IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemwpa/hal-00853900.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact

Author

Listed:
  • Marko Pitesa

    (MC - Management et Comportement - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

  • Stefan Thau

    (INSEAD - Institut Européen d'administration des Affaires)

  • Madan M. Pillutla

    (LBS - London Business School - London Business School)

Abstract

Individuals' willingness to act in socially desirable ways, such as sharing resources with others and abiding by norms of ethical conduct, is a necessary condition of social life. The current research reconciles two seemingly contradicting sets of findings on the role of cognitive control in socially desirable behaviors. One set of findings suggests that people are tempted by self-serving impulses and have to rely on cognitive control overriding such impulses to act in socially desirable ways. Another set of findings suggests people are guided by other-regarding impulses and cognitive control is not necessary to motivate socially desirable behaviors. We provide a theoretical and empirical integration of these findings by identifying a key situational variable--the salience of interpersonal impact--that determines whether the dominant impulse is to behave in a self-serving or a socially desirable manner. We suggest that the dominant impulse is to behave in a socially desirable manner when the interpersonal impact of an action is salient, and that the dominant impulse is to behave in a self-serving manner when the interpersonal impact of an action is not salient. Consistent with this prediction, Studies 1-3 found that impairing participants' cognitive control led to less socially desirable behavior when interpersonal impact was not salient, but more socially desirable behavior when interpersonal impact was salient. Study 4 extended these findings by demonstrating that behaving in a socially desirable manner causes cognitive control impairment when interpersonal impact is not salient. But, when interpersonal impact is salient, behaving in a self-serving manner impairs cognitive control. We discuss the implications of our findings for understanding and managing socially desirable behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau & Madan M. Pillutla, 2013. "Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00853900, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:gemwpa:hal-00853900
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00853900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00853900/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    2. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making," Post-Print hal-00814614, HAL.
    3. Pillutla, Madan M. & Chen, Xiao-Ping, 1999. "Social Norms and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Context and Feedback, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 81-103, May.
    4. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00814614, HAL.
    5. Mead, N.L. & Baumeister, R.F. & Gino, F. & Schweitzer, M.E. & Ariely, D., 2009. "Too tired to tell the truth : Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty," Other publications TiSEM c60167a3-c3aa-4b83-9192-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jantsje M. Mol & Eline C. M. Heijden & Jan J. M. Potters, 2020. "(Not) alone in the world: Cheating in the presence of a virtual observer," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 961-978, December.
    2. Wiltermuth, Scott S. & Vincent, Lynne C. & Gino, Francesca, 2017. "Creativity in unethical behavior attenuates condemnation and breeds social contagion when transgressions seem to create little harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 106-126.
    3. van Dijke, M.H., 2014. "Understanding Immoral Conduct in Business Settings: A Behavioural Ethics Approach," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA-2014-060-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    4. Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Steinel, Wolfgang & Soraperra, Ivan & Shalvi, Shaul, 2019. "Uncertain lies: How payoff uncertainty affects dishonesty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-125.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pitesa, Marko & Thau, Stefan & Pillutla, Madan M., 2013. "Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 232-243.
    2. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau & Madan M. Pillutla, 2013. "Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact," Working Papers hal-00853900, HAL.
    3. Bhukya, Ramulu & Paul, Justin, 2023. "Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what we need to learn? – A hybrid systematic literature review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Anderson, Cameron, 2017. "Hierarchical rank and principled dissent: How holding higher rank suppresses objection to unethical practices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 30-49.
    5. Bill McEvily & Akbar Zaheer & Darcy K. Fudge Kamal, 2017. "Mutual and Exclusive: Dyadic Sources of Trust in Interorganizational Exchange," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 74-92, February.
    6. Gokce Basbug & Ayn Cavicchi & Susan S. Silbey, 2023. "Rank Has Its Privileges: Explaining Why Laboratory Safety Is a Persistent Challenge," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 571-587, May.
    7. Leavitt, Keith & Zhu, Luke (Lei) & Klotz, Anthony & Kouchaki, Maryam, 2022. "Fragile or robust? Differential effects of gender threats in the workplace among men and women," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Yu, Andrew & Hays, Nicholas A. & Zhao, Emma Y., 2019. "Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 84-104.
    9. Otto, Philipp E. & Bolle, Friedel, 2016. "The advantage of hierarchy: Inducing responsibility and selecting ability?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 49-57.
    10. Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2016. "Mad and misleading: Incidental anger promotes deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 207-217.
    11. Minson, Julia A. & VanEpps, Eric M. & Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-93.
    12. Zhen Wang & Lu Xing & Haoying Xu & Sean T. Hannah, 2021. "Not All Followers Socially Learn from Ethical Leaders: The Roles of Followers’ Moral Identity and Leader Identification in the Ethical Leadership Process," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 449-469, May.
    13. Julian Friedland & Kyle Emich & Benjamin M Cole, 2020. "Uncovering the moral heuristics of altruism: A philosophical scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, March.
    14. To, Christopher & Leslie, Lisa M. & Torelli, Carlos J. & Stoner, Jennifer L., 2020. "Culture and social hierarchy: Collectivism as a driver of the relationship between power and status," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 159-176.
    15. Paulina Roszkowska & Domènec Melé, 2021. "Organizational Factors in the Individual Ethical Behaviour. The Notion of the “Organizational Moral Structure”," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 187-209, July.
    16. Li Yan & Hean Tat Keh & Xiaoyu Wang, 2021. "Powering Sustainable Consumption: The Roles of Green Consumption Values and Power Distance Belief," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 499-516, March.
    17. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Yap, Andy J. & Thau, Stefan, 2018. "Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 73-96.
    18. Han-Sheng Lei & Chuan-Fu Lai & Chih-Chang Chen, 2018. "How Does Project Supervisor Maintain Sustainability of Project Members? A Study from Leadership Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    19. Paramita, Widya & Septianto, Felix & Winahjoe, Sari & Purwanto, B.M. & Candra, Ika Diyah, 2020. "Sharing is (not) caring? The interactive effects of power and psychological distance on tolerance of unethical behavior," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 42-49.
    20. Katja Woelfl & Lutz Kaufmann & Craig R. Carter, 2023. "In the eye of the beholder: A configurational exploration of perceived deceptive supplier behavior in negotiations," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(2), pages 33-61, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    socially desirable behavior; cognitive control; impulses; cheating; resource distributions;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:gemwpa:hal-00853900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.