflict instead of partaking in it.
Vetlesen (1994) argues that empathy is a deeply rooted human faculty—one that disposes a subject to develop a concern for others. According to Vetlesen, empathy provides a "trigger" into the domain of ethics, establishing whether a person perceives that he or she is facing an ethical situation (e.g., a situation in which the other person might be harmed), meaning that someone with high empathy will be more inclined to think about a situation as an ethical situation and will take ethical consequences into account when making their decision. Therefore when people score high on empathy and they see someone commit interpersonal unethical behavior, they will be more likely to see their own decision to copy this behavior as an ethical situation and will choose not to commit this behavior. A person scoring low on empathy might not see the same decision as an ethical decision and be more inclined to copy this behavior.
Research on empathy shows that low empathy even causes people to enjoy the pain of others. Research by Decety, Michalska, Akitsuki and Lahey (2008) shows that young people who show aggressive behavior such as starting fights, using weapons and stealing have a different brain response when confronted with empathy-eliciting stimuli. Showing this group video clips in which people harmed themselves accidentally or intentionally such as dropping a heavy bowl on their own hands or stepping on another persons foot, caused a very strong activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (an area that responds to feeling rewarded), which led them to believe they enjoyed watching pain.
Next to that, the young people with conduct disorder did not activate the area of the brain
which controls self-regulation and moral reasoning. Having low empathy thus causes someone to feel pleasure when others are hurt.
Based on these results, we expect empathy to influence one’s susceptibility to copy observed unethical conduct. When confronted with unethical behavior, people high on empathy experience feelings that are more congruent with the others situation, the target of the unethical behavior. In trying to avoid these feelings, people high on empathy can try to help the employee or avoid the situation. In any case, they will not be motivated to treat this employee in a bad way. Being high on empathy causes people to be more aware of the ethicality of a situation, causing them to take the ethical concerns of situations into account. Contrary to this, people low on empathy enjoy the pain of others.
When they see someone being made fun of and enjoy this, there is a bigger chance they themselves want to make fun of that person. As such, there is an increased chance that they will copy the behavior.
Taking this into account, the following hypothesis can be stated:
H1: People are more susceptible to interpersonal unethical when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an exemplar, and this effect is stronger when empathy is low as opposed to high.
Machiavellianism
While empathy is an important personality factor in unethical behavior contagion, other personality factors may also have an effect. The addition of traits may help in creating a more comprehensive understanding on the conditions (in this case personality traits) that cause unethical behavior to multiply. We believe Machiavellianism is another personality factor that has an effect on unethical behavioral contagion. As stated earlier, Machiavellianism produced fairly consistent results in its link with unethical behavior.
(O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Machiavellianism refers to a person's general strategy for dealing with people, especially the degree to which the individual feels it is possible to manipulate other people in interpersonal situations (Christie & Geis, 1970). The construct of Machiavellianism
merged from Richard Christie’s selection of statements from Machiavelli’s original book (see Christie & Geis, 1970) The Prince (Machiavelli, 1532) which had three important themes. The themes were, Machiavelli’s advocacy of manipulative tactics such as the use of guile and deceit in interpersonal relations, his unflattering view of man as being weak and cowardly and easily subject to pressure from others and his lack of morality. As such, we believe that Machiavellianism is specifically linked to interpersonal unethical behavior.
Supporting this is the research of Robinson and Bennet (2000) where they suspected scores on their Machiavellianism Scale would be related to scores on the Interpersonal Deviance Scale. They indeed found that there was a strong correlation between these two scales. Baughman, Dearing, Giammaro and Vernon (2012) conducted a study of the relationship between bullying behaviors and Machiavellianism. This trait was chosen for this study because previous research has shown a positive relationship between Machiavellian traits and adolescent bullies (Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010; LaFontana
& Cillessen, 2002). In their research they also found that Machiavellianism was strongly related to bullying behavior. Since a big part of interpersonal unethical behavior can be considered bullying, for example making jokes about coworkers or insulting them, we can argue that people scoring high on Machiavellianism often bully others and therefore commit more interpersonal unethical behavior.
