这是indexloc提供的服务，不要输入任何密码
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v122y2013i2p280-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doing as they would do: How the perceived ethical preferences of third-party beneficiaries impact ethical decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Wiltermuth, Scott S.
  • Bennett, Victor M.
  • Pierce, Lamar

Abstract

Although unethical behavior often benefits third-parties not directly complicit in the misconduct, not all beneficiaries welcome these ill-gotten benefits. We investigate whether actors consider the ethical preferences of potential beneficiaries or rely solely on their own ethical predispositions when making decisions that affect others. Three studies demonstrate that the perceived ethical preferences of these beneficiaries can substantially influence the likelihood that actors behave unethically on their behalves. These studies show that actors consider the ethical preferences of beneficiaries only when their own ethical disposition is outcome-based.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiltermuth, Scott S. & Bennett, Victor M. & Pierce, Lamar, 2013. "Doing as they would do: How the perceived ethical preferences of third-party beneficiaries impact ethical decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 280-290.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:122:y:2013:i:2:p:280-290
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597813000848
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.001?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    2. Urs Fischbacher & Franziska Föllmi-Heusi, 2013. "Lies In Disguise—An Experimental Study On Cheating," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 525-547, June.
    3. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3d04q5sm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Elizabeth E. Umphress & John B. Bingham, 2011. "When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 621-640, June.
    5. Björn Bartling & Urs Fischbacher, 2012. "Shifting the Blame: On Delegation and Responsibility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(1), pages 67-87.
    6. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    7. Steven L. Grover, 1993. "Lying, Deceit, and Subterfuge: A Model of Dishonesty in the Workplace," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 478-495, August.
    8. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2001. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qz9k8vg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. Shalvi, Shaul & Leiser, David, 2013. "Moral firmness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 400-407.
    10. Francesca Gino & Lamar Pierce, 2010. "Robin Hood Under the Hood: Wealth-Based Discrimination in Illicit Customer Help," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1176-1194, December.
    11. Sanjiv Erat & Uri Gneezy, 2012. "White Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 723-733, April.
    12. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    13. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    14. Wiltermuth, Scott S., 2011. "Cheating more when the spoils are split," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 157-168, July.
    15. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    16. Jason Snyder, 2010. "Gaming the Liver Transplant Market," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 546-568.
    17. Francesca Gino & Lamar Pierce, 2010. "Lying to Level the Playing Field: Why People May Dishonestly Help or Hurt Others to Create Equity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 89-103, September.
    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. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    2. Kouchaki, Maryam & Kray, Laura J., 2018. "“I won't let you down:” Personal ethical lapses arising from women’s advocating for others," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 147-157.
    3. Bitterly, T. Bradford & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2019. "The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-89.
    4. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Building trust by tearing others down: When accusing others of unethical behavior engenders trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 111-128.
    5. Kevin J. Johnson & Joé T. Martineau & Saouré Kouamé & Gokhan Turgut & Serge Poisson-de-Haro, 2018. "On the Unethical Use of Privileged Information in Strategic Decision-Making: The Effects of Peers’ Ethicality, Perceived Cohesion, and Team Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(4), pages 917-929, November.
    6. Bradford Baker & Rellie Derfler-Rozin & Marko Pitesa & Michael Johnson, 2019. "Stock Market Responses to Unethical Behavior in Organizations: An Organizational Context Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 319-336, March.
    7. Peter E. Mudrack & E. Sharon Mason, 2019. "Utilitarian Traits and the Janus-Headed Model: Origins, Meaning, and Interpretation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 227-240, April.
    8. Hildreth, John Angus D. & Gino, Francesca & Bazerman, Max, 2016. "Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 16-36.

    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. Behnk, Sascha & Hao, Li & Reuben, Ernesto, 2022. "Shifting normative beliefs: On why groups behave more antisocially than individuals," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Arleta Rasmußen, 2015. "Reporting behavior: a literature review of experimental studies," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 283-311, June.
    3. Cadsby, C. Bram & Du, Ninghua & Song, Fei, 2016. "In-group favoritism and moral decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 59-71.
    4. Laura Biziou-van-Pol & Jana Haenen & Arianna Novaro & Andrés Occhipinti & Valerio Capraro, 2015. "Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 538-548, November.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:538-548 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jacobsen, Catrine & Piovesan, Marco, 2016. "Tax me if you can: An artifactual field experiment on dishonesty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 7-14.
    7. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:563-571 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Sanjit Dhami, 2017. "Human Ethics and Virtues: Rethinking the Homo-Economicus Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 6836, CESifo.
    10. Sina A. Klein & Isabel Thielmann & Benjamin E. Hilbig & Ingo Zettler, 2017. "Between me and we: The importance of self-profit versus social justifiability for ethical decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 563-571, November.
    11. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    12. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    15. Russell Golman, 2020. "New Directions in Behavioral Game Theory: Introduction to the Special Issue," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-3, November.
    16. Felix Gottschalk, 2021. "Regulating Markets with Advice: An Experimental Study," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(1), pages 1-31, February.
    17. Nives Della Valle & Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Reacting to Unfairness: Group Identity and Dishonest Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Eric Cardella, 2016. "Exploiting the guilt aversion of others: do agents do it and is it effective?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(4), pages 523-560, April.
    19. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    20. Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Ilkka Leppänen, 2017. "Cheap talk and cooperation in Stackelberg games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(2), pages 261-285, June.
    21. Arbel, Yuval & Bar-El, Ronen & Siniver, Erez & Tobol, Yossef, 2014. "Roll a die and tell a lie – What affects honesty?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 153-172.
    22. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Rimbaud, Claire & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Embezzlement and guilt aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 409-429.
    23. Roman Inderst & Kiryl Khalmetski & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Sharing Guilt: How Better Access to Information May Backfire," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3322-3336, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:122:y:2013:i:2:p:280-290. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.