2012 JBE Temptation

T. L.P. Tang & T.
Sutarso (2012)
Journal of Business Ethics
The final version of this paper was published in online first (before print copy 2013): Tang, T. L. P., & Sutarso, T (2012). Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces of temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1475-3.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation? Multiple Faces of Temptation, Monetary Intelligence, and Unethical Intentions across Gender
Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Toto Sutarso
Abstract: We develop a theoretical model, explore the relationship between Temptation (both reflective and formative) and unethical intentions by treating monetary intelligence (MI) as a mediator, and examine the direct (temptation to unethical intentions) and indirect (temptation to monetary intelligence to unethical intentions) paths simultaneously based on multiple-wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees and university (business) students. The positive indirect path suggested that yielding to temptation (e.g., high cognitive impairment and lack of self-control) led to poor monetary intelligence (low stewardship behavior but high cognitive meaning) that, in turn, led to high unethical intentions (theft, corruption, and deception). Our counterintuitive negative direct path revealed that those who controlled their temptation had high unethical intentions. Due to the multiple faces of temptation (the suppression effect), maliciously controlled temptation led to deviant intentions. Subsequent multi-group analysis across gender reformulated the mystery of temptation: Males negative direct path generated a dark impact on unethical intentions; females positive indirect path did not, but offered great implications for consumer behavior. Both falling and not falling into temptation led to unethical intentions which varied across gender. Our counterintuitive, novel, and original theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions may spark curiosity and add new vocabulary to the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer psychology, and business ethics. Keywords: Temptation (Impulsive Behavior, Cognitive Impairment, Self-Control, Social Moral Value, and Getting Rich), Monetary Intelligence (Motive, Stewardship, Meaning), Deviant Intentions (Theft, Corruption, Deception), Reflective vs. Formative, Gender, Love of Money
For the past several decades, we have witnessed numerous cases of corruption, scandals, and unethical behaviors involving large corporations (Enron, Worldcom) and individuals (Bernie Madoff) (Ashforth et al., 2008; Gino et al., 2011). Deviant behaviors have harmful effects on individuals, organizations, and the large society. Approximately five percent (5%) of global
T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)
annual revenues, more than $2.9 trillion, were lost due to various forms of corruption or unethical behaviors (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2010). This is a world-wide phenomenon that deserves researchers attention (Fisman & Miguel, 2007; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2011). Due to its pervasive impact, researchers attempt to identify plausible reasons behind these unethical and deviant behaviors (Christian & Ellis, 2011). According to theory of planned behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1991), attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control predict behavioral intention that, in turn, predicts behavior. Researchers have examined TPB in many fields (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Cordano & Frieze, 2000; Manning, 2009) and the relationship between temptation and addictive behaviors -- eating (Hofmann et al., 2007, 2010), drinking (Collins et al., 2000; Maddock et al., 2000), smoking (Hudmon et al., 1997), and gambling (Holub et al., 2005); consumer behavior (Baumeister et al., 1994; Baumeister et al., 2008); and more recently, unethical behaviors (Mead et al., 2009; Restubog et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2005; Tenbrunsel, 1998). The contribution of TPB in our understanding of the temptation to unethical intentions relationship is not as ubiquitous as most researchers once thought, however. Theory of free will (Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008) suggests that people value self-control, follow rules, and make intelligent and rational decisions. Self-control is the psychological capacity that enables individuals to enact behaviors that are consistent with their long-term goals (e.g., of being an ethical person) and refrain form engaging in behaviors that are driven by shortterm selfish motives (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). The lack of self-control is associated with impulsive behavior and cognitive impairment. In our culture, there are many rules and standards, including moral rules to which individuals must conform (Mead et al., 2009, p. 594). Strong ethical standards curb unethical behavior intentions (Ariely, 2008; Tang, 2012). Rational choice is directly related to getting the most bang for the money (Mickel & Barron, 2008) and selecting the best products (Baumeister et al., 2008). Very little research has combined the fields of consumer behavior, psychology of money (Monetary Intelligence), and business ethics to investigate the temptation to unethical intentions relationships. Our present study attempts to fill the void. We adopt theory of free will (consumer behavior; Baumeister, 2002; Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008) as the foundation of our major theoretical framework and apply the notion of temptation (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) in the context of unethical intentions (business ethics; Chen & Tang, 2006; Tang & Chiu, 2003). We propose a theoretical measurement model that (1) getting rich (affective), (2) impulsive behavior (behavioral), and (3) cognitive impairment (cognitive), i.e., the ABC of an attitude, as well as (4) social moral values (subjective norm), and (5) loss of self-control (perceived control) are components of temptation that leads to two consequencesbecoming selfish and deviating from important goals (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). We develop a theoretical structural equation (SEM) model (Figure 1), explore the relationship between temptation and deviant intentions, treat monetary intelligence (psychology of moneymotives, stewardship, and meaning of money, Tang, 1992; Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2012) as a mediator and gender as a moderator, and
investigate the direct and indirect paths simultaneously based on multiple-wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees who are also university students in a business class. Figure 1. A theoretical model of temptation, MI, and unethical intentions
The reflective Temptation construct has five significant sub-constructs, whereas the formative model offers some novel insights: High levels of impulsive behavior, cognitive impairment, and lack of self-control and low levels of social moral values and getting rich define Temptation that, in turn, is related to becoming selfish and overlooking important goals. We explore two parsimonious SEM models of Temptation (reflective vs. formative): The positive indirect path (Paths 2 and 3) suggests that falling into temptation leads to poor monetary intelligence (low stewardship and high cognitive meaning of money) that, in turn, entices them to have high deviant intentions. Our counterintuitive negative direct path (Path 1) shows that those who do not fall into Temptation have high theft, corruption, and deception intentions. The overall impact is negative: Maliciously controlled temptation is significantly related to unethical intentions. Our subsequent multi-group analyses across gender reformulated the mystery of temptationa negative direct path for males, but a positive indirect path for females. For males, the overall dark impact of temptation on unethical intentions is substantial, causing grave concerns; for females, overall dark impact is trivial; but offers great implications for consumer behavior. Our counterintuitive novel findings make significant theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007), spark curiosity, and add new vocabulary to the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer behavior, and unethical behavior intention in the literature. Theory and Hypotheses Temptation: Construct Conceptualization According to Locke (1969: 334), the first question a scientific investigator must ask is not how can I measure it? but rather, what is it? In order to understand the construct clearly and
achieve a solid construct conceptualization, researchers must use specific, accurate, and explicit terms and define the conceptual construct precisely in a positive direction without circular or tautological argument (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; MacKenzie et al., 2011). We define temptation below. What is temptation? From the Greek word Peirasmos, temptation is the state of being enticed, allured, or seduced. It carries two meaningsbeing misled into sin or enticed to do wrong, or being put to the test. We approach the temptation construct from the perspectives of consumer behavior and business Ethics. First, consumers desire to perform an act (consumption) leads to instant gratification (Tice et al., 2001) but causes great regret or guilt later. Second, when tempted, most people are willing to be a little dishonest, regardless of the risks. People rationalize their dishonesty easily when cheating is one step removed from cash (Ariely, 2008). It is the weak temptation, as compared to strong temptation, that has an inhibiting effect on selfregulation process, forming a bigger threat for long-term goal attainment (Kroese et al., 2011). Peoples temptation to break the simple, small rules is titillating because it temporally brings a sense of excitement to life and can be rationalized easily. This is the reason why so many people are easily enticed to eat chocolate, shop spontaneously, and do bad, deviant, and unethical things. Resisting temptation, on the other hand, takes a lot of will-power, clear thinking, and self-control that may or may not deliver us from evil. Components of temptation. A key to understanding the motivational mechanisms of deviance lies in theories of self-regulation (Christian & Ellis, 2011). Deviant behaviors are volitional, but are different from crimes of passion (due to sudden unexpected impulses) and impulsive behavior/consumption. Following TPB, theory of free will (Baumeister, 2002; Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008), and ABC model of an attitude (Bagozzi et al., 1979), we define temptation as a multi-dimensional individual difference variable with five components: (1) getting rich, (2) impulsive behavior, (3) cognitive impairment, (4) social moral values, and (5) lack of self-control. The entity to which it applies is people. We discuss these constructs below. Getting rich (affective). Why do people (e.g., CEO/CFO of Enron and Bernie Madoff) fall into temptation and engage in unethical behaviors? Enrons executives were provided with substantial bonuses in the form of stock options. Given the size of the bonus payments, the temptation to engage in unethical behavior was, in hindsight, disturbingly obvious (The Daily Record, 2003). When tempted, most are willing to be a little dishonest and to do whatever it takes to become rich. Getting rich is a highly emotional, affective aspect of peoples money attitudes. Those who want to get rich will take risks and engage in unethical behaviors (Tang et al., 2008, Tang et al., 2011). Impulsive behavior (behavioral). Those who fall into temptation follow their hearts, seek instant gratification (Tice et al., 2001), and act in an impulsive and spontaneous way. People suddenly have an urge to do something, act on that impulse without carefully or thoroughly considering whether it is consistent with their long-range goals, ideals, and plans (Baumeister, 2002). Most impulses are resistible, yet sometimes prove irresistible when their self-control has
