Received: 23 November 2019 Accepted: 25 November 2019

DOI: 10.1111/peps.12381

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The study of behavioral ethics within

organizations: A special issue introduction

Marie S. Mitchell1 Scott J. Reynolds2 Linda K. Treviño3

1 Department of Management, University of

Georgia, Athens, Georgia Abstract

2 Department of Management & Organization,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
3 Department of Management & Organization,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania
Correspondence
Marie S. Mitchell, Department of Management,
Terry College of Business, University of Georgia,
C206 Amos Hall, Athens, GA 30602.
Email: msmitche@uga.edu
Ethics has emerged as one of the most critical issues facing orga-
nizations. Given its importance, an extensive literature has evolved
to understand the causes and consequences of (un)ethical decision
making and behaviors in organizations. To date, much of this research
has relied on research methods (e.g., experiments) that emphasize
internal validity and control over external validity and generalizabil-
ity. Although very informative, such studies frequently utilize sam-
ples that are not representative of working adults and their designs
often fail to capture the contextual complexity that defines the day-
to-day realities of organizational life. In this light, this special issue of
Personnel Psychology encouraged scholars to investigate ethics within
organizations and to offer rich theoretical explanations for why eth-
ical failures and successes occur. The articles in this special issue
address this important research agenda and make significant contri-
butions to our understanding of ethics in organizations. Our intro-
duction synthesizes these works, provides an overview of issues fac-
ing the broader behavioral ethics literature, and discusses areas for
future research.

KEYWORDS
ethical behavior, ethics, field research, unethical behavior

Ethics has emerged as one of the most critical issues facing organizations. High profile scandals (e.g., Johnson &
Johnson, Boeing, Uber, and Volkswagen) have highlighted the need for organizations to emphasize ethics, motivate
ethical employee behavior, and reduce unethical acts. The unfortunate reality is that business reports, such as survey
findings from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC, 2018), suggest that unethical behaviors in organizations are prevalent
and on the rise. The ethics problem, then, is ever-present, particularly in relation to the consequences to organizations,
their members, stakeholders, and society more generally. For instance, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
(ACFE, 2018) reported that unethical behavior is extremely costly, estimating losses into the millions of dollars. Fur-
thermore, these estimates do not account for indirect costs, such as diminished organizational reputation, reduced
employee motivation, and increased employee stress in the aftermath of ethics scandals.

Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:5–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps 

c 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5
6 MITCHELL ET AL .

Given the impact of unethical behavior and the need for improved ethics in organizations, it is not surprising that
the past two decades have demonstrated a rise in scholarly attention to the topic of behavioral ethics—the study of
ethical and unethical behavior in organizations (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño, den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-
Gephart, 2014; Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). Researchers have sought to understand why (un)ethical behavior
occurs and identify effective steps to increase ethical behavior, decrease unethical behavior, and create an ethical orga-
nizational environment. Although there have been many strides in the literature, experimental studies have dominated
the research landscape. Notwithstanding the importance of this research, more work is needed to unpack the causes,
consequences, and ways to prevent unethical behavior and foster ethical behavior within organizations. Without a
doubt, experimental evidence produces incredible insights. However, these findings may lack generalizability because
the samples employed are often not representative of working adults, and the limitations of experimental settings fre-
quently make it difficult to capture the realities of organizations, where ethical failures and successes occur. Given this,
a growing sentiment within the literature and a significant implication of narrative reviews on ethics (e.g., Jennings,
Mitchell, & Hannah, 2015; Moore & Gino, 2013; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño et al., 2014; Treviño et al.,
2006) pointed to the need for the study of ethics phenomena in organizations. That is, scholars have specifically called
for field research as it is well-suited to providing novel and generalizable explanations of how individual (e.g., strain,
emotions, and personality) and environmental factors (e.g., group dynamics, authority dynamics, climate, and work sit-
uations) promote or thwart (un)ethical behavior within organizations.
This special issue of Personnel Psychology was motivated by a desire to address this need for field research and
to advance knowledge of employees’ ethical decision making and engagement of ethical and unethical behavior. The
papers in this behavioral ethics special issue not only further this agenda, but also offer strong contributions to theory
and practice on how to better address (un)ethical behavior within work settings. The response to our call suggests that
interest in the study of behavioral ethics with emphasis on field research is quite strong. The special issue received a
total of 65 submissions: 17 of which were “desk rejected” because the manuscripts were not suited for the call (e.g., no
field data or empirics). Each of the remaining 48 papers was assigned to one of the three editors for the special issue
and was blind-reviewed by two experts in the field. Ultimately, we accepted four articles that appear in this special issue
(Babalola, Greenbaum, Amarnani, Shoss, Deng, Garba, & Guo, 2020; Fehr, Fulmer, & Keng-Highberger, 2020; Kuenzi,
Mayer, & Greenbaum, 2020; Umphress, Gardner, Leavitt, & Stoverink, 2020). These accepted papers represent an 8%
acceptance rate, consistent with the overall acceptance rate for regular submissions to Personnel Psychology.
The remainder of this editorial summarizes the articles in the special issue (see also Table 1 for a summary of the con-
tributions). Our goal is to synthesize these works, highlighting their strengths and contributions to theory and methods.
Moreover, from our review, we provide an overview of issues facing the literature and areas for future research. Specif-
ically, we offer considerations for theorizing, methodological issues, and building an understanding of the implications
of ethics research for practice.