When observing interpersonal unethical behavior, people with high Machiavellianism take other factors into account then those who score low on Machiavellianism when deciding whether or not to copy this behavior. (Cooper &
Peterson, 1980). High Mach subjects tended to cheat when given a rational inducement to do so, which included little risk of detection, while low Mach subjects tended to cheat when given a personal inducement, which included emotional involvement with the task.
(Cooper & Peterson, 1980). For someone who scores high on Machiavellianism, it’s enough to know they won’t get caught to also commit unethical behavior. Someone scoring low on Machiavellianism will take into account other factors such as emotional involvement, making it more likely they won’t cheat.
The correlation between empathy and Machiavellianism is found in research done by Barnett and Thompson (1985). They showed that children who had low empathy scores almost all had high Machiavellianism scores. Abramson (1973) theorized that a person with
high Machiavellianism is characterized by his lack of emotional involvement with others. In interactions with others they are only interested in how they can benefit from this interaction. He predicted in his research that there would be an inverse relationship between high Machiavellianism and empathy. The results showed that there was indeed an inverse relationship between these two constructs. This finding shows that these personality traits are correlated.
We propose that empathy and Machiavellianism may combine to moderate the relationship between witnessing unethical conduct and unethical conduct of the observer in the form of a three-way interaction. We have already argued that people low on empathy would be more inclined to copy unethical behavior than people who score high on empathy as they enjoy the pain of others and are more able to exclude others morally. If a person has low empathy combined with high Machiavellianism, we suggest that there is a significant chance this person will be influenced by interpersonal unethical behavior of others. They enjoy power and competition and aim to win at any cost and are thus more likely to bully others. If they see someone committing interpersonal unethical behavior they do not identify with the victim and can even morally exclude them by reasoning they deserved it. Since this combination of traits is likely to show up, these people can be a high risk group that is inclined to commit interpersonal unethical behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: The extent to which people behave unethically after witnessing an unethical exemplar is moderated by one’s empathy and Machiavellianism. When provided with an unethical exemplar, people will become more unethical than without such an exemplar, but more so when they have a low rather than high score on empathy. This moderation effect of empathy is stronger for high versus low Machiavellianism
Figure one shows a conceptual model of the predicted relationship.
[insert Figure 1 here]
Method Participants and Design
The sample of this study consisted of eighty-six employees of an international consultancy company. There were sixty-three male employees and fourteen female. Nine respondents did not specify their gender. The average age of the participants was forty-seven years (SD = 9.04). Average company tenure of participants was sixteen years (SD = 8.46).
The first set of questions which were asked were regarding the personality of the employee. These questions included empathy and Machiavellianism. The second set of questions were questions about the interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues of the respondent. After those questions a set of questions were asked regarding the interpersonal unethical behavior of the respondent. The list was concluded with questions regarding the control variables.
Procedure
A thousand employees were randomly selected by using a computer. The questionnaire was send through an internal mail address on behalf of the director of HRM. In the introduction, information about the goal and the procedure of the research was given. The goal for the organization was to get insights into the current integrity within the organization. Because of the sensitive nature of this information, employees were informed that their individual answers were only used by the researcher and that the results, aggregated on organizational level, would be reported back to the organization. After two weeks a reminder was sent by e-mail to the employees who didn’t respond yet. After that, a bulletin was placed on the intranet of the organization with information about the questionnaire, which stated who the researcher was and what the survey was about.
Measures
Interpersonal Unethical Behavior
Questions regarding unethical behavior were taken from the work of Robinson and Bennet (2000). Examples of these questions are: ‘I sometimes tell a joke about a colleague’, ‘I have cursed at someone at work’ and ‘I’ve played a mean prank on a colleague’. People were
asked to rate seven items on a scale from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree). The scale has shown to be reliable (α=.70).
Interpersonal Unethical behavior of colleagues
Questions regarding unethical behavior of others were the same questions that were asked for interpersonal unethical behavior but were altered so that the respondent had to answer these questions about his closets colleagues. People were asked to rate seven items on a scale from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree). The scale has shown to be reliable (α=.79).