failed (Rook, 1987). Some opportunistic people may capture the moment and engage in unethical behaviors when opportunities present themselves in the environment. Cognitive impairment (cognitive). Comparing three types of theories regarding how people restrain impulses and override incipient responses: willpower and strength, cognitive processes, and self-control as a skill, Baumeister (2002) supported the willpower and strength model. Sleep deprivation causes workplace deviance due to the depletion of self-regulatory resources (Christian & Ellis, 2011). When crucial self-regulatory resources have been depleted, people without a strong will become weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually and experience cognitive impairment. Due to temptation, people become disoriented and lose their abilities to concentrate on important, long-term goals. However, executives in recent scandals strategically planned, cleverly organized, deceitfully miss-led, and carefully controlled/executed their unethical act (theft, corruption, and deception) with concerted efforts and executive function. These scandals are not caused by executives lack of intelligence or brains, nor accidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive impairment; but rather, by their self-interests, malicious intent, and lack of wisdom, virtue (Feiner, 2004: 85; Tang & Liu, 2012). We posit that most people engage in unethical behaviors to fulfill their specific, selfish, and strategic and intentional purposes which are quite different from consumers who yield to temptation and buy impulsively at shopping malls. In other words, compared to CEO/CFO of Enron and Bernie Madoff, mentally challenged individuals may not have the intellectual competencies to execute unethical behaviors. Lack of self-control (perceived control). Self-control is the ability to override or change ones inner responses, as well as to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies (such as impulses) and refrain from acting on them (Tangney et al., 2004, p. 274). When people lose track of their behavior, they experience a self-control breaks down. People in a sad mood eat unhealthy snack foods more than those without emotional distress. When people are upset, they indulge immediate impulses to make themselves feel better, which amounts to giving short-term affect regulation priority over other self-regulatory goals (Tice et al., 2001, p. 53). Acts of selfregulation without rest or replenishment (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) impair subsequent selfregulatory efforts (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). Self-control is the poorest among people who have performed a prior act of self-control. People who are on a diet tend to eat more pieces of candy when given the opportunity in an experiment than those who are not. Further, both trait selfcontrol and self-control depletion predicted impulsive cheating behavior on a problem-solving task (Baumeister et al., 1998; Mead et al., 2009; Muraven et al., 2006; Rosenbaum, 1993). People with high self-control have less aggressive behavior (Latham & Perlow, 1996) and lower deviant behaviors (Bordia et al., 2008). In a cold nonvisceral state, the presence of temptation prompts cognition to support self-control; whereas in a hot visceral state, temptation prompts the same cognitive processes to support impulsive behavior (Nordgren & Chou, 2011). Thus, some cold-hearted individuals seize the opportunity to become corrupt and engage in unethical behaviors for financial gains, but do not do it impulsively to make themselves feel better (cf. Tice et al., 2001). As mentioned, peoples decisive unethical behaviors reflect their strong selfcontrol and executive function. That is, they do it on purpose. It is not an accident.
Social moral values (subjective social norm). Getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton students to contemplate their own ethical values eliminates cheating completely, while offering poker chips to redeem for cash, a few seconds later, doubles the level of cheating (Ariely, 2008, p. 24; Aquino et al., 2009; Tang, 2012). With a high level of supervisory guidance, a high (or low) level of behavioral integrity (Simons, 2002; Simons et al., 2007) curbs (or incites) deviant behavior (Dineen et al., 2006). People with high love of money and low perceptions regarding the authenticity of supervisors personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) had the highest unethical behavior intention; whereas those with high love of money and high ASPIRE had the lowest (Tang & Liu, 2012). Thus, supervisors authentic personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) is a moderator and makes a difference. There are several important implications: Most peoples ethical intentions and behaviors are influenced by ethical values and cultures at the individual and organization levels (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Weiss et al., 2010). Temptations presented positively or negatively in the social context control individuals ethical or unethical intentions. Taken together, we assert that these five sub-constructs make significant and independent contributions to our theoretical measurement model of temptation. Relationships between Constructs and Measures (Reflective vs. Formative) We discuss the nature of the relationships between the constructs and measures, below. For decades, most researchers in social sciences have used a reflective model for attitudinal constructs rather than a formative model (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). Recent developments in measurement theory and application lead some researchers to re-consider constructs, such as job satisfaction, not as a reflective model, but as a formative modela composite or aggregate of the satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervisor, coworkers, and the work itself (Williams et al., 2003). Further, some scholars strongly advocated the use of formative measurement model and suggested that paths emanating from a miss-specified construct may lead to Type I errors, whereas paths leading to a miss-specified construct may lead to Type II error (Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al., 2005, 2011). Others expressed concerns regarding its merits (Edwards, 2011). We describe and compare both reflective and formative models of Temptation, next. Reflective model. We treat the five sub-constructs or factors as an imperfect reflection of the underlying latent constructTemptation. The indicators and the first-order latent factors are viewed as manifestations of the overall focal construct; the focal construct exists separately at a deeper and more embedded level than its first-order factors and items; and a change in the focal construct would be expected to produce a change in all of its factors and items. The indicators and first-level sub-constructs are best thought of as reflective of the focal construct. The direction of the relationship flows from the latent construct to the indicators. Direct manipulation of a particular indicator will not have an effect on the latent variable. It is appropriate when a researcher is interested in measuring a stable focal construct over time or across situations, or has several randomly selected parcels of items each of which is reflective of a focal construct. Formative model. We treat items and the five first-order sub-constructs (factors) as a reflective model and consider the five sub-constructs as distinguishable perspectives, defining
characteristics, or formative indicators, of Temptation. The elimination of any single subconstruct will restrict the overall construct in a significant way. The non-interchangeable subdimensions (antecedents) formulate the Temptation construct that, in turn, is related to two or more items or reflective measures that capture the overall construct or various consequences (outcomes). The patterns for the formation and consequence of Temptation depend on different outcomes involved in the analyses. [Our reflective and formative models of temptation (with results of the present study) are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively and Appendix A.] After discussions of the fallacy of formative measures, Edwards (2011) proposed alternatives to formative measurement. Our model (presented in Figure 3) actually fits the descriptionan alternative to the conventional formative measurement model that avoids the shortcomings of formative measurement (Edwards, 2011). It is a model that replaces formative measures with facet constructs and multiple reflective measures (see Figure 6, Edwards, 2011, p. 384). In this case, the construct is nothing more than a label for its dimensions considered collectively (p. 384). In summary, we establish a Temptation measure (as a trait) and explore the validity in a theoretical SEM model. Step 1, to achieve model identification, a formative construct must emit paths to (1) at least two unrelated latent constructs with reflective indicators, (2) at least two theoretically appropriate reflective indicators, or (3) one reflective indicator and one latent construct with reflective indicators (Jarvis et al., 2003). Step 2, in order to establish the validity (nomological network of correlations) of the Temptation construct, we adopt two models of Temptation (i.e., reflective vs. an alternative to conventional formative measurement) in two separate analyses and select two additional outcome items (Items 18 and 19, Figure 4) and two additional constructs: unethical intentions (PUB) (reflective) and Monetary Intelligence (MI) (formative) for two reasons: First, the Temptation construct taps directly and indirectly on both constructs that are content-valid measures. Second, we treat Monetary Intelligence as a mediator and examine the direct path (Temptation Unethical Intentions) and the indirect path (Temptation Monetary Intelligence Unethical Intentions) simultaneously. Since we treat Monetary Intelligence as a formative measurement model, we also included two additional outcome variables (Machiavellianism) (Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang & Tang, 2010). Unethical Behavior Intentions It is impossible to directly measure managers actual corruption or unethical behaviors because most behaviors are performed in private, except in formal criminal investigations of corruption cases, police records (e.g., Fisman & Miguel, 2007), and laboratory experiments (Ariely, 2008). However, people are willing to provide accurate information for specific questions in an anonymous survey (Richman et al., 1999; Schoorman & Mayer, 2008). The convergence of the incumbents self-report and the coworkers peer-report on counterproductive behavior suggests that self-reported unethical intention is a reasonable surrogate measure of behavior (De Jonge, & Peeters, 2009; Fox et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2007).