1 STRENGTHS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY AND METHODS

1.1 Theoretical foundations

Three of the papers in this special issue used social information processing theory (SIPT; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) as
a basis for developing hypotheses and explaining effects. The use of SIPT is not surprising given that the special issue
focuses on factors within organizations (in the “field”) that explain (un)ethical behavior. SIPT is an appropriate fit in that
regard. According to the theory, employees search for information from their environment to understand behavioral
expectations in the social environment. The information gathered guides their actions. To be sure, narrative reviews of
behavioral ethics literature have emphasized the application of SIPT to explain ethics phenomena (e.g., Tenbrunsel &
Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño et al., 2006). Three papers within this special issue relied on SIPT to explain how employ-
ees turn to leader behavior (Fehr et al., 2020; Kuenzi et al., 2020), leader communications (Babalola et al., 2020), and
MITCHELL ET AL . 7

TA B L E 1 Summary of contributions to the behavioral ethics special issue

Theoretical Main research Main findings and

frameworks questions Methods and samples
Babaloa et al. (2020)
• Decision • Can and how could • Study 1. A 3-time-lagged field
frames and TMT BLMs motivate survey of 298 working adults
cues theorizing productive behavior? (part-time MBAs from a
(e.g., Messick, • Why do TMT BLMs Nigerian university), testing
1999; Vohs, result in employee effect of top management
2015) unethical behavior? team (TMT) bottom-line
• Social mentality (BLM) on customer
information incivility through mental
processing preoccupation with work.
theory (e.g., • Study 2. A 3-time-lagged field
Salancik & survey of 300 sales employees
Pfeffer, 1978) from a large financial group in
China, replicating Study 1 and
extending the model to also
test mediation effects of
self-interest cognitions, and
other dependent variables
(customer service
performance and
customer-directed unethical
behavior).
implications
• TMT BLM elicits employees’
mental preoccupation with
work that motivates
functional behavior (reduced
customer incivility and
enhanced customer service
performance).
• TMT BLM also elicits
self-interested cognitions that
motivate customer-directed
unethical behavior.
• Implications: TMT BLM serves
as a double-edged sword; it
motivates unethical behavior
because employees focus on
obtaining outcomes for
themselves (i.e.,
self-interested cognitions),
and it creates functional
outcomes because employees
direct their attention to
achieving work goals.

