德行领导与员工不道德行为、利他行为:道德推脱的中介作用

以道德推脱理论为基础,运用问卷调查法,通过对776名员工的调查,探讨了德行领导对员工不道德行为和利他行为的影响及道德推脱在这一影响中的中介作用。研究发现:(1)德行领导会抑制员工不道德行为的产生、促进员工利他行为的出现;(2)道德推脱会促进员工不道德行为的产生、抑制员工利他行为的出现;(3)德行领导通过道德推脱的完全中介作用负向影响员工的不道德行为,通过道德推脱的部分中介作用正向影响员工的利他行为。     

道德推脱对员工道德决策的影响：德行领导的调节作用

运用问卷调查的方法,以819名员工为研究被试,探讨了德行领导在道德推脱影响道德决策过程中的调节作用。采用层次回归分析的方法研究发现：德行领导对道德推脱与道德识别、道德判断之间的关系具有调节作用;但德行领导不会对道德推脱与道德意图之间的关系产生调节作用,而会对道德意图产生显著的直接影响。     

高绩效要求与亲组织不道德行为:基于社会认知理论的视角

通过确立较高的绩效目标以提升组织绩效被普遍认为是一项有效的管理措施。然而,学术界对它的负面影响却缺乏研究。本文提出了高绩效要求将启动员工道德推脱机制为其随后进行的亲组织不道德行为开脱,即道德推脱在高绩效要求与亲组织不道德行为之间起到了中介作用。为了检验这一观点,本研究提出两种不同效应的调节变量:感知的市场竞争正向调节变量之间的间接关系,而道德认同则负向调节这一间接关系。通过对某零售企业225名员工的两阶段调查,本研究提出的调节-中介模型获得了观察数据的支持。本研究的发现有利于进一步了解亲组织不道德行为发生的中介心理机制和边界条件,指导管理者采取恰当的管理措施,以期有效地管控亲组织不道德行为的出现。     

何以应对道德自我威胁?道德记忆偏差的视角

人们会做出一些不道德的事情,这可能对他们积极的道德自我概念构成威胁。为了应对这种道德自我威胁,人们会表现出道德记忆偏差,即遗忘威胁道德自我的不道德事件或信息。近年来,研究者基于自传体记忆范式、游戏范式、代入范式和自我参照范式,为道德记忆偏差现象提供了证据支持。研究还进一步表明,这种道德记忆偏差可能出于应对道德自我威胁的需要,即人们希望通过有选择地遗忘来维护积极的道德自我概念。 值得注意的是,道德记忆偏差现象存在一些不一致的发现。未来研究应该寻求可能的调节变量,以整合现有不一致的发现,揭示人们使用道德记忆偏差应对道德自我威胁的情境或个体差异。此外,根据道德自我威胁的解释,道德记忆偏差的存在可能需要一定条件。人们做出有意不道德行为时,应该能够意识到自身行为有违道德标准、体验到道德自我威胁,进而表现出道德记忆偏差;但是人们在做出无意不道德行为时,可能不会体验到道德自我威胁,也就不会表现出道德记忆偏差。人们做出不太严重的不道德行为时,道德记忆偏差能够帮助人们很好地应对道德自我威胁。但是人们在做出严重违反道德的行为时,道德记忆偏差可能不足以应对道德自我威胁,该偏差可能就不复存在。 道德记忆偏差与其他应对道德自我威胁策略之间可能存在一定的联系。一种可能性是,道德记忆偏差与这些策略之间是相关补充、共同发挥作用的。还有一种可能性是,其他策略可能为道德记忆偏差的出现提供了条件。人们在做出不道德行为后,可能会通过道德推脱和自我合理化等方式来降低其道德标准,改观其对该事件的评价,从而更容易地模糊不道德行为,表现出道德记忆偏差。除应对道德自我威胁外,道德记忆偏差还存在其他可能的解释。道德记忆偏差可能源自人们的印象管理动机,即人们可能为了维护在他人面前的道德形象而表现出道德记忆偏差。道德记忆偏差还可能发生在记忆加工的不同阶段,比如该现象可能发生在编码阶段,即人们对道德事件的编码加工多于不道德事件;储存阶段,即人们可能受到积极自我图式的影响而对不道德事件产生遗忘;也可能在提取阶段,即人们可能会主动地抑制对不道德事件的提取。未来研究应关注道德记忆偏差存在条件,并在研究广度上扩展其研究范畴,在研究深度上揭示其认知机制,并探究与其他应对道德自我威胁策略的关系。     