Among workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), counterproductive behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2010), corruption, and misbehavior, researchers have examined the propensity to engage in unethical behaviors (PUB) (Tang & Chiu, 2003) that is a subset of organizational deviances performed against organizations (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). The PUB scale includes theft, corrupt intent, and deception. The corrupt intent sub-scale involves the misuse of position, power, or authority for personal or organizational gain (receiving gifts, money, bribery, and kickbacks); acts committed against the company (sabotage and theft); and acts conducted on behalf of the organization (laying off employees for personal gain) (Ashforth et al., 2008; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). These constructs have been tested empirically in China (Du et al., 2007), Hong Kong (Tang & Chiu, 2003), Macedonia (Sardoska & Tang, 2009, 2012), the US (Piffa et al., 2012), and more than 31 geopolitical entities/countries across six continents (Tang et al., 2011) and cited in review articles (e.g., Kish-Gephart et al., 2010) and textbooks (Bateman & Snell, 2013). Temptation to Unethical Behaviors We focus on the direct path between temptation and unethical intentions (Path 1). One of the real root causes of the corporate scandals is the overemphasis American corporations have been forced to give in recent years to maximizing shareholder value without regard for the effect of their actions on other stakeholders (Kochan, 2002, p. 139). Profit-based mechanisms create a huge amount of pressure and opportunity for managers and have serious flaws. Enrons executives were provided with substantial bonuses in the form of stock optionsa temptation that might have caused executives to deceptively manipulate accounting procedures by cooking the books and intentionally engage in unethical behaviors (The Daily Record, 2003; Kennedy & Lawton, 1993). As mentioned, scandals and unethical behaviors in the US and around the world are caused by executives intentional actions and are not accidents or honest mistakes. They did it on purpose and not due to cognitive impairment and/or lack of self-control, in particular. High love-of-money individuals have high Machiavellianism and high risk tolerance (Tang et al., 2008). Domain-specific temptation explained 40 percent of the unique within-individual variance in impulsive behavior (Tsukayama et al., 2012). On the basis of the ancient wisdom (those who want to get rich are falling into temptation) and empirical research findings, we test Hypothesis 1, below. Hypothesis 1: Temptation is directly related to unethical behavior intentions. Monetary Intelligence (MI) For the past three decades, researchers have examined numerous money-related attitudes and measures (Furnham, 1984; Furnham & Argyle, 1998; Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2001; Yamauchi & Templer, 1982). Among them, the Money Ethic (MES, Tang, 1992) or the Love of Money construct, a subset of MES (Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang et al., 2006, 2011) has become one of the most cited and systematically used constructs of money attitude in the literature (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999). It is mildly related to materialism (Belk,
1984, 1985, 1988; Kasser, 2002), differs from greed (Cozzolino et al., 2009), is related to a winner-take-all mentalitythe Matthew Effect (Merton, 1968; Tang, 1996), and predicts voluntary turnover (Tang et al., 2000) and unethical behavioral intention in multiple-wave panel studies (Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang & Liu, 2012). This construct has been substantiated in empirical studies across almost three dozen entities around the world (Du et al., 2007; Gbadamosi & Joubert, 2005; Lim & Teo, 1997; Nkundabanyanga et al., 2011; Singhapakdi et al., 2012/forthcoming; Tang, et al., 2006, 2011; Vitell et al., 2006; Wong, 2008) and cited in influential reviews (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Lea & Webley, 2006; Mickel & Barron, 2008; Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Zhang, 2009) and in numerous books (Colquitt et al., 2011; Furnham & Argyle, 1998; McShane & Von Glinow, 2008; Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2011; Rynes & Gerhart, 2000). Monetary Intelligence (MI) is defined as a multi-dimensional individual difference variable that involves peoples ability to process and appraise monetary motive (affective), regulate money-related intentions or behaviors (behavioral), and prioritize its cognitive importance (cognitive) to promote personal growth, happiness, or subjective well-being (Tang et al., 2012), based on previous research (Tang, 1992, Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang & Chiu, 2003). MI (money smart) is a grand umbrella construct with three sub-constructsthe affective motive (Rich, Motivator, and Importance), the behavioral stewardship of money (Make, Budget, Donate, and Contribute), and the cognitive meaning (Happiness, Respect, Achievement, and Power). Results based on 6,586 managers in 32 geopolitical entities across six continents showed that low motive, high stewardship, and high meaning define Monetary Intelligence that is related to higher pay satisfaction than life satisfaction. The formation and consequence of Monetary Intelligence varied across age, gender, and economic development; providing intra-personal, inter-personal, and cross-cultural differences: Becoming good stewards and focusing on what we do with our money actually contribute significantly, positively, and consistently to monetary intelligence (MI) and to job and life satisfaction. When the cognitive meaning of money is (is not) a prominent makeup of Monetary Intelligence, people tend to have higher (lower) pay satisfaction than life satisfaction. These findings seem to support the ancient wisdom: Poverty consists, not in the decrease of ones possessions, but in the increase of ones greed (Plato, 427347 BC). We explore MI as a mediator in the present study. Monetary Intelligence (MI) as a Mediator Temptation to MI (Path 2). Materialism (Belk, 1984) leads to the dark side of the American dream (Arndt et al., 2004; Kasser, 2002; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Mick, 1996; Tang, 2007; Tang et al., 2012/forthcoming). Subject to all forms of temptation, materialistic consumers have high financial worries, worse money-management skills, and great tendency towards compulsive buying and over spending, i.e., low MI/money smart (Gardarsdottir & Dittmar, 2012). After controlling for income and money-management skills, materialism is directly related to the amount of debt. Students on five college campuses reported an average debt of $1,035 (SD = $1,849). Those with greater debt reported greater stress and decreased financial
10
well being (Norvilitis et al., 2006). The US saving rates in 2006 dropped to all time low at minus 0.5 percent since the Great Depression (Associated Press, 2006). Only 14 percent of Americans have confidence in their ability to retire comfortably (Helman et al., 2012). People lose track of their self-control, become cognitively impaired, fall into temptation, and spend their money impulsively (Baumeister, 2002). Choices made after losses are riskier than that after gains (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Following a vicious cycle, temptation is related to poor MI (lower stewardship of money and higher value toward the enjoyment of having money). We test our Hypothesis 2 as follows: Hypothesis 2: Temptation is related to monetary intelligence. MI to unethical intentions (Path 3). The affective component of money attitude is associated with deviant behaviors and unethical intentions (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang et al., 2011). Money is often associated with achievement and recognition, status and respect, freedom and control, and power (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; see Colquitt et al., 2011). Considering money as a sign of their achievement leads to low satisfaction with pay and life (Fishbach et al., 2003; Srivastava et al., 2001; Tang, 1992, 2007). Pay dissatisfaction causes people to become corrupt in the name of justice (Greenberg, 1993), equity (Gino & Pierce, 2009ab), revenge (Ashforth & Anand, 2003), or retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Those who do not manage their money carefully (Dew & Xiao, 2011; Mickel et al., 2003) have many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. Hypothesis 3: Monetary intelligence is related to unethical intentions. It is plausible that our direct path and indirect path may be operated differently based on our theoretical model. Suppression occurs when the indirect effect has the opposite sign of the direct effect (Shrout & Bolder, 2002, p. 430) which explains why a theoretically interesting relation is not strong. That is, the direct and indirect effects of similar magnitudes and opposite signs result in a non-zero and non-significant overall relationship. We challenge the assumption that temptation leads to the dark side of unethical intentions consistently (Hypothesis 1) and argue that due to our positive indirect effect (suppression effect, Hypotheses 2 and 3), temptation may not have a strong and negative relationship with unethical intentions for all participants. A moderator is a qualitative (e.g., sex, race, class) or quantitative (e.g., level of reward) variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). We treat gender as a moderator and test our model using multi-group analysis (Amos). Gender Males have higher concerns for money, career advancement than ethical values (Beu et al., 2003; Deshpande, 1997; Hoffman, 1998), compared to females. Ethics training may have limited effects for females but no effect for males (Conroy & Emerson, 2004; Ritter, 2006; Traiser & Eighmy, 2011). The top business schools not only fail to improve the moral character
11