Kuenzi, Mayer, and Greenbaum (2020)

• Ethical climate • What are the formal • Study 1. Multiple studies • The measurement validity
theorizing (e.g., organizational developed a new measure of studies demonstrated that
Treviño & systems that make ethical organizational climate EOC is based on employees’
Nelson, 2017) up an organization’s (EOC). perceptions of six work
• Social EOC? • Study 1A. Items developed; 11 factors: (a) orientation and
information • Does ethical doctoral students rated items training, (b) reward and
processing leadership impact an for reduction. Field study of punishment systems, (c)
theory (e.g., organization’s EOC 545 working adults of 109 U.S. accountability and
Salancik & that, then, indirectly organizations (through responsibility systems, (d)
Pfeffer, 1978) reduces work unit snowball sampling technique) decision-making, (e)
unethical behavior? for item reduction and recruitment and selection, and
• Moral self (f) policy and codes.
theory (Blasi, • What other exploratory and multi-level
1984) collective climate confirmatory factor analyses. • Ethical leadership indirectly
factors may influence • Study 1B. Field survey of 170 and negatively influences
the effects of ethical working adults through work unit unethical behavior
leadership and EOC Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for through EOC, and a collective
on work unit definitional correspondence moral identity strengthens the
unethical behavior? of items. negative effects from EOC to
work unit unethical behavior.
• Study 1C. Field survey of 557
working adults from 254 U.S. • Implications: When EOC is a
organizations (through phenomena based on
snowball sampling technique) employees’ perceptions of
for discriminant and different formal systems
predictive validity evidence. within the work environment.
Ethical leadership is a critical
• Study 2. A multi-source factor to bolster an
(employees and supervisors) organization’s EOC, thereby
field survey of 878 working reducing unethical behavior
adults of 194 U.S. within work units, particularly
organizations (through when employees collectively
snowball sampling technique) embrace a sense of morality.
used to test hypotheses.

(Continues)
8 MITCHELL ET AL .
TA B L E 1 (Continued)
Theoretical Main research
frameworks questions Methods and samples
Fehr, Fulmer, and Keng-Highberger (2020)
• Social cognitive • Why might • Study 1. An experiment of
theory employees support 188 undergraduate business
(Bandura, a leader who students in Singapore,
1986, 1990) engages in testing effect of unethical
• Social unethical behavior? leader behavior (through)
information leader trust on support, and
processing the moderating effects of
theory (e.g., moral disengagement
Salancik & propensity (MDP).
Pfeffer, 1978) • Study 2. A 3-time-lagged
field survey of 200 working
adults in the U.S. from a
Qualtrics panel, replicating
Study 1 and extending the
model to examine mediation
effects of leader-employee
value congruence.
Umphress, Gardner, Leavitt, and Stoverink (2020)
• Affective • Can the valence • Study 1. An experience
infusion model (positive or sampling method of 90 U.S.
(AIM; Forgas, negative) and working adults recruited
1995) activation level from online ads and
(active or deactive) professional MBAs; the
of mood design collected data at two
differentially times a day (lunch-time and
influence unethical evening) for two work
behavior to benefit weeks.
a teammate? • Study 2. Multi-study
• How does mood experimental causal chain
influence unethical design (Spencer, Zanna, &
behavior to benefit Fong, 2005).
a teammate? • Study 2A. Experiment of 200
working adults from the U.K.
and U.S. from Prolific, tested
the effects of manipulated
mood on measured creative
mindset.
• Study 2B. Experiment of 200
working adults from the U.K.
and U.S. from Prolific, tested
the effects of manipulated
mood on measured creative
mindset.
Main findings and
implications
• Unethical leader behavior
diminishes leader-directed
support through reduced trust in
and value congruence with the
leader, particularly when
employee MDP is low than high.
• Implications: Leaders unethical
actions reduce employees’ trust in
the leader and their sense of
connection (i.e., value congruence)
with the leader, which motivates
them to withdraw support to the
leader. However, employees
higher in MDP are more
supportive because MDP shapes
how employees view the leader’s
unethical behavior, creating a
stronger sense of trust and value
congruence that then motivates
these high MDP employees to
support the leader.
• Study 1 results show that positive
active (and not negative active)
mood indirectly and positively
influenced unethical behavior to
benefit a teammate as mediated
by creative mindset, and MDP
moderated and strengthened the
effect of creative mindset on
unethical behavior and the
indirect effect of positive active
mood on unethical behavior,
accordingly.
• Study 2 replicated the mediation
effects of creative mindset on the
relationship between positive and
negative active mood on unethical
behavior to benefit a teammate,
while controlling for alternative
mediators and inactive mood
states.
• Implications: Although prior work
has focused on the valence of
mood, this work shows the merit
of examining mood activation,
showing that both positive and
negative active mood (and not
inactive mood) influence unethical
behavior to benefit others
because they infuse cognitions
toward a state of activity and
innovative thought (i.e., creative
mindset), and these effects are
even stronger when employees
hold a high rather than low MDP.
MITCHELL ET AL . 9