Empathy
Empathy was measured using items as proposed by Jackson (1994). Examples of questions that were asked are: ‘I Feel others' emotions.’, ‘I suffer from others' sorrows, ‘I am deeply moved by others' misfortunes.’ and ‘ I am easily moved to tears.’. People were asked to rate nine items on a scale from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree). The Cronbach alpha was highly reliable (α=.80).
Machiavellianism
Machiavellanism was measured using items as proposed by Jackson (1994). Examples of questions that were asked are: ‘I have a natural talent for influencing people’ and ‘I find it easy to manipulate others. People were asked to rate four items on a scale from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree). The Cronbach was reliable (α=.74)
Control Variables
Gender and age were included as control variables.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations off all the variables used in this study. A significant correlation was found between own unethical behavior and unethical behavior of others (r=.43, p < =.01 ) which means that there is indeed a relation between a persons own interpersonal unethical behavior and their colleagues interpersonal unethical behavior. There is also a significant correlation between empathy and gender
(r=.37, p < =.01 ), which was not predicted. There was no significant correlation between empathy and Machiavellianism (r=.14, p=n.s.) or Machiavellianism and interpersonal unethical behavior (r= -0.2 p=n.s.) There was also no significant correlation between empathy and interpersonal unethical behavior (r=.03 p=n.s.).
[insert Table 1 here]
Hypothesis 1 predicted that empathy would be negatively related to interpersonal unethical behavior. To test this hypothesis, we performed a linear regression analysis in which interpersonal unethical behavior was regressed on empathy and interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues as well as their cross product. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), any centering, standardization, or other transformation of raw scores should be performed before running the programs and thus all the concepts were standardized before cross products were calculated.
In the first step, only the control variables were entered into the equation: age and gender. In the second step, empathy and unethical behavior of colleagues was added to the model. In the last step, the interaction term unethical behavior of colleagues x empathy was added to the model. In the model, empathy has been shortened to EMP and interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues to IUBC.
Results show that there is indeed a significant link between a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior and interpersonal unethical behavior of others
(β=.31 p=<.01). Results also show that there was no significant link between empathy and a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior. (β= -.05 p=n.s.). There was also no interaction effect between unethical behavior of colleagues and empathy on a respondents unethical behavior (β= -.08 p=n.s.). Table 2 presents these results
[insert Table 2 here]
Hypothesis 2 predicted a three way interaction of empathy and Machiavellianism on interpersonal unethical behavior. We used hierarchical regression analyses to test this hypothesis. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), any centering, standardization, or other transformation of raw scores should be performed before running the programs and thus all the concepts were standardized before cross products were calculated.
In the first step, only the control variables were entered into the equation: tenure , age and gender. In the second step, empathy, unethical behavior of colleagues and
Machiavellianism was added to the model. In the third step, the interaction term empathy x interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues was added to the model, the interaction term empathy x Machiavellianism and the interaction term Machiavellianism x interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues. In the last step, the three-way variable was included, which consist of empathy x Machiavellianism x interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues. The results are shown in Table 3.
[insert Table 3 here]
Results show that there is indeed a significant link between a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior and interpersonal unethical behavior of others (β=.33 p=<.01). and that there was no significant link between empathy and a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior. (β= -.03 p=n.s.). Results also shown that there was no significant link between Machiavellianism and a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior (β= -.12 p=n.s.).
In the interaction terms, no significant link has been found between empathy and interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues on a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior (β= -.10 p=n.s.). and no significant link was found between empathy and
Machiavellianism on a respondents won interpersonal unethical behavior (β= -.02 p=n.s.).
There was also no link between Machiavellianism and the interpersonal behavior of colleagues on a respondents own interpersonal unethical behavior (β= -.06 p=n.s.) Concluding with the three-way interaction, there was no significant three-way interaction between interpersonal unethical behavior of colleagues, empathy, and Machiavellianism on own unethical behavior (β=.01 p=n.s.)
Discussion
We suspected at the beginning of this study that two different personality factors would have a link with the spread of interpersonal unethical behavior. We have argued that interpersonal unethical behavior can be caused by many factors, such as frustration and normlessness (Robinson & Bennet, 1995).