of students but actually weaken it (Schneider & Prasso, 2002). Students who take a single semester of introductory economics show a significant decline in honesty and increase in selfinterest (Frank et al., 1993). Highly educated executives in recent scandals received their training at the best business schools (Merritt, 2002). Machiavellianism mediates the relationship between love of money and unethical intentions for business students but not for psychology students, for male students but not for female students, and for male business students but not for female business students (Tang & Chen, 2008). Male students are more unethical than female students. Hypothesis 4: The dark impact of temptation on unethical intentions is stronger for males than for females. Method Procedure. The first author collected data from 340 students (male = 221, 65.0%; female = 119, 35.0%; return rate = 95%) who took a management class in the college of business, accredited by AACSB-International, at a state university in the southeastern US for four years. In a 16-week semester, students completed eight two-page (on one sheet of paper) surveys and other activities for course credits confidentially with initials and the last four digits of their social security number in order to match these eight-panel survey data. Participants completed these surveys at least one or two weeks apart in the semester. This procedure avoids the possible impact of fatigue/memory, common method variance bias, and enhances the psychological separation of predictors and criteria (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The professor was blind regarding students survey results and debriefed the purposes of this study at the end of the semester. Measures. We adopted our 15-item, 5-factor Temptation Scale; the 30-item, 10-factor Monetary Intelligence Scale (MI, Tang, 1992; Tang et al., 2012); 4-item Machiavellianism (Mach IV, 4 items, two items from Tactics and two items from Views of Human Nature, Christie & Geis, 1970; Tang & Chen, 2008); and three sub-constructs (Theft, Corruption, and Deception) of the 15-item, 5-factor Propensity to Engage in Unethical Behavior Scale (PUB) (Chen & Tang, 2006; Tang & Chiu, 2003) (see Appendix A). We used a 5-point Likert scale with strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5) as anchors for Temptation, Monetary Intelligence, and Machiavellianism measures. For the PUB scale, we used a different set of anchors: very low probability (1), low probability (2), average (3), high probability (4), and very high probability (5) and provided the following instructions. If you were given the opportunity in your work environment, what is the probability that you may engage in the following activities. It is a measure of self-prediction. We also collected demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, years of education, current job tenure, and income), and many other filler items. We used (IBM-Amos) and the following criteria for configural invariance (passing 5 out of 6 criteria): (1) chi-square and degrees of freedom (2/df), (2) incremental fit index (IFI > .90), (3) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI > .90), (4) comparative fit index (CFI > .90), (5) standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR < .10), and (6) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .10) (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We achieve metric invariance when the differences between unconstrained and constrained multi-group
12
confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFAs) are not significant (CFI, RMSEA < .01, Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). All measures in the present study were collected at least one week apart, for some more than two months apart. Results Descriptive Statistics. The means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alpha, and correlations of demographic variables, temptation, five sub-components of temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions for the whole sample are presented in Table 1. All five subconstructs of temptation were significantly correlated. Cronbachs alpha and composite reliability for Temptation were .81 and .81, respectively (Table 1).1 Age was significantly correlated with years of education, job experience, and income. Income was also associated with levels of education and job experience. Monetary Intelligence was related to the sub-construct of social moral values. Unethical intentions were related to gender (male), low Temptation, low cognitive impairment, and strong self-control. The Temptation Scale (Reflective vs. Formative) For our 15-item, 5-factor Temptation Scale, we selected two additional items to achieve model identification for our formative model (Jarvis et al., 2003). These items depicted not only two consequences of temptationbecoming selfish (Item 16, see Appendix A) and deviating from important goals (Item 17) (Gino et al., 2011) but also the overall notion of temptation. The direction of the relationship flows from Temptation to sub-constructs for our reflective model; but from sub-constructs to Temptation for the formative model. Our formative model (Figure 3: 2 = 190.73, df = 104, p < .001, 2/df = 1.83, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .06) was better than the reflective model (Figure 2: 2 = 237.82, df = 114, p < .001, 2/df = 2.09, IFI = .92, TLI = .91, CFI = .92, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .06). The differences between the two were significant (i.e., 2 = 47.09, df = 10, p < .001; CFI = .0249 > .010). For our reflective model, the regression weights (factor loadings) for the five sub-constructs according to the descending order were as follows (Figure 2): Impulsive Behavior (.86), Cognitive Impairment (.83), Self-Control (.82), Social Moral Value (.48), and Getting Rich (.31), respectively. For the formative model, the paths were .49, .32, .32, -.23, and -.16, respectively. In both models, all regression weights and paths were significant. For the formative model, the highest correlation among five sub-constructs was between impulsive behavior and cognitive impairment (.74) which was smaller than .80 (Kim, 2011). These five non-interchangeable sub-constructs are relatively independent and make significant and different contributions to the Temptation construct. High correlations among sub-constructs provide high reliability for the overall reflective Temptation construct, whereas low correlations among sub-constructs reveal independent contributions to the same overall formative construct (Edwards, 2011). We do not discuss students second 48-item Temptation scale, completed about 10-12 weeks apart (Cronbachs alpha = .85), in this paper.
1
13
Figure 2. Results of the temptation scalea reflective model
Figure 3. Results of the temptation scalea formative model
14
Measurement Invariance We examined measurement invariance of our Temptation Scale across gender using our reflective model (Figure 2). First, regarding configural (factor structure) invariance, the fit between our measurement model and our data for the male sample (2 = 156.21, df = 104, p < .0007, 2/df = 1.50, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05) was slightly better than that for the female sample (2 = 160.39, df = 104, p < .0003, 2/df = 1.54, IFI = .92, TLI = .89, CFI = .91, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .07), due to the different sample size (males = 221 vs. females = 119). Second, we checked metric (factor loading) invariance using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) across gender. There was a good fit for the unconstrained model (2 = 316.79, df = 208, p < .0000, 2/df = 1.52, IFI = .94, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04). In our constrained MGCFA, we set all the paths from items to the firstorder latent constructs to be equal for males and females (2 = 330.20, df = 218, p < .0000, 2/df = 1.51, IFI = .93, TLI = .92, CFI = .93, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04). The differences between unconstrained and constrained MGCFAs were not significant (CFI = RMSEA = .00 < .01). We achieved configural and metric invariance across gender for the Temptation Scale which gave us confidence to test our theoretical SEM across gender. Common Method Variance (CMV) Due to our longitudinal data, common method variance (CMV) should not be a concern (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). Following suggestions in the literature, we adopted Harmans single-factor test and examined the unrotated factor solution involving 54 items and all three variables of interest in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and identified 15 factors, with eigenvalue greater than one. We listed the scale and amount of variance explained (Total = 70.29%) below: MI (16.87%), PUB (9.72%), Temptation-Lack of Self-Control (7.31%), MI (5.23%), Temptation-Cognitive Impairment (4.93%), Temptation-Impulsive Behavior (3.63%), MI (3.24%), Temptation-Getting Rich (3.07%), Temptation-Social Moral Values (2.84%), and constructs with cross-loadings (2.61%, 2.45%, 2.33%, 2.09%, 2.03%, and 1.95%) respectively. No single factor accounted for the majority of the covariance in the independent and criterion variables. Common method variance was not a concern in this research. Our Theoretical Model Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) tends to over-reject a true model due to small sample size and model complexity (Tang et al., 2006, p. 446). To maintain a large sample size to item ratio and reduce model complexity for the whole sample and subsequent multiple-group analyses across subgroups of gender using our SEM model, we established a parsimonious model using 15 parcels/items5 parcels for Temptation with 2 outcome items, 3 parcels for Monetary Intelligence with 2 outcome parcels, and 3 parcels for Unethical Intentionsinstead of 60. The sample size to item ratio was 23 (340/15 = 22.67). We adopted two different itemsItems 18 (plunge men into ruin and destruction) and 19 (corrupt our moral beliefs or ethical standards) (Appendix A) for the Temptation construct
15
(reflective vs. formative), appropriate in the business ethics context. We treated Monetary Intelligence (Tang et al., 2012) as a formative measurement with three sub-constructsaffective motive, behavioral stewardship, and cognitive meaningand two additional outcome parcels (two items each) for the Machiavellianism construct, also appropriate in the business ethics context (Tang & Tang, 2010). The reflective unethical intentions construct had three subconstructs: Theft, Corrupt Intent, and Deception (Chen & Tang, 2006). Reflective Model Our parsimonious theoretical model with a reflective Temptation construct (2 = 160.12, df = 85, p < .000, 2/df = 1.88, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .05) is presented in Figure 4. Our counterintuitive, significant, negative direct path revealed that temptation was significantly related to unethical intentions (Path 1 = -.20, p < .003), supporting Hypothesis 1. Our significant, positive indirect path suggested that a high level of temptation was related to poor monetary intelligence (Path 2 = .15, p < .05) that, in turn, was related to high unethical intentions (Path 3 = .28, p < .001). Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. Due to multiple faces of temptation and the suppression effect, the overall impact from temptation to unethical intentions was negative: The standardized total impact (-.158) was the sum of the direct impact (.200) and the indirect impact (.0428 = .154 * .278). Carefully controlled malicious temptation Figure 4. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (reflective), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the whole sample)
16