general norms and procedures within the environment (Kuenzi et al., 2020) to inform their behavior (e.g., customer-
directed incivility, performance, support offered to their leaders, and unethical behavior).
It is noteworthy that these three papers used SIPT in combination with other theories to unpack the processes by
which critical information in the work environment (e.g., leader behavior, leader communication, and climate) influ-
ences employee behavior. For instance, Babalola et al. 2020) used SIPT principles to suggest that leaders are rele-
vant role models who create behavioral expectations and, therefore, serve as a critical source of information about
(un)ethical conduct. Their theorizing also incorporated principles from decision framing and cuing (e.g., Messick, 1999;
Vohs, 2015), suggesting that leader behavior and communications are critical to understanding employee (un)ethical
behavior. They argued that a leader’s emphasis on the bottom line—a leader underscoring the importance of reaching
financial goals and raising corporate profits—is a business frame for employees. Business-focused language and behav-
ior directs employees’ attention to the importance of and benefits of achieving financial ends. Babalola et al. theorized
that the leader’s bottom line frame may generate functional or dysfunctional behavior, depending on the state the
frame elicits. A leader’s bottom-line mentality (BLM) directs employees’ attention to work objectives (i.e., their men-
tal preoccupation with work) that motivates functional and ethical behavior, but it also generates a focus to enhance
benefits for the employees themselves (i.e., their self-interested cognitions) that motivates unethical behavior. Thus,
although much of the literature on leader BLM suggests that a leader’s high BLM promotes unethical behavior (e.g.,
Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012), their work explains how and why it can also produce contrasting behaviors—both
functional and dysfunctional acts—aimed at enhancing profits.
Similarly, Kuenzi et al. (2020) relied on SIPT principles to explain how ethical leadership serves as a focal source
of information for employees that informs ethics within multiple formal systems within the work environment. They
argued that ethical leadership is foundational to employees’ perceptions of the organization’s ethical climate (what
they refer to as an ethical organizational climate [EOC]), a mechanism for reducing unethical behavior in work units.
They incorporated principles of moral self theory (e.g., Blasi, 1984) with SIPT to suggest that the general tenor of
employees’ morality can be embraced among the collective, whereby employees may feel a shared need to represent
the organization in a manner consistent with ethical principles of being kind, caring, and good natured (a collective
moral identity). Kuenzi et al. argued and found that organizational environments where employees feel a strong collec-
tive moral identity strengthen the negative indirect effect of ethical leadership (through EOC) on work unit unethical
behavior.
The third paper, by Fehr et al. (2020), also pulled from SIPT to explain the negative implications of unethical leader
behavior. Integrating SIPT with Bandura’s (1990, 1990) social cognitive theory, the authors suggested that employee
traits (specifically moral disengagement propensity [MDP]; Moore, Detert, Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012) influence
how leader behavior (i.e., unethical leader behavior) informs and guides employee action. Consistent with SIPT, they
argued that employees rely on the words and actions of their leaders to determine what is valued and supported,
but that unethical leader behavior—behavior that generally is not well-received by employees—can be overlooked by
employees with a high MDP. They argued that a leader who engages in unethical behavior reduces employees’ sense
of trust in the leader, as well as employees’ sense of connection to the values that the leader represents. Importantly,
Fehr et al. explained that the inclinations associated with MDP create a tendency for these employees to minimize the
problems associated with a leader’s unethical behavior and, therefore, high MDP employees are less likely to experi-
ence diminished trust in the leader and leader–employee value congruence compared to low MDP employees, which
thereby motivates higher rather than lower MDP employees to support unethical leaders.
The fourth paper adopted a different conceptual approach to understand behavioral ethics. Umphress et al. (2020)
focused on how employees’ internal emotional states, specifically their mood, can set in motion a trajectory toward
unethical behavior aimed to benefit team members. Although various theories of emotion have been used to explain
the role of emotions in ethics-related phenomena (see Haidt, 2001 and Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007), Umphress
et al. incorporated a different theoretical perspective, drawing from affective infusion theorizing (also referred to
the affective infusion model [AIM]; Forgas, 1995) to explain how mood—a state of feeling that is either positive or
negative—and particularly activated mood (i.e., elation and anger) as opposed to deactivated mood (i.e., contentment
10 MITCHELL ET AL .