Interpersonal unethical behavior spreads because a person adapts their norms to the norms of the group that they are part of (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). When they choose not to adapt to these norms, they are likely to be unhappy within the group, which causes them to leave. This in turn keeps the same level of unethical behavior within the group.
We believed two personality factors could influence the spread of unethical behavior.
The first one was empathy and the second one was Machiavellianism. We believe empathy can act as a buffer against the spread of unethical behavior. We argued that people with high empathy are less aggressive and more constructive regarding interpersonal unethical behavior (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner and Signo, 1991). Since aggression is linked to unethical behavior (Buckley, Wiese and Harvey, 1998), we argued that people with high empathy would commit less interpersonal unethical behavior, but also be more constructive about solving interpersonal unethical behavior when it occurs.
People with high empathy also are more concerned about the morality of a decision (Vetlesen, 1994). This will make them less likely to copy behavior when they see someone committing it.
Interpersonal unethical behavior is strongly related to Machiavellianism (Robinson &
Bennet, 2000) and people scoring high on Machiavellianism take other factors into account when making the decisions to copy unethical behavior. The main concern of people with high Machiavellianism is if they will be caught committing the unethical behavior, while people scoring low on Machiavellianism are also concerned about their emotional involvement.
(Cooper & Peterson, 1980).
In our research, the first thing we wanted to explore is if interpersonal unethical behavior spreads. We suggested that because of ‘bad barrels’, it is possible that if there is an unethical person in a group, other people will copy this behavior. We found out that there is indeed a strong correlation between a persons own unethical behavior and the unethical behavior of others. This finding is in line with other research that has also shown that there is a strong correlation between one’s own unethical behavior and the behavior of others (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998).
Because we believe that the spread of unethical behavior is an interplay between ‘bad apples’ and ‘bad barrels’ we explored to which extent interpersonal unethical contagion is influenced by empathy and Machiavellianism. We did however, did not find any evidence for
this claim. There was no significant correlation between empathy and interpersonal unethical behavior.
The reasons for this could be that other personality factors moderated this relationship. Research done by Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) show that other personality factors could have been more strongly linked to interpersonal unethical behavior. Their meta- analyses showed that the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992) have a strong link with unethical behavior. The strongest relationship was the one between interpersonal unethical behavior and Agreeableness. Since we did not measure the Big Five personality traits in this research, we do not know if this link had influence on our results.
Since empathy is an emotional response that makes a person have feelings more congruent with another's situation than with his own situation (Hoffman, 2000), it could also be the case that a person feels empathy for the offender, not for the victim. If people morally exclude the victim because they see him as different from themselves and they identify with the offender, there is a reasonable chance they will copy this behavior. If they dehumanize the victim of interpersonal unethical behavior, they rationalize for themselves that this person has no right to be treated like a human being. Reasons for doing this can be for example that the person is a threat for the group. In such cases, it’s more likely the observer feels empathy for the offender instead of the victim (Bandura, 1999).
Robinson and Bennet (1995), also used more dimensions in their research when dividing interpersonal unethical behavior. One dimension divided crimes into serious crimes and minor crimes. We did not use this division which could mean that personality factors only play a role in more serious crimes. Since it takes effort to morally disengage from unethical behavior, we suggest when unethical behavior becomes more serious, it takes more effort to morally disengage. (Bandura, 1999).
Machiavellianism did also not show a significant link. A possible cause for this is that we did not divide interpersonal unethical behavior into covert and overt as done earlier by Robinson and Bennet (1995). covert behaviors are those behaviors that are designed to disguise the aggressive behavior and/or aggressive intentions from the target. Overt aggression, on the other hand, includes behaviors that do not hide the aggressive intent and are open in their intentions. Typically, covert aggression is verbal, indirect, and passive in nature, while overt aggression reflects the physical, direct, and active side of the dichotomies(Björkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994).