was related to deviant intentions. Overall, temptation creates a dark impact on unethical intentions for participants in the whole sample. The factor loadings of all five sub-constructs of Temptation were as follows: Cognitive Impairment (.79), Lack of Self-Control (.73), Impulsive Behavior (.67), Social Moral Values (.37), and Getting Rich (.35). Stewardship behavior (-.15) and cognitive meaning of money (.34) contributed to Monetary Intelligence. Regarding unethical intentions, corrupt intent (.88) seemed to be more prevalent than deception (.77) and theft (.63). Males. Multi-group analysis across gender revealed some interesting and profound results (2 = 239.06, df = 170, p < .0004, 2/df = 1.41, IFI = .95, TLI = .94, CFI = .94, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .03). For males, the direct path was significant and negative (-.20, p < .05) (see Figure 5), supporting Hypothesis 1. For the indirect path, temptation was not significantly related to monetary intelligence (MI) (.02, n.s.) that in turn, was significantly associated with unethical intentions (.22, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 3, but not Hypothesis 2. MI was not a mediator. The overall indirect impact from temptation to unethical intentions was inconsequentially small (.004 = .02 * .22). Both MI and temptation contributed significantly to unethical intentions. The Figure 5. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (reflective), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the male sample)
17
standardized total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative [total impact (-.197) = direct impact (-.201) + indirect impact (.004)]. Corrupt intent (.95) had the strongest factor loading, followed by deception (.76) and theft (.64). Males temptation has a strong dark impact on unethical intentions. The meaning of money contributed significantly (.47, p < .001) while stewardship behavior contributed marginally (-.16, p = .054) to MI. Females. The negative direct path was non-significant (-.172, n.s.), but the positive indirect path was significant (Temptation Monetary Intelligence = .341, p < .01; Monetary Intelligence Unethical Intentions = .480, p < .05) (Figure 6). MI was a mediator. Results supported Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis 1. The indirect impact from temptation to unethical intentions was substantial (.164 = .341 * .480). The overall standardized total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative but trivial [total impact (-.007) = direct impact (-.171) + indirect impact (.164)]. Deception (.91) had the strongest factor loading, Figure 5. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (reflective), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the female sample)
18
followed by corrupt intent (.51) and theft (.39). Females temptation has a weak dark impact on unethical intentions. MANOVA results. We checked the mean differences next. Our multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of demographic variables (age, education, job experience, and income) across gender was not significant (F (4, 199) = .73, p > .05, Wilks lambda = .986, partial eta squared = .014, power = .233). MANOVA results regarding major variables across gender were significant (F (11, 321) = 2.40, p = .007, Wilks lambda = .924, partial eta squared = .076, power = .954). Males had lower stewardship behavior (3.47 vs. 3.67), but higher theft (1.40 vs. 1.22), corruption (1.54 vs. 1.32), and deception (1.52 vs. 1.26) than females. Formative Model Results of our SEM model with formative Temptation (2 = 106.48, df = 74, p < .0080, 2/df = 1.44, IFI = .98, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04) are presented in Figure 7. Comparing Figures 4 and 7, our formative model was superior to the reflective model (2 = 53.64, df = 11, CFI = .03, RMSEA = .01). The negative direct path revealed that temptation Figure 7. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (formative), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the whole sample)
19
(low cognitive impairment and high self-control) was significantly related to unethical intentions (-.22, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Our significant, positive indirect path suggested that a high level of temptation (high cognitive impairment and lack of self-control) was related to poor monetary intelligence (low stewardship but high cognitive meaning of money) (.16, p < .05) that, in turn, was related to high unethical intentions (.28, p < .001) (Hypotheses 2 and 3). The overall impact from temptation to unethical intentions (-.170) was the sum of the direct impact (-.215) and the indirect impact (.045 = .16 * .28). Carefully controlled malicious temptationlow cognitive impairment and high self-controlwas related to deviant intentions. Overall, temptation creates a dark impact on unethical intentions for participants in the whole sample. Among five sub-constructs, Cognitive Impairment (.59) and Self-Control (.40) contributed significantly and positively to Temptation. Stewardship behavior (-.15) and cognitive meaning of money (.34) contributed significantly to MI. Regarding unethical intentions, corrupt intent (.89) seemed to be more prevalent than deception (.77) and theft (.63). Males. Figure 8 (2 = 181.77, df = 148, p < .0308, 2/df = 1.23, IFI = .98, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .03) shows that the direct path was negative (-.22, p < .01) Figure 8. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (formative), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the male sample)
20
(Hypothesis 1). For the indirect path, temptation was not significantly related to MI (.02) that in turn, was significantly associated with unethical intentions (.22, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 3, but not Hypothesis 2. MI was not a mediator. The overall indirect impact from temptation to unethical intentions was inconsequentially small (.004 = .02 * .22). Both MI and temptation contributed significantly to unethical intentions. The total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative [total (-.215) = direct (-.219) + indirect (.004)]. Corrupt intent (.95) had the strongest factor loading, followed by deception (.76) and theft (.64). Males temptation has a strong dark impact on unethical intentions. Females. The negative direct path was non-significant (-.171). For the positive indirect path, temptation was related to MI (.34, p < .01) that in turn, was associated with unethical intentions (.48, p < .01) (Figure 9). Results supported Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis 1. The indirect impact from temptation to unethical intentions was substantial (.166 = .345 * .480). The overall total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative but trivial [total (-.005) = direct (-.171) + indirect (.166)]. Deception (.90) had the strongest factor loading, Figure 9. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (formative), MI, and unethical behavior intentions (the female sample)
21
followed by corrupt intent (.52) and theft (.40). For females, temptation has a weak dark impact on unethical intentions. We will not repeat the same MANOVA results here. Discussion In this study, we investigate Temptation from the perspectives of consumer behavior, psychology of money, and business ethics. We explore the relationship between temptation and unethical behavior, treat monetary intelligence as a mediator, and examine the direct and the indirect paths simultaneously using the whole sample and across gender based on multi-panel data collected from 340 part-time employees who are also university students in a business class. This study reveals several novel and counterintuitive insights. We briefly present our theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions below. Theoretical contributions. First, we carefully define the Temptation construct using reflective and formative theoretical models and present solid empirical support for this individual difference variable. We adopt an alternative model with facet constructs and multiple reflective measures (see Figure 6, Edwards, 2011) that avoids the shortcomings of formative measurement. Our Temptation construct is a label for its dimensions considered collectively. The reflective Temptation model has five strong factor loadings for its sub-constructs and a high Cronbachs alpha (.81). For the formative model, the correlations among five constructs are all below .80, suggesting that all sub-constructs make significant and separate contributions to the overall Temptation construct. Three constructs contribute positively while two constructs contribute negatively to Temptation. It has a good composite reliability (.81) (Table 1). Second, we develop a theoretical model, solve a part of the mystery and identify multiple faces of Temptationa negative direct path as well as a positive indirect path for the whole sample. Both the reflective and formative models provide similar results and a strong validity for the Temptation construct. Specifically, our formative model identifies specific sub-constructs that make significant contributions to Temptation and our SEM model: For the positive indirect path, people fall into temptationlack of self-control and cognitive impairmentdisplay poor monetary intelligence (poor stewardship behavior but high meaning) that, in turn, entices them to have high unethical intentions. For the negative direct path, temptationstrong self-control and low cognitive impairmentis related to unethical intentions. Temptation prompts cognition to support self-control in a cold nonvisceral state; but prompts the same cognitive processes to support impulsive behavior in a hot visceral state (Nordgren & Chou, 2011). Both cold and hot states reflect our direct and indirect paths of our theoretical model, respectively. Since the indirect path is positive, whereas the direct path is negative; a suppression effect exists (Shrout & Bolder, 2001). Because the overall impact is negative and substantial, controlled temptation leads to unethical intentions. Third, our multi-group analysis across gender reveals the following profound findings, based on both reflective and formative models: a negative direct path for males and a positive indirect path for females. Males negative direct path creates a strong overall dark impact on
22
