IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/kdxzp.html

Dissociating the Ethical/unethical, Pro/anti-organizational Sensitivities and Overall Action/inaction Preference of Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Chuanjun

    (Sichuan University)

  • Zou, Lemei

Abstract

Previous studies have highlighted the dilemmatic nature of UPB, characterized by paradoxical emotional responses and behavioral patterns. Underlying the paradox of UPB, there are three different psychological processes, Ethical/unethical sensitivity (E parameter), Pro-/anti-organizational sensitivity (P parameter) and overall Action/inaction preference (A parameter). A typical UPB can be attributed to lower E, higher P, higher A, or any combination of these factors. However, no existing measures effectively dissociate the three psychological processes. Present work addresses this gap by developing and validating a novel measure, the EPA model by applying the methodology in moral dilemma study. The structural scenarios were constructed and validated (Study 1, n=749). Validity and reliability of the EPA model were further tested (Study 2, n=150). With applying the EPA model in a multi-wave survey (Study 3, n=1097), we found that employees with stronger tendencies toward moral decoupling, disengagement and justification are more likely to engage in UPB. It can be explained by their lower ethical sensitivity, higher pro-organizational sensitivity, and higher overall action/inaction preference. The relationships between organizational identification, social exchange, future focus and UPB remain ambiguous across multiple methodologies, warranting further investigation. Future studies can use the EPA model to clarify the three psychological processes of UPB. Theoretical and methodological implications were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Chuanjun & Zou, Lemei, 2024. "Dissociating the Ethical/unethical, Pro/anti-organizational Sensitivities and Overall Action/inaction Preference of Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior," OSF Preprints kdxzp, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:kdxzp
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/kdxzp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6756f1b723359e85eb1e29e5/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/kdxzp?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baron, Jonathan & Goodwin, Geoffrey P., 2021. "Consequences, norms, and inaction: Response to Gawronski et al. (2020)," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 566-595, March.
    2. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 2004. "Omission bias, individual differences, and normality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 74-85, July.
    3. Jonathan Baron & Geoffrey P. Goodwin, 2021. "Consequences, norms, and inaction: Response to Gawronski et al," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 566-595, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:osf:osfxxx:kdxzp_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    3. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    4. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Kang, Polly & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Emotional Deception in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Di Guida, Sibilla & Marchiori, Davide & Erev, Ido, 2012. "Decisions among defaults and the effect of the option to do nothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 790-793.
    7. Haferkamp, Alexandra & Fetchenhauer, Detlef & Belschak, Frank & Enste, Dominik, 2009. "Efficiency versus fairness: The evaluation of labor market policies by economists and laypeople," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 527-539, August.
    8. Kandul, Serhiy & Kirchkamp, Oliver, 2018. "Do I care if others lie? Current and future effects when lies can be delegated," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 70-78.
    9. Mary Parkinson & Ruth M. J. Byrne, 2017. "Moral judgments of risky choices: A moral echoing effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 236-252, May.
    10. Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman, 2017. "Is saving lives your task or God’s? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 280-296, May.
    11. James Sundali & Rachel Croson, 2006. "Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler's fallacy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 1-12, July.
    12. Barbara Bechter & Bernd Brandl & Gerhard Schwarz, 2009. "Determinanten der Einstellung zu wirtschaftspolitischen Maßnahmen," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 37321.
    13. Ruty Keinan & Yoella Bereby-Meyer, 2012. ""Leaving it to chance"-Passive risk taking in everyday life," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 705-715, November.
    14. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2023. "Delaying and motivating decisions in the (Bully) dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.
    16. Joakim Sundh, 2024. "Human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Molenmaker, Welmer E. & de Kwaadsteniet, Erik W. & van Dijk, Eric, 2016. "The impact of personal responsibility on the (un)willingness to punish non-cooperation and reward cooperation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Irene Scopelliti & H. Lauren Min & Erin McCormick & Karim S. Kassam & Carey K. Morewedge, 2018. "Individual Differences in Correspondence Bias: Measurement, Consequences, and Correction of Biased Interpersonal Attributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1879-1910, April.
    19. Gary D. Sherman & Beth Vallen & Stacey R. Finkelstein & Paul M. Connell & Wendy Attaya Boland & Kristen Feemster, 2021. "When taking action means accepting responsibility: Omission bias predicts parents' reluctance to vaccinate due to greater anticipated culpability for negative side effects," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 1660-1681, December.
    20. Pietro Guarnieri & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2024. "Norms and anti-coordination: elicitation and priming in an El Farol Bar Game experiment," Discussion Papers 2024/303, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    21. Jonathan Baron & Geoffry P. Goodwin, 2020. "Consequences, norms, and inaction: A critical analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 421-442, May.

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:kdxzp. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.