People who score high on Machiavellianism might be more covert in their interpersonal unethical behavior and therefore could not relate to the statements in the questionnaire. Another reason we did not find a link between interpersonal unethical behavior and Machiavellianism could be due to the fact that the results of the research will be reported back to the management of the organizations. As stated earlier, people scoring high on Machiavellianism commit unethical behavior based on rational reasons (Cooper & Peterson, 1980). They did not see the how answering honestly on these questions could benefit them and therefore decided to not respond honestly.
Theoretical implications
Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) have shown that there is indeed a link between the level of unethical behavior exhibited by an individual and that exhibited by his co- workers. This research builds upon their work by also proving that this significant correlation remains when we only measure interpersonal unethical behavior, instead of interpersonal unethical behavior combined with organizational unethical behavior.
The lack of a significant link between personality factors and unethical behavior can contribute to the discussion about bad apples and bad barrels (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). If personality factors do not have a significant link with unethical behavior, then it would make sense that social context is more important then a persons personality in making decisions. A finding that is consistent with theory about moral disengagement. Moral disengagement is a process in which a person can rationalize that certain ethical standards do not apply to a particular context (Fiske, 2004). When people morally disengage, they can perform unethical behavior without violating their moral standards. They can for example diffuse responsibility for the act or dehumanize the target of the unethical behavior (Bandura 1999). If people morally disengage in a workplace environment, this could mean that personality does not have much effect on their interpersonal unethical behavior.
Practical implications
This research has shown that there is indeed a correlation between a persons own interpersonal unethical behavior and that of colleagues. This finding is important for organizations because it shows that when there is interpersonal unethical behavior within an organization, the organization must take strong action in order to contain the problem.
As shown in this research, interpersonal unethical behavior might be contagious which means that when no action is taken, more people within the organization might start committing interpersonal unethical behavior. When trying take action against interpersonal unethical behavior, an organization would be wise to focus on organizational and societal variables when trying to influence interpersonal unethical behavior. Research by Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) has shown for example that they likelihood of getting caught weakens the relationship between a groups unethical behavior and an individuals unethical behavior. Organizations could therefore better focus on increasing the likelihood of getting caught in order to stop the spread of unethical behavior.
Since empathy and Machiavellianism do not play a significant role in the spread of unethical behavior, these factors do not have to be taken into account when creating or modifying a new team. If ethical behavior is very important for a team, for example a financial department , managers do not have to take special care in selecting individuals who score high on empathy and low on Machiavellianism. They should focus more on creating an environment where unethical behavior is discouraged such as reducing the opportunity for unethical behavior or increasing the likelihood of getting caught.
Limitations and Future research
As is the case with most empirical research, several constraints were placed on the design of this study which may affect the interpretation and generalizability of results. The design of the study was cross-sectional. A longitudinal design could have given more support for our results which could be used in future research. We were also not able to make casual inferences regarding predictor/outcome relationships. In the future, research should focus on performing experiments to make these casual inferences.
Another possible limitation is the sample. We can not be certain if we obtained a representative sample from our organizations. Certain types of employees might have been more likely to respond than others, thus biasing our results. The sample size was also very small. From the thousand people we had send our survey, only eighty-six responded. A bigger sample size would have increased the support for our findings. Also, we were unable to reduce all common method bias. Since the respondent provided both the predictor and the
criterion variable, it is possible there was a common rater effect which created an artificial covariance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Furthermore, the research was done in cooperation with the director of HRM and the results were used to offer insights into the companies ethical behavior. This fact was communicated along with the survey. While we explicitly stated that we would aggregate the results on an organizational level before presenting them to the Director of HRM, it could have been the case that the results suffered from a social desirability bias. According to Crowne and Marlowe (1964), social desirability “refers to the need for social approval and acceptance and the belief that it can be attained by means of culturally acceptable and appropriate behaviors”. They might have believed that their responses would be shown to the organization and thus chose to give social desirable answers.
Conclusion
This study focused on the relationship between personality and the spread of interpersonal unethical behavior. The two traits that were suspected to have a relationship with interpersonal unethical contagion were Machiavellianism and empathy. The study showed that both traits do not have a relationship with interpersonal unethical contagion. The lack of this relationship needs to be addressed in future research.