unethical intentions due to (1) a powerful negative path and (2) a limited positive suppression effect. On the other hand, females positive indirect path creates a negligible overall dark impact on unethical intentions because the strong positive suppression effect eliminates almost all the negative direct effect. Males display the cold state whereas the females pay attention to the hot state. Males unethical intentions are dominated by corruption, whereas females are deception. The multiple faces of Temptation reveal specifically: There is an important implication regarding business ethics for men and consumer behavior for women. Overall, males are more unethical than females, among business students. For our formative SEM model, only two sub-constructscognitive impairment and lack of self-controlcontribute significantly to Temptation. Low stewardship behavior and high cognitive meaning formulate the monetary intelligence (MI) construct that is related to high unethical intentions. Stewardship of money makes significant contributions toward and formulates Monetary Intelligence. The formation and consequence of a formative construct depend on the context of the study and offer additional information and insights than a reflective model. Cognitive and control components of Temptation (TPB, Ajzen, 1991) help us understand this construct. Our findings provide important theoretical implications for researchers interested in studying consumer behavior (Baumeister, 2002; Baumiester et al., 2008), psychology of money (Milkovich et al., 2011), and deviant behavior (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Empirical contributions. Our very well developed theoretical constructs match with systematically applied and highly cited measures in the literature and a sample of business students with proper work experiences. We cant provide counterintuitive, interesting, and novel discoveries without collecting data from a good sample. We demonstrate Temptations strong reliability (Cronbachs and composite reliability), validity, and rigorous measurement invariance results across genders. Results enhance the generalizability of our findings and provide confidence to future researchers in conducting cross-cultural research in underresearched areas of the world. Practical and actionable implications. Very little research has combined the fields of consumer behavior, psychology of money (Monetary Intelligence), and business ethics to investigate the temptation to unethical intentions relationships. When constructsthat do not normally come near one anothercollide, the ultimate novelty of the solution will be greater (Amabile, 1998; Tang, 2010). We apply multiple lenses and provide a new, cross-disciplinary perspective by infusing theory of free willconstructs traditionally dominated by scholars in the economic psychology and consumer behaviorinto the business ethics domain. We clearly demonstrate the complexity of identifying both positive and negative paths for the whole sample and across gender using a very simple yet elegant and sophisticated theoretical model. We apply the carefully developed theory with solid psychometric properties to assess intra-personal and inter-personal and future cross-cultural differences in temptation. Future researchers may develop training programs to help people assess and understand (cognitive and control aspects) temptation, money smart, unethical intentions, and other new constructs,
23
propose possible changes to improve actionable behaviors, and enhance satisfaction in different aspects of their lives. The self-control and cognitive thinking aspects of our temptation construct serve as a double-edge sword because strong self-control and cognitive ability are associated with unethical intentions, but lack of self-control and cognitive impairment are related to poor monetary intelligence. First, acts of self-regulation without rest or replenishment (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) impair subsequent self-regulatory efforts (Baumeister, 2002; Gino et al., 2011). Selfcontrol is the poorest among people who have performed a prior act of self-control. Sleep deprivation causes workplace deviance due to the depletion of self-regulatory resources (Christian & Ellis, 2011). When crucial resources have been depleted, they are more likely to yield to temptation and act impulsively. People without a strong will become weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Second, recent scandals are not caused by executives lack of intelligence or brains, nor accidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive impairment; but rather, by their lack of wisdom, virtue (Feiner, 2004: 85; Tang & Liu, 2012) and malicious intent. Most cold-heartedly executives and individuals with self-control and executive function seize the opportunity to engage in unethical behaviors for financial gains. Alternatively, mentally challenged individuals probably cant execute unethical intentions properly. Positive indirect path exists for females, but not for males. Here are some possible implications for consumers. Americans are on diet. The prevalence of dieting varied by gender and race (the highest: white women, 21% vs. the lowest: Hispanic men, 8%). About 71% of all dieters reported that they were dieting to improve health, and 50% reported that they were dieting to lose weight (Paeratakul et al., 2002). Females are more likely to fall into temptation than males because those who want to control themselves (e.g., on diet) may deplete selfregulatory resources quickly, spend their money spontaneously when given an opportunity, engage in poor stewardship of money, and enjoy the moment (Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008; Tice et al., 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that males tend to exercise strong control, go directly to the store, buy exactly what they want to buy quickly; whereas females are more likely to fall into temptation, lose their control, distracted by advertisements and items on sale, make unnecessary purchases, and buy items that are not originally intended. Consumers purchasing behaviors are directly associated with their personal values (materialism and the love of money), financial responsibilities, demographic variables, previous acts of control, and various temptations in the social environment (Gardarsdottir & Dittmar, 2012). Due to temptation, people become disoriented and lose their abilities to concentrate on important, long-term goals. Cognitive impairment causes impulsive behaviors, as a consequence. At the end of the day, hungry and exhausted consumers, for example, may buy many goods/products for instant gratification rather than their long-term goals. With strong and sufficient financial resources, consumers may enjoy their consumptions. Without it, they may be deep in debt. Researchers and practitioners must simplify options and choices for products and services; reduce complexity, overload, stress, and fatigue (sleep deprivation); avoid the depletion of self-regulatory resources;
24
and provide positive temptation (moral values) to enhance proper consumption and ethical decision-making in organizations. Limitations. Our reflective (Figure 2) and formative (Figure 3) model of temptation show strong relationships between the five sub-constructs and the overall temptation construct. Further, we have provides good Cronbachs alpha and composite reliability for the temptation construct. However, two sub-constructs of temptation have weak reliability measures. Thus, future researchers may want to enhance these sub-constructs. Further, we collected data with a reasonable sample size from one institution in the southeastern US. Scholars may want to test our theoretical models in other institutions, cultures, and countries to enhance the generalizability of constructs examined in the present study. Conclusion. We investigate the relationship between temptation and unethical intentions, treat monetary intelligence (MI) as a mediator, and examine the direct and indirect paths simultaneously based on multiple-wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees and university (business) students. The positive indirect path suggests: Yielding to temptationhigh cognitive impairment and lack of self-controlis related to poor monetary intelligence (low stewardship behavior but high cognitive meaning) that, in turn, is related to high unethical intentions. Our counterintuitive negative direct path reveals that controlling temptation (low cognitive impairment and high self-control) is significantly related to unethical intentions (theft, corruption, and deception). Due to the multiple faces of temptationfalling and not falling into temptation, the overall impact of temptation on unethical intentions is substantially dark. It implies that maliciously controlled temptation is related to deviant intentions. Subsequent multigroup analysis across gender reformulates the mystery of temptation: Males overall dark impact of temptation on unethical intentions is substantial and significant due to a negative direct path. Females significant positive indirect path shows a negligible overall dark impact on unethical intentions. Females dont have a maliciously controlled temptation to directly engage in unethical behaviors, but are likely to succumb to temptation, become less money smart, and have high unethical intentions. Overall, males are more unethical than their female counterparts. Both falling and not falling into temptation lead to unethical intentions; temptations impact, however, varies across gender. Our findings offer great implications for researchers in consumer behavior and business ethics. Our counterintuitive, novel, and original theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions may spark curiosity and add new vocabulary to the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer psychology, and business ethics.
25
APPENDIX A The Temptation Scale Antecedents of Temptation Factor 1: Impulsive/Spontaneous Behavior 1. Temptations provoke us to think and act irrationally. 2. Temptations motivate us to behave spontaneously and impulsively. 3. Temptations persuade us to follow our feelings and hearts at the moment and take action right away. Factor 2: Cognitive Impairment 4. Temptations corrupt us and cause us to make inappropriate decisions. 5. Temptations control our thoughts and behaviors and prevent us from concentrating on anything else. 6. Temptations make us feel weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Factor 3: Lack of Self-Control 7. Temptations prevent us from thinking clearly about goals, ideals, and plans. 8. Temptations weaken the control of our emotions, desires, urges, or itch. 9. Temptations cause us to lose track of our own behaviors. Factor 4: Social Moral Values 10. Temptations persuade our role models (stars/CEOs) with status and power to cave in to them. 11. Temptations are easier to accept when our friends and peers are doing them. 12. Temptations presented positively (the Ten Commandments, honor code) reduce cheating and lying. Factor 5: Getting Rich 13. Temptations are more prominent to those who want to get rich. 14. Temptations are more salient (important) to those who have a high love-of-money orientation. 15. Temptations are more powerful to those who want to take risks. Consequences of TemptationA (Reflective vs. Formative) 16. Temptations provoke us to become selfish and ignore others needs, rights, and concerns. 17. Temptations stimulate us to get carried away and overlook (ignore) all other important matters. Consequences of TemptationB (SEM Model) 18. Temptations lead us to foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 19. Temptations corrupt our moral beliefs or ethical standards. Monetary Intelligence (MI) Affective Motive of Money Rich 1. I want to be rich. 2. It would be nice to be rich. 3. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good. Motivator 4. Money reinforces me to work harder. 5. I am motivated to work hard for money. 6. I am highly motivated by money. Importance 7. Money is valuable. 8. Money is important.