and sadness) can infuse employees’ cognitive states to motivate employees to engage in unethical behavior aimed to
benefit team members. Like Fehr et al. (2020), Umphress et al. also suggested that employees’ trait MDP influences
their reactions, making them more likely to engage in unethical behavior.
In sum, the papers within this special issue share a common theme: They explain how employees view their real-
ity within organizations influences their (un)ethical behavior. SIPT and associated theories (e.g., framing, Messick,
1999; Vohs, 2015; social cognitive theory, Bandura, 1986; moral self, Blasi, 1984) suggest that employees are vigilant
observers of their environments, searching for information to help them understand what is valued and, therefore,
how to behave. The results suggest that leaders are a formidable source of such information. Leaders’ behaviors and
communications serve as a frame that elicits certain cognitions to achieve organizational goals that can motivate either
ethical or unethical acts (Babalola et al., 2020), inform formal work norms, systems, and structures that shape an EOC
and reduce the engagement of unethical behavior (Kuenzi et al., 2020), and reduce employees’ sense of connection
with their leaders (reduced trust and value-congruence) that motivates employees to withhold support of their leaders
(Fehr et al., 2020). However, leadership and climate are not the only way in which employees’ perceptions and behavior
are informed. Activated mood also infuses employees’ cognitions that motivate them to engage in unethical behav-
ior (Umphress et al., 2020). Employees’ orientation toward the importance of morality (i.e., collective moral identity,
Kuenzi et al., 2020; MDP, Fehr et al., 2020; Umphress et al., 2020) also creates a tendency for employees to emphasize
ethical information that reduces unethical behavior (i.e., ethical leadership and EOC, Kuenzi et al., 2020). Finally, indi-
vidual differences, such as MDP, clearly play a role, suggesting that characteristics of persons also must be taken into
account (i.e., Fehr et al., 2020; Umphress et al., 2020).

1.2 Methodological strengths

As we have relayed, experimental research has dominated the study of behavioral ethics. Although experimentation
offers benefits, such as increased control, high internal validity, and the ability to make causal inferences, it is not with-
out limitations. Such studies are often conducted in university behavioral labs or in online settings with individuals
who have limited work experience. Thus, the results might not be generalizable to the population of working adults.
Moreover, the conditions in a lab or online experimental settings may be contrived, vignette-based, or unable to cap-
ture the realities of work life, where employees have a general understanding of each other and the norms, structures,
and conditions of the organization. Thus, experiments often fail to capture the contextual richness of organization-
based decision-making. A last limitation of experiments is that the designs often do not capture behavior and, instead,
measure behavioral intentions (e.g., “how likely would you be to engage in the following behaviors…”). Although some
have suggested that intention and behavior can be easily substituted and be robustly correlated (see O’Fallon &
Butterfield, 2005; Weber, 1992; Weber & Gillespie, 1998), the intention–behavior correlation is modest at best (Laps-
ley & Narvaez, 2004; Walker, 2004). Moreover, meta-analysis has demonstrated that the effects of ethics phenomena
on behavior compared to intention can be quite different (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). Overall, then,
there is value in bridging the intention–behavior gap and to build theory to explain when and why (un)ethical behavior
occurs within organizations by conducting research in the field.
Consequently, the call of the special issue tasked scholars to study behavioral ethics phenomena in the field—in
organizations where ethical successes and failures occur. The goal was to highlight empirical work that uses different
field methods and designs to build an understanding of employees’ ethics experiences while at work. Moreover, a prin-
cipal objective of Personnel Psychology is to advance theory as well as relay strong practical implications for managers.
Thus, using samples that generalize to working adults was needed. The papers in the special issue showcase different
methodologies, such as time-separated survey designs that strengthen causal inferences (Babaloa et al., 2020; Fehr
et al., 2020), a multi-level approach that is commensurate with understanding the larger impact of leadership across
employees within different organizational units (Kuenzi et al., 2020), and a within-person, experience sampling method
(ESM) approach to unpack the daily internalization experiences of employees that influence the their (un)ethical behav-
ior (Umphress et al., 2020). Importantly, the author teams designed their studies to provide a conceptual match to
MITCHELL ET AL . 11