References
Abramson, E. E., (1973). The counselor as a Machiavellian Journal of Clinical Psychology 29(3): 348–349.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, MA:
Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Joumal of Social Issues, 46(1): 27-46.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2010) Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. Retrieved from
http://www.acfe.com/uploadedFiles/ACFE_Website/Content/documents/rttn-2010.pdf
Aydogan, I. (2012). The existence of favoritism in organizations African Journal of Business Management, 6(12): 4577-4586,
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3: 193-209.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines
& J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Theory, research, and application, 1: 71-129. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, G., Gaprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, G. (1996). Mechanism of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71: 364-374.
Barnett, M. A. & Thompson S. (1985). The Role of Perspective Taking and Empathy in Children's Machiavellianism, Prosocial Behavior, and Motive for Helping, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(3) : 295-305
Baron-Cohen, S (2003) The Essential Difference: men, women and the extreme male brain.
Penguin/Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-7139-9671-5
Bass, K., T. Barnett and G. Brown (1999). Individual Difference Variables, Ethical Judgments, and Ethical Behavioral Intentions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2): 183–205.
Baughman, H., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. (2012). Relationship between bullying behaviours and the dark triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 52: 571-575.
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York Free Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1978). Whatever happened to the frustration-aggression hypothesis?
American Behavioral Scientist, 21: 691-708
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 410 – 424.
Besag, V. E. (1989). Bullies and Victims in Schools. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, Handbook of stress, medicine and health (pp. 375–398). London: CRC Press.
Björkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20: 173-184.
Boulton, M. J. & Underwood K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children. Journal Educational Psychology, 62:73–87.
Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K.D., & Skaggs, B.C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23: 14-31.
Brodsky, C. (1976). The Harassed Worker D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Buckley, R., Wiese D. & Harvey M. (1998): An Investigation Into the Dimensions of Unethical Behavior, Journal of Education for Business, 73(5): 284-290
Christie, R. & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San Diego, CA:Academic Press
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:386–400.
Cooper, S. and C. Peterson. (1980). Machiavellianism and spontaneous cheating in competition. Journal of Research in Personality, 14: 70-76.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Hunter Williams, J., Langhout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 6: 64-80.
Costa, P.T. ,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task-decision autonomy:
Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 293–299.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence.
New York: Wiley.
Davis, J, A. 1966. Structural balance, mechanical solidarity, and interpersonal relations. In J.
Berger, M. Zelditch, & B, Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress, vol. 1:
74-101. Boston: Houghton Milflin.
Decety, J., Michalska, K.J., Akitsuki, Y., & Lahey, B. (2008). Atypical empathic responses in adolescents with aggressive conduct disorder: a functional MRI investigation. Biological Psychology 80(2): 203–11.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of general psychology 8:
100-110.
Dupre, K.E. & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1): 13–26.
Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of reasoning about prosocial behavior. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 219-249). New York: Academic Press.
Erickson, B. H. 1988. The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach: 99-121. New York: Cambridge University Press
de Fabrique, N., Romano, S. J., Vecchi, G. M., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (2007).
Understanding Stockholm Syndrome. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 76(7): 10
Fiske, Susan T. (2004). Social beings : core motives in social psychology. Hoboken, NJ:
J. Wiley
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 161–183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fu, W. & Deshpande, S. (2012) Factors Impacting Ethical Behavior in a Chinese State- Owned Steel Company. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2): 231-237
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20: 393–398.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78:
1360-1380
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
Greenberg, L. & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 897–913.
Harvey, S. & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: Risk factors, self-esteem, and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality 31: 807–814.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Inness, M., Barling, J., Turner, N. (2005). Understanding Supervisor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4): 731–739.
Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson personality inventory-revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Jawahar, I. M. (2002). A model of organizational justice and workplace aggression. Journal of Management, 28: 811– 834.
Jones, T. (1991) Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 366-395.
Jones, M B. & Jones, D. R. (1994). Testing for behavioral contagion in a case-control design Journal of Psychiatric Research, 28(1): 35-55.