26
9. Money is good. The Behavioral Stewardship of Money Make Money 10. I find smarter and better ways of making money. 11. I look for new and legal ways to make money. 12. I am proud of my ability to make money. Budget Money 13. I budget my money very well. 14. I use my money very carefully. 15. I am proud of my ability to save money. Donate Money to Charity 16. I give generously to charitable organizations. 17. I believe in charitable giving. 18. I give money to the Church (religious organization(s)). Cognitive Meaning of Money Respect 19. Money makes people respect me in the community. 20. Money helps me gain respect. 21. Money allows me to express myself. Achievement 22. Money represents my achievement. 23. Money is a symbol of my success. 24. Money reflects my accomplishments. Power 25. Money is power. 26. Money gives one considerable power. 27. Money controls and manipulates your behavior, when you are paid. Contribute-The Matthew Effect 28. More money should be paid to people with higher quality of performance. 29. More money should be paid to people with more talent. 30. More money should be paid to people with higher merit (performance). Machiavellianism 1. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. 2. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. 3. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so. 4. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
Unethical Behavior Intentions (PUB) Theft 1. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking.
27
2. Take merchandise and/or cash home. 3. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the customers). Corrupt Intent 4. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting records. 5. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to ones position and power. 6. Lay off employees to save the company money and increase ones personal bonus. Deception 7. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher bonus. 8. Give customers discounts first and then secretively charge them more money later (bait & switch). 9. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know about their benefits.
28
REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76 (5), 76-87. Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a socialcognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123-141. Ariely, D. (2008). How honest people cheat. Harvard Business Review, 86 (2), 24. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499. Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., and Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror management account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 198-212. Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevio, L. K. (2008). Introduction to special topic forum: Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33, 670-684. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 152. Associated Press. (2006, January 30). U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933: Consumers depleting savings to buy cars, other big-ticket items. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savingsrate-hits-lowest-level/ Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2010). Report to the Nations: On occupational fraud and abuse. 2010 Global fraud study. http://www.acfe.com/rttn.aspx. Bagozzi, R. P., Tybout, A. M., Craig, C. S., & Sternthal, B. (1979). The contrast validity of the tripartite classification of attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 88-95. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2013). Management: Leading & Collaborating in the competitive world (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 670-676. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 12521265. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Baumeister, R. F., Sparks, E. A., Stillman, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Free will in consumer behavior: Self-control, ego depletion, and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (1), 4-13. Belk, R. W. (1984). 3 scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 291297. Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 265-280.
29
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139-168. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 349-360. Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-making: A multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12 (1), 1-3. Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (5), 104-1117. Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 69 (1), 77-93. Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2012/forthcoming). The bright and dark sides of religiosity among university students: Do gender, college major, and income matter? Journal of Business Ethics. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233-255. Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 913934. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 278-321. Collins, R. L., Koutsky, J. R., & Izzo, C. V. (2000). Temptation, restriction, and the regulation of alcohol intake: Validity and utility of the temptation and restraint inventory. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61 (5), 766-773. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2011). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303. Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and religion: Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among students. Journal of Business Ethics, 50 (4), 383396. Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: Applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 627-641. Cozzolino, P. J., Sheldon, K. M., Schachtman, T. R., & Meyers, L. S. (2009). Limited time perspective, values, and greed: Imagining a limited future reduces avarice in extrinsic people. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 399-408. The Daily Record. (2003, April 5). Commentary: Education, ethics, and sentences for Enronizing financial reports, Baltimore, MD, p. 1. De Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior: A cross-sectional multi-source survey among health care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 699-707. Deshpande, S. P. (1997). Manager's perception of proper ethical conduct: the effect of sex, age,
30
and level of education. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (1): 79-85. Dew, J., & Xiao, J. J. (2011). The financial management behavior scale: Development and validation. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 22 (1), 43-59. Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622-635. Du, L. Z., Tang, T. L. P., & Yang, D. T. (2007). Money profile and unethical behavior: A study of full-time employees and university students in China. (Chapter 7, pp. 135-148). In L. A. Parrish (Ed.). Business ethics in focus. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Publishers. Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14 (2), 370-388. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 155-174. Feiner, M. (2004). The Feiner points of leadership. New York: Warner Business Books. Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (2), 296-309. Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy, 115 (6), 1020-1048. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what youre doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41-60. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (2), 159-171. Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 501-509. Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge. Gardarsdottir, R. B., & Dittmar, H. (2012). The relationship of materialism to debt and financial well-being: The case of Icelands perceived prosperity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33 (3), 471-481. Gbadamosi, G., & Joubert, P. (2005). Money ethic, moral conduct and work related attitudes: Field study from the public sector in Swaziland. Journal of Management Development, 24, 754-763. Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295 (5563), 2279-2282. Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009a). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 142-155. Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009b). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20 (9), 1153-1160. Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115 (2), 191-203. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
31
Helman, R., Copeland, C., & VanDerhei, J. (2012). The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: Job insecurity, debt weigh on retirement confidence, savings. EBRI issue brief/Employee Benefit Research Institute, 369, 5-32, 1. Heney, D. (2012, April 16). Pastor of St. Paschal Baylon Catholic Church, Thousand Oaks, CA. Personal communication. Hoffman, J. J. (1998). Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on the situation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10 (1), 60-73. Hofmann, W., Deutsch, R., Lancaster, K., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). Cooling the heat of temptation: Mental self-control and the automatic evaluation of tempting stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (1), 17-25. Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us not into temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietary restraints, and self-regulatory resources as determinants of eating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 497-504. Holub, A., Hodgins, D. C., & Peden, N. E. (2005). Development of the temptations for gambling questionnaire: A measure of temptation in recently quit gamblers. Addiction Research & Theory, 13 (2), 179-191. Hudmon, K. S., Prokhorov, A. V., Koehly, L. M., DiClemente, D. C., & Gritz, E. R. (1997). Psychometric properties of the decisional balance scale and the temptations to try smoking inventory in adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 6 (3), 1-18. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199-218. Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American-dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (2), 410-422. Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1993). Ethics and service marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 12 (10), 785-795. Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service motivation: Reflective versus formative specification. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 521546. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevio, 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. Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in corporations: Root causes, victims, and strategies for reform. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 139141. Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2011). Tricky treats: Paradoxical effects of temptation strength on self-regulation processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (3), 281-2898. Latham, L. L., & Perlow, R. (2006). The relationship of client-directed aggressive and nonclientdirected aggressive work behavior with self-control. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (12), 1127-1041. Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29 (2), 161-209. Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (1997). Sex, money and financial hardship: An empirical study of
32
attitudes towards money among undergraduates in Singapore. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 369-386. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 710-730. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35 (2), 293-334. Maddock, J. E., Laforge, R. G., & Rossi, J. S. (2000). Short form of a situational temptation scale for heavy, episodic drinking. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11 (3), 281-288. Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 649-705. Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Decide to bribe: A crosslevel analysis of firm and home country influences on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1401-1422. McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 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. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (3), 594-597. Merritt, J. (2002, October 21). The best B-schools. Business Week, 85-100. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 5663. Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (2), 106-119. Mickel, A. E., & Barron, L. A. (2008). Getting More Bang for the Buck: Symbolic value of monetary rewards in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 329-338. Mickel, A. E., Mitchell, T. R., Dakin, S., & Gray S. (2003). The importance of money as an individual difference attribute. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on values in organizations (pp. 123-150). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2010). Compensation (10th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Mitchell, T. R. & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual difference perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 568-578. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 247-259. Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G., & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 263- 277. Nkundabanyanga, S. K., Omagor, C., Mpamizo, B., & Ntayi, J. M. (2011). The Love of Money, pressure to Perform and Unethical Marketing Behavior in the Cosmetic Industry in Uganda. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3 (4), 40-49. Nordgren, L. F., & Chou, E. Y. (2011). The push and pull of temptation: The bidirectional influence of temptation on self-control. Psychological Science, 22 (1), 1386-1390.