their predictions. Notably, each of the studies is based on samples of working adults across different cultural contexts,
including North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
All of the four papers used a multi-study approach to enhance the validity of their conclusions. The replicability
of findings across different samples and different designs supports the robustness of the findings and the predictive
power of the theoretical arguments (Lykken, 1968; Tsang & Kwan, 1999). For example, Babaloa et al. (2020) examined
their predictions with two samples of working adults using a time-lagged design, where the predictor, mediator, and
dependent variable were measured at separate times. In Study 1, they employed a sample of MBAs and, in Study 2,
they used sales employees from a large corporation to explain how top managers’ BLM can motivate both ethical and
unethical actions aimed to meet bottom line objectives. Their second study replicated the results from the first study
to find how managers’ BLM motivates functional and ethical behavior, but extended their model to also show how top
managers’ BLM also influences unethical behavior.
Kuenzi et al. incorporated four samples of working adults to develop and provide validity evidence of their new EOC
measure. The steps taken by the authors not only provide criterion and discriminant validity, but also provide evidence
of the predictive validity of their EOC measure. Impressively, the authors did so using a multi-level design while control-
ling for alternative climate measures and leadership perceptions. From there, Kuenzi et al. tested their predictions in
a separate, fifth, sample of working adults, again utilizing a multi-level design of over 850 employees across 194 work
units. Overall, the author team presented impressive evidence of construct validity of their new measure of EOC, as
well as demonstrated the influence of ethical leadership in building perceptions of EOC in the work environment that
impact important organizational outcomes (i.e., work unit unethical behavior).
Finally, both Fehr et al. (2020) and Umphress et al. (2020) paired their field study designs with experiments.
Although we have noted that experimental designs have limitations, both papers used experiments to confirm and
extend the findings of their field work. Fehr et al. utilized a time-lagged field study that replicated the findings from
their experiment and extended the model to more fully explain the process by which unethical leader behavior influ-
ences employee support. The Umphress et al.’s (2020) set of studies took similar steps. Their initial test of their theory
about the influence of mood on unethical behavior to benefit a teammate used an ESM design. Theory and research
(Forgas, 1995) suggest that mood is an emotional state that can be enduring, and that fluctuates over time. Thus, cap-
turing employees’ emotions day-to-day was essential. ESM accommodates this need, capturing moods, cognitions, and
behaviors at different points in time each day across multiple days of work. Umphress et al. captured the effects twice
a day across 10 workdays. The design accounts for trait-like differences and enhances causal inferences by testing the
effects longitudinally (see Gabriel, Campbell, Djurdjevic, Johnson, & Rosen, 2018).

2 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Our synthesis of the contributions of this behavioral ethics special issue provides a foundation for considering current
issues in the field that require scholarly attention and offering suggestions for future research. Specifically, our view of
the field suggests that the study of behavioral ethics could greatly improve if more attention were paid to three general
topics: theorizing, methodology, and building bridges to practice.