Jones, D N., Paulhus, D. L. (2009). "Chapter 7. Machiavellianism". In Leary, Mark R. &
Hoyle, Rick H. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, New York/London:
The Guildford Press: 257-273.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K., (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1-31.
Langman, C. (2009). Melamine, Powdered Milk, and Nephrolithiasis in Chinese Infants New England Journal of Medicine, 360(11): 1139–41.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M.P., Day, A., Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3): 302–11.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
Mount, M., Ilies, R. & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59: 591-622.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38 ,
635–647.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140: 1–55.
Lund, J. (1992). `Electronic performance monitoring: a review of research issues', Applied Ergonomics, Vol 23(1): 54-58
Machiavelli, N. The Prince. 1532. Ed. & Trans. Robert M. Adams.
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 527–553.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (In press). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior.
Personnel Psychology.
O'Fallon, M., Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 375-413
Opotow, S. (1990), Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 1–20.
Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful?
Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 39, 1041–1052.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Pulich, M. & Tourigny, L. (2004). Workplace deviance: Strategies for Modifying Employee Behavior. The Health Care Manager, 23 (4): 290-301
Richardson, D., Hammock, G., Smith S., Gardner W., Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a Cognitive Inhibitor of Interpersonal Aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20(4): 275-289.
Robinson, S. & Bennett, R. (2000), Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 349-60.
Robinson, S. & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 658- 72.
Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1991) Driving fear out of the workplace: How to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28: 447- 480.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-454.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19-39.
Shepard, J. M. (1972). Alienation as a process: Work as a case in point. The Sociological Quarterly, 13: 161-173
Smith, H. C. 1966. Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol.
1). New York: Academic Press.
Tang, T. L., and Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, Money Ethic, Pay Satisfaction, Commitment, and Unethical Behaviour: Is the Love of Money the Root of Evil for Hong Kong Employees?
Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 13–30.
Treviño L. K. & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 378-385.
Vetlesen, A. (1994) Perception, Empathy and Judgment: An Inquiry into the Preconditions of Moral Performance, University Park, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Vohs, K.D., & Schooler, J.W. (2008). The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science, 19: 49–54.
APPENDIX
Figure 1: Conceptual model of hypothesis 2
organizational unethical behavior of others
Empathy
Own interpersonal unethical behavior
Machiavellianism
Table 1: Correlation results of interpersonal unethical behavior
TABLE 1
Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Control
1 Age
47.25 8.98
2 Gender
1.18 .39
-.05 Independent
3 Unethical colleague
2.60 .89
-.22 -.15
4 Empathy 4.54 .86
-.04 .37** .11 5
Machiavellianism
3.86 .98
-.11 -.02 .18 .14
Dependent
6 Own interpersonal
unethical behavior
1.96 .70
-.16 .05 .43** .03 -.02
N= 86 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (p < .05). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (p <.001).
Table 2: Regression results for hypothesis 1
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Control
Gender .07 (.20) .24 (.20) .20 (.20)
Age -.01 (.01) -.00 (.01) -.00 (.01)
Main effects
Empathy -.05 (.08) -.05 (.08)
Unethical behavior colleagues .28** (.08) .31** (.08) Two-way interaction
EMP x IUBC -.08 (.07)
R Square .03 .18 .19
Δ R Square .15 .01
* p < .05
** p < .01
† < .10
Table 3: Regression results for hypothesis 2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE B SE
Control
Gender .07 (.20) .22 (.20) .12 (.21) .12 (.21)
Age -.01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.00 (.01) -.00 (.01)
Main effects
Empathy -.04 (.08) -.03 (.08) -.03 (.08)
Unethical behavior colleagues .29 (.08) .33 (.09) .33 (.09)
Machiavellianism -.08 (.07) -.11 (.07) -.12 (.08) Two-way interactions
EMP x IUBC -.09 (.07) -.10 (.07)
EMP x MACH -.03 (.07) -.02 (.08)
MACH x IUBC -.06 (.07) -.06 (.07)
Three-way interaction
Empathy x Mach x IUBO .01 (.06)
R Square .03 .19 .24 .24
Δ R Square .16 .05 .00
* p < .05
** p < .01
† < .10