33
Norvilitis, J. M., Merwin, M. M., Osberg, T. M., Roehling, P. V., Young, P., & Kamas, M. M. (2006). Personality factors, money attitudes, financial knowledge, and credit-card debt in college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (6), 1395-1413. Paeratakul, S., York-Crowe, E. E., Williamson, D. A., Ryan, D. H., & Bray, G. A. (2002). Americans on diet: Results from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102 (9), 1247-1251. Piffa, P. K., Stancatoa, D. M., Ctb, S., Mendoza-Dentona, R., & Keltnera, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of National Academy of Science of the United States of America (PNAS), 109 (11), 4086-4091. 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. Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Toledano, L. S., Amarnani, R. K., Tolentino, L. R., & Tang, R. L. (2011). Yielding to (cyber)-temptation: Exploring the buffering role of selfcontrol in the relationship between organizational justice and cyberloafing behavior in the workplace. Journal of Research in Personality, 45 (2), 247-251. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775. Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68 (2), 153-164. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 189199. Smith, Stephen M. (2001), "Self-Control and Academic Rosenbaum, M. (1993). The 3 functions of self-control behavior: Redressive, reformative and experiential. Work and Stress, 7 (1), 33-46. Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (Eds.). (2000). Compensation in organizations: Current research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sappenfield, M. (2012, June 17). Pastor of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church, Murfreesboro, TN. Sardoska, E., & Tang, T. L. P. (2009). Testing a model of behavioral intentions in the Republic of Macedonia: Differences between the private and the public sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 (4), 495-517. Sardzoska, E., & Tang, T. L. P. (2012). Work-related behavioral intentions in Macedonia: Coping strategies, work environment, love of money, job satisfaction, and demographic variables. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (3), 373-391. Schneider, M., & Prasso, S. (2002, April 1). How an MBA can bend your mind. Business Week, 12. Schoorman, F. D., & Mayer, R. C. (2008). The value of common perspectives in self-reported appraisals: You get what you ask for. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 148-159. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422-445. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-35.
34
Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & Parks, J. M. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and "trickle down" among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 650-665. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Lee, D. J., Nisius, A. M., & Yu, G. B. (2012/forthcoming). The influence of love of money and religiosity on ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1334-2 Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. Smith, T. R., Rizzo, E., & Empie, K. M. (2005). Yielding to deviant temptation: A quasiexperimental examination of the inhibiting power of intrinsic religious motivation. Deviant Behavior, 26 (5), 463-481. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59 (1), 21-39. Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol. K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: Its not the money, its the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959-971. Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 197-202. Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of raters sex, money ethic, and job incumbents sex: A test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 127-144. Tang, T. L. P. (2007). Income and quality of life: Does the love of money make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (4), 375-393. Tang, T. L. P. (2010). From increasing gas efficiency to enhancing creativity: It pays to go green. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (2), 149-155. Tang, T. L. P. (2012). Detecting honest peoples lies in handwriting: The power of the Ten Commandants and internalized ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 389-400. Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1-26. Tang, T. L. P., Chen, Y. J., & Sutarso, T. (2008). Bad apples in bad (business) barrels: The love of money, Machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and unethical behavior. Management Decision, 46 (2), 243-263. Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, Money Ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and unethical behavior: Is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong managers? Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 13-30. Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53 (2), 213-245. Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an authentic supervisors personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3), 295-312 Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Quintanilla Pardo, I., & Tang, T. L. N. (2012/forthcoming). Materialism and the bright and dark sides of the financial dream in Spain: The positive
35
role of money attitudesThe Matthew Effect. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., AriasGalicai, F., Borg, M. G., Canova, L., Charles-Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Codoban, I., Du, L. Z., Garber, I., Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Lim, V. K. G., Luna-Arocas, R., Malovics, E., Manganelli, A. M., Moreira, A., Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., Pereira, F. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardoska, E., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Teo, T. S. H., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M., Urbain, C., & Vlerick, P. (2006). The love of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and functional equivalence in 29 geographical entities around the world. Management and Organization Review, 2, 423-452. Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Arias-Galicai, F., Garber, I., Vlerick, P., Liang, J., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Charles-Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Du, L. Z., Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Luna-Arocas, R., Malovics, E., Moreira, A., Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., zbek, M. F., Pereira, F. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardoska, E., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M., Urbain, C., Canova, L., & Manganelli, A. M. (2011). The love of money is the root of all evil: Pay satisfaction and CPI as moderators. In Leslie A. Toombs (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Garber, I., Vlerick, P., Arias-Galicai, F., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Liang, J., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Canova, L., Charles-Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Codoban, I., Du, L. Z., Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Luna-Arocas, R., Malovics, E., Manganelli, A. M., Moreira, A., Nnedum, A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., OsmanGani, A., Pereira, F. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardzoska, E., Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M., & Urbain, C., Lipinski, J., & De Celis, J. R. (2012). Monetary intelligence: Money attitudes, pay satisfaction, and life satisfaction in 32 cultures. Unpublished manuscript. Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L. (2008). To help or not to help? The Good Samaritan Effect and the love of money on helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (4), 865-887. Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. (2010). Finding the lost sheep: A panel study of business students intrinsic religiosity, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior intention in a public institution. Ethics & Behavior, 20 (5), 352-379. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-735. Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3), 330-339. Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (1), 53-67. Traiser, S., & Eighmy, M. A. (2011). Moral development and narcissism of private and public
36
university business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 99 (3), 325-334. Tsukayama, E., Duckworth, A. L., & Kim, B. (2012). Resisting everything except temptation: Evidence and an explanation for domain-specific impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 26 (2), 318-334. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-69. Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2006). The role of money and religiosity in determining consumers ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 117-124. Weiss, M. R., Kipp, L. E., & Goodman, D. (2010). Unsportsmanlike aggression in youth hockey: Attitudes, perceived social approval, situational temptation, and role models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, S228-S229. Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29 (5), 903-936. Wong, H. M. (2008). Religiousness, love of money, and ethical attitudes of Malaysian evangelical Christians in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (1), 169-191. Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. I. (1982). The development of a money attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 522-528. Zhang, L. Q. (2009). An exchange theory of money and self-esteem in decision making. Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 66-76.
37
TABLE 1 Mean, Standard Deviation, Cronbachs Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Correlations of Variables
Variable
SD
10
11
12
13
1. Age 23.64 5.63 2. Sex (%Male) .65 .48 3. Education (yr.) 15.33 1.39 4. Job (yr.) 3.31 8.21 5. Income ($) 23,678.19 52,329.77 6. Temptation 3.53 .56 7. T-Spontaneous 3.67 .71 8. T-Impaired 3.10 .95 9. T-Control 3.52 .86 10. T-Moral 3.75 .71 11. T-Rich 3.61 .89 12. MI 3.62 .55 13. Unethical 1.41 .54 Cronbachs Composite Reliability
-.04 .40** .44** .28** -.04 -.03 -.05 -.05 -.07 .03 -.14 .05
-.04 .03 .05 -.02 -.07 -.00 -.06 .03 .02 -.00 .19**
.06 .20** .17* -.02 .01 .01 .01 -.06 -.00 -.05 -.01 -.00 -.01 .05 .03 -.08 .00 -.08 -.04
-.08 -.09 .10 -.07 .08 -.06 -.04 .04
.70** .79** .76** .55** .59** .08 -.13* .81 .81
.46** .45** .26** .27** -.01 -.04 .51
.54** .30** .29** .28** .25** .12* .04 .08 .17** .02 -.14* -.13* -.06 -.06 .75 .75 .44 .71
.04 .90
.87
Note. N = 340. Gender: Male = 1, Female = 0. MI = Monetary Intelligence. Composite Reliability for Temptation (Formative Model, Figure 3) = [(sum of standardized loading)2/{(sum of standardized loading) 2 + sum of indicator measurement error}]. [Indicator measurement error = 1 (standardized loading) 2]. *p < .05, **p < .01
38

2012 JBE Temptation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 JBE Temptation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T. L.P. Tang & T.

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

Figure 2. Results of the temptation scalea reflective model

Figure 3. Results of the temptation scalea formative model

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

Journal of Business Ethics

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012)

.70 .79 .76 .55 .59** .08 -.13* .81 .81

.46 .45 .26 .27 -.01 -.04 .51