青少年网络不道德行为与父母教养方式的关系——道德脱离、责任心、道德同一性的中介作用

研究采用问卷法,对764名青少年进行测试,用结构方程模型检验了教养方式、责任心、道德同一性、道德脱离和网络不道德行为之间的关系模型。结果表明,拒绝型教养方式通过责任心、道德同一性和道德脱离的中介来间接影响网络不道德行为。责任心可以直接作用于网络不道德行为,也可以通过道德脱离的中介来影响网络不道德行为。道德同一性只能通过道德脱离来影响不道德行为。     

明知故犯？故意不道德行为的影响因素和心理过程

故意不道德行为是指个体在明知行为违背了道德规范,但仍采取的不道德行为。研究表明,故意不道德行为存在众多诱发因素,尤其是道德自我概念具有重要的自我调节作用,在行为发生前后都产生重要影响。本文对故意不道德行为的影响因素进行了梳理,探索其行为发生前后的心理过程,并对既有的研究框架进行了整合。未来可以更关注无意识因素和心理动机因素对不道德行为的影响和作用机制,并尝试探索网络情境中的不道德行为。     

How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral disengagement

Concerns over unethical leader behavior persist in today's workplace. Although some employees continue to support their leaders after learning of their unethical actions, others do not. In this paper, we integrate social cognitive theory with social information processing theory to propose that the support employees give to leaders who act unethically hinges on their propensity to morally disengage. Specifically, we develop a conditional indirect effects model, wherein moral disengagement propensity mitigates the negative impact of unethical leader behavior on leader-directed support via employees’ perceptions of value congruence with and trust in the leader. The sum result is an improved understanding of when and why employees offer support to versus withhold support from leaders who act in ethically questionable ways.     

Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes

This article advances understanding of the antecedents and outcomes of moral disengagement by testing hypotheses with 3 waves of survey data from 307 business and education undergraduate students. The authors theorize that 6 individual differences will either increase or decrease moral disengagement, defined as a set of cognitive mechanisms that deactivate moral self-regulatory processes and thereby help to explain why individuals often make unethical decisions without apparent guilt or self-censure (Bandura, 1986). Results support 4 individual difference hypotheses, specifically, that empathy and moral identity are negatively related to moral disengagement, while trait cynicism and chance locus of control orientation are positively related to moral disengagement. Two additional locus of control orientations are not significantly related to moral disengagement. The authors also hypothesize and find that moral disengagement is positively related to unethical decision making. Finally, the authors hypothesize that moral disengagement plays a mediating role between the individual differences they studied and unethical decisions. Their results offer partial support for these mediating hypotheses. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for future research and for practice.     

Examining the moral grey zone: The role of moral disengagement,authenticity, and situational strength in predicting unethical managerial behavior

In the business context, there is a broad spectrum of practices that potentially harm others, yet might benefit the organization. We examined the influence of individual and situational differences in predicting (un)ethical behavior in these moral gray zones using an in‐basket exercise that included covert moral issues in which managers could give unethical instructions to their followers. Results show that individual differences in moral disengagement directly predicted unethical behavior and functioned as a mediator of the relationship between authenticity and unethical behavior. Furthermore, effects differed in weak compared to strong situations. Study 2, replicated the results from Study 1, developed a direct test of the situational strength hypothesis, and showed that high versus low situation strength moderated the relation of moral disengagement to unethical behavior.     

Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement,hostile attribution bias,and outcome expectancies

This study investigated the relationship between cognitive mechanisms, applied by people to rationalize and justify harmful acts, and engagement in traditional peer and cyber aggression among school children. We examined the contribution of moral disengagement (MD), hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies, and we further explored the individual contribution of each MD mechanism. Our aim was to identify shared and unique cognitive factors of the two forms of aggression. Three hundred and thirty‐nine secondary school children completed self‐report measures that assessed MD, hostile attribution bias, outcome expectancies, and their roles and involvement in traditional and cyber aggression. We found that the MD total score positively related to both forms of peer‐directed aggression. Furthermore, traditional peer aggression positively related to children's moral justification, euphemistic language, displacement of responsibility and outcome expectancies, and negatively associated with hostile attribution bias. Moral justification also related positively to cyber aggression. Cyber aggression and cyber victimization were associated with high levels of traditional peer aggression and victimization, respectively. The results suggest that MD is a common feature of both traditional and cyber peer aggression, but it seems that traditional forms of aggression demand a higher level of rationalization or justification. Moreover, the data suggest that the expectation of positive outcomes from harmful behavior facilitates engagement in traditional peer aggression. The differential contribution of specific cognitive mechanisms indicates the need for future research to elaborate on the current findings, in order to advance theory and inform existing and future school interventions tackling aggression and bullying. Aggr. Behav. 36:81–94, 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Dishonest deed, clear conscience: when cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting

People routinely engage in dishonest acts without feeling guilty about their behavior. When and why does this occur? Across four studies, people justified their dishonest deeds through moral disengagement and exhibited motivated forgetting of information that might otherwise limit their dishonesty. Using hypothetical scenarios (Studies 1 and 2) and real tasks involving the opportunity to cheat (Studies 3 and 4), the authors find that one's own dishonest behavior increased moral disengagement and motivated forgetting of moral rules. Such changes did not occur in the case of honest behavior or consideration of the dishonest behavior of others. In addition, increasing moral saliency by having participants read or sign an honor code significantly reduced unethical behavior and prevented subsequent moral disengagement. Although dishonest behavior motivated moral leniency and led to forgetting of moral rules, honest behavior motivated moral stringency and diligent recollection of moral rules.     

Moral disengagement,the dark triad,and unethical consumer attitudes

PurposeBandura’s theory of moral disengagement explains how otherwise ethical persons can behave immorally. We examined whether a trait model of general personality and the “dark triad” underlay moral disengagement, the relationship these constructs have to unethical consumer attitudes, and whether moral disengagement provided incremental validity in the prediction of antisocial behaviour.MethodsSelf-report data were obtained from a community sample of 380 adults via an online survey that administered all measures.ResultsCorrelations between unethical consumer attitudes, lower Agreeableness, lower Conscientiousness, higher moral disengagement, higher psychopathy, and higher Machiavellianism were captured by a single factor. When this broad factor was examined using regression, demographic, personality and the dark triad traits all predicted moral disengagement, specific influences being age, education, Intellect, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. A similar model examining predictors of unethical consumer attitudes again found all blocks contributed to the outcome, with specific influence provided by age, Intellect, and moral disengagement, the latter showing incremental validity as a predictor of unethical consumer attitudes.ConclusionsMoral disengagement is based on low Agreeableness, Machiavellianism and psychopathic-type traits, but provides incremental validity in predicting antisocial attitudes to a trait model alone. Narcissism is neither related to moral disengagement, nor unethical consumer attitudes.     

员工非伦理行为如何招致同事攻击:道义公正视角

通过整合理性判断与道义公正模型,聚焦非伦理行为实施者被同事攻击的现象,提出员工的非伦理行为导致同事道义不公正,进而引发同事的攻击行为。并且,这个过程分别受到伦理领导的正向影响和任务互依性的负向影响。通过分析265组来自浙江省一家大型制造企业一线员工的双点数据,结果表明同事道义不公正在员工非伦理行为与其被同事攻击之间起到了中介作用;伦理领导正向调节了非伦理行为对同事道义不公正的影响,即伦理领导增强了员工非伦理行为对同事道义不公正的正向作用,从而导致同事攻击行为的产生;任务互依性负向调节了同事道义不公正与攻击行为之间的正向关系,并且减弱了同事道义不公正在员工非伦理行为与攻击行为之间的中介作用。研究结果为控制和预防职场非伦理行为提供了理论依据和实践启示。     

Feeling activated and acting unethically: The influence of activated mood on unethical behavior to benefit a teammate

Research on the effects of mood in organizations tends to focus on the valence dimension of mood (positive vs. negative), overlooking the activation dimension (activated vs. deactivated). We suggest that activation level prompts unethical behavior. Based on the affective infusion model (AIM; Forgas, 1995), we predict that positive activated and negative activated moods facilitate unethical behavior to benefit a teammate, via the mediating mechanism of a creative mindset. We test our full model using an experience sampling method over 2 weeks, in which mood and creative mindset were assessed in the morning and unethical behavior conducted that day was assessed in the evening. We found that activated moods (both positive and negative) were positively related to unethical behavior to benefit a teammate. Further, creative mindset mediated the relationship between positive activated mood and unethical behavior to benefit a teammate. Consistent with AIM's claim that mood should influence decisions more when they are not personally relevant, we found that moral disengagement propensity moderated this indirect effect. In addition, we conducted two experiments to examine further the mood-creative mindset and creative mindset-unethical behavior to benefit a teammate relationship. Our findings affirm that activated versus deactivated moods facilitate a creative mindset, and that a creative mindset encourages unethical behavior to benefit a teammate. Our findings suggest that activation level of mood plays a critical role in unethical behavior.     