2.1 Considerations for theorizing

Theory is critical to the development of new knowledge in behavioral ethics as it provides both a figurative base around
which scientists can congregate and a roadmap for exploring critical constructs (Kuhn, 1962). Although the study of
behavioral ethics has generally met the highest of standards for the use and development of theory, we suggest that
the field could nevertheless be more sophisticated in its use of theory. In other words, we believe that behavioral ethics
has yet to fully access all of the advantages that theory has to offer.
12 MITCHELL ET AL .

We suggest that it is imperative that behavioral ethics scholars consider the distinctiveness of ethics as a phe-
nomenon. Intuitively, people recognize that ethics is different from other issues (Rest, 1986; Reynolds, 2006), but the
extent to which this acknowledgement is reflected in our academic discussions and our theoretical choices varies dra-
matically. As an example, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is frequently used in behavioral
ethics research, particularly as it relates to the study of moral identity (Blasi, 1984; Reed & Aquino, 2003). In form,
moral identity follows the general patterns that other identities might, but what is unclear is to what extent a moral
identity might be unique from other kinds of identities (see Jennings et al., 2015). Beyond its content, is a moral iden-
tity distinctive in any way? To the extent that those using social identity theory seek out and highlight such distinctions,
moral identity could become that much more significant to understanding individual behavior. Otherwise, if concepts
such as moral identity, ethical leadership, moral judgment, and so forth are only distinct because of the topic upon which
they focus, then concerns will remain about the extent to which they merit their own unique domain of study. In this
sense, behavioral ethics scholars need to recognize that our theories must not only predict important outcomes, but
also provide a foundation for distinguishing what is unique about the topic we study.
In terms of the specific theories used in the study of behavioral ethics, we are open to the idea of scholars using
both more and fewer theories on the subject. On the one hand, we recognize that ethics is an incredibly broad domain
capturing countless different kinds of processes and behavior, and given the richness involved with just a single ethical
decision or action, it is likely that numerous behavioral theories not regularly used in ethics research could shed light
on the topic. For example, well-established theories from psychology, organizational behavior, and sociology on topics
such as motivation (e.g., self-determination theory, Deci & Ryan, 2000; self-control theory, Carver & Scheier, 1998),
affect theories (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Tracy & Robins, 2004), self-regulation (e.g., Baumeister, 1997), stress (e.g., Hobfoll,
1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), social stratification (Saunders, 1990), and crowd behavior (Momboisse, 1967), to
name a few, would all seem to have potential applications for understanding the causes and consequences of ethical
behavior in organizations.
On the other hand, the reason that some theories continue to appear in behavioral ethics research is that these the-
ories have proven effective at explaining behavior. To assume that because SIPT (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), social iden-
tity theory (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979), social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Fiske & Taylor, 1991), and moral
development theory (Kohlberg, 1984) have explained a great deal of behavior that they are somehow passé or have
exhausted their utility would be an enormous mistake. The usefulness of these theories lies not only in their ability to
account for behavioral ethics phenomena, but also in scholars’ abilities to ask insightful questions and to apply those
theories accurately and effectively. Thus, whether scholars are interested in exploring a wider range of theoretical per-
spectives or staying closer to home, we suggest that the most critical step is taking a thoughtful and rigorous approach
that maximizes the value that the theory in use has to offer. Ultimately, if scholars will use theory as a filter through
which they understand the phenomena of behavioral ethics (rather than merely as a frame for their hypotheses), they
will find that theories, both old and new, have much more to add to their work.