观点采择对大学生网络偏差行为的影响：道德推脱的中介作用

运用问卷调查的方法,以424名大学生为研究对象,探讨了观点采择和道德推脱对大学生网络偏差行为的影响。研究发现：（1）大学生的网络偏差行为并不十分严重,但男生的网络偏差行为明显多于女生的网络偏差行为;（2）观点采择会对大学生的网络偏差行为产生显著的负向影响,但这一影响过程需要通过道德推脱的完全中介作用而实现。     

道德推脱与大学生学术欺骗行为的关系研究

通过对550名大学生的问卷调查,探讨道德推脱在移情、责任心、道德认同与学术欺骗行为之间的作用。结果表明:道德推脱对学术欺骗行为有显著的正向预测作用;责任心、道德认同对道德推脱有显著的负向预测作用;道德推脱在移情与学术欺骗行为之间无显著的中介作用,而在责任心与学术欺骗行为、道德认同与学术欺骗行为之间均有完全中介作用。文章最后探讨了这一中介作用的意义。     

High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy,prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping behavior

This study aimed to investigate the process that leads people to offer or omit help in response to an explicit request for assistance, taking into account both emotional and cognitive factors. Specifically, a hypothetical scenario methodology was used in a sample of 174 Italian youths (50% males) to examine whether and how factors such as empathy, prosocial moral reasoning and moral disengagement influence the propensity to help when providing assistance is not in the individual’s personal interest. While a few previous studies have included moral disengagement as an antecedent of prosocial decision making, we highlight the significance of this factor in the avoidance of moral responsibility towards others in need. The results highlight two ways in which differences in emotional tendencies and moral-cognitive processes may operate in prosocial decision making in high personal cost situations. First, high empathy levels could promote an altruistic response which in turn fosters mature prosocial moral reasoning. Second, personal distress may enhance moral disengagement mechanisms that may facilitate self-centred behaviors.     

The whistleblower's dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff

Whistleblowing – reporting another person's unethical behavior to a third party – often constitutes a conflict between competing moral concerns. Whistleblowing promotes justice and fairness but can also appear disloyal. Five studies demonstrate that a fairness–loyalty tradeoff predicts people's willingness to blow the whistle. Study 1 demonstrates that individual differences in valuing fairness over loyalty predict willingness to report unethical behavior. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrate that experimentally manipulating endorsement of fairness versus loyalty increases willingness to report unethical behavior. Study 3 demonstrates that people recall their decisions to report unethical behavior as driven by valuation of fairness, whereas people recall decisions not to report unethical behavior as driven by valuation of loyalty. Study 4 demonstrates that experimentally manipulating the endorsement of fairness versus loyalty increases whistleblowing in an online marketplace. These findings reveal the psychological determinants of whistleblowing and shed light on factors that encourage or discourage this practice.     

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

When people can profit financially by lying, they do so to the extent to which they can justify their lies. One type of justification is the observation and production of desirable counterfactual information. Here, we disentangle observing and producing of desired counterfactuals and test whether the mere observation is sufficient or whether one actually needs to produce the information in order to justify lying. By employing a modified version of the Die‐Under‐Cup task, we ask participants to privately roll a die three times and to report the outcome of the first die roll (with higher values corresponding to higher payoffs). In all three conditions, participants produce (roll the die) and observe the first die roll, which is relevant for pay. We manipulate whether participants produce and observe versus only observe the second and third die roll outcomes, which are both irrelevant for pay. Results reveal that people lie to the same extent—when producing and observing the counterfactuals, and when merely observing them. It seems that merely observing counterfactual information is sufficient to allow people to use this information to justify their lies. We further test whether creativity and moral disengagement are associated with dishonesty and replicate the finding showing that unethical behavior increases with creativity. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Power and perceived influence: I caused your behavior,but I'm not responsible for it

There are numerous examples of powerful people denying responsibility for others' (mis)conduct in which they played—and acknowledge playing—a causal role. The current article seeks to explain this conundrum by examining the difference between, and powerful people's beliefs about, causality and responsibility. Research has shown power to have numerous psychological consequences. Some of these consequences, such as overconfidence, are likely to increase an individual's belief that he or she caused another person's behavior. However, others, such as decreased perspective‐taking, are likely to decrease an individual's belief that he or she was responsible for another person's behavior. In combination, these psychological consequences of power may lead powerful people to believe that they instigated another's behavior while simultaneously believing that the other person could have chosen to do otherwise. The dissociation between these two attributions may help to explain why people in positions of power often deny responsibility for others' behavior—unethical or otherwise—that they undeniably caused.