2.2 Methodological issues

2.2.1 Definitions
Though it is a well-known issue in the field (e.g., Smith-Crowe & Zhang, 2016; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008), the
study of behavioral ethics continues to struggle with the definition of its central term, (un)ethical behavior. One tactic
for dealing with this issue has been to define ethical behavior in the broadest of terms and to focus on the most rep-
resentative of operationalizations. Specifically, scholars often rely on the relatively abstract notion of social consensus
to define ethical behaviors as those behaviors that violate generally accepted moral norms (Jones, 1991). Interestingly,
studies employing such a definition typically focus on quintessential unethical behaviors such as lying, cheating, and
stealing. Although this approach has generated a great deal of knowledge about behaviors that constitute egregious
ethical violations, that is, behaviors with high “face validity,” this approach has its disadvantages. To begin, focusing on
MITCHELL ET AL . 13

ethical behaviors that have high social consensus or “face validity” fails to address the difficult ethical choices that indi-
viduals face in organizations every day. As Kidder (1995) and Badaracco (1997) discussed, employees often face deci-
sions and ethical dilemmas that involve decision alternatives that are equally ethically justifiable. In such situations, a
single ethical path is unclear. Research on ethical dilemmas has demonstrated that the processes involved in dealing
with an ethical dilemma are different from those involved in facing decisions of high social consensus (e.g., Greene,
2013; Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007; Yam, Chen, & Reynolds, 2014). Thus, our broad definitions dictate a particular view
of ethical issues that potentially limits the scope of what we consider to be in the ethics domain.
Additionally, broad definitions of ethics make it very difficult to understand the extent to which the study of behav-
ioral ethics can and should be associated with other areas of study. For example, a great deal of work has been con-
ducted on topics such as abusive supervision (e.g., Tepper, 2000), workplace deviance (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995),
workplace incivility (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and even trash-talking (e.g., Yip, Schweitzer, & Nurmohamed,
2018), but it is unclear to what extent these areas of study are related to behavioral ethics. Is ethics a large umbrella
that incorporates all of these areas? Or is behavioral ethics a unique niche that shares conceptual space with these
constructs and yet is unique in some way? Absent a coherent and precise definition of ethical and unethical behavior,
these kinds of questions remain unanswered.
Moving forward, we see two paths to addressing this issue. First, scholars can take steps to offer more definitional
precision based on objective criteria. As an initial starting point, we note that Treviño et al. (2006) provided a definition
of ethics that accounted for three different forms of behavior: behavior that fails to meet minimum moral standards
(e.g., lying), behavior that meets minimum moral standards (e.g., honesty), and behavior that exceeds minimum moral
standards (e.g., volunteering). Researchers can continue along this path by providing more precise definitions creating
a taxonomic structure of ethical issues (see Leavitt & Sluss, 2015 for a discussion of lying). Often scholars are hesitant
to provide more specific definitions as doing so can appear to threaten the generalizability and thus the perceived
contribution of their work, but we suggest that the advantages of taking these steps (i.e., providing sharp boundaries
to our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of ethical behavior) merit this approach.
Second, scholars can take an approach that reflects the subjectivity of ethical judgments. In cognitive moral devel-
opment theory, for example, Kohlberg established a definition of ethics as justice (Kohlberg, 1984). Drawing from
Plato’s discussions, Kohlberg argued and demonstrated that conceptions of justice take on six different forms ranging
from selfish impulsive behavior to socially prescribed behavior, to utilitarian calculations, and ultimately to absolute
ideals (e.g., fairness). In a similar approach, moral foundations theory argues that ethical behaviors are identified by
their adherence to one of five moral foundations: harm, fairness, purity, authority, and loyalty (Graham et al., 2011).
In such approaches, what constitutes ethical behavior depends upon individual factors and is, therefore, part of the
phenomenon to be studied. Moreover, it could be that different cultures define ethics, emphasizing some moral foun-
dations (e.g., justice) over others (e.g., authority). Taking this more specialized approach allows scholars to understand
not only the resulting behavior, but also the cognitive and emotional processes that led to the behavior. Regardless of
whether scholars take a definitively objective or a more contextualized approach, we note that stronger definitions
yield greater insights and more substantial contributions to the field.

2.2.2 Level of analysis

As a discipline with roots in philosophy and psychology, it is not surprising that the study of behavioral ethics research
is deeply entrenched in the individual level of analysis. The emphasis on the individual, however, threatens to overlook
what is perhaps most impactful in organizations. For example, most organizational decisions are made by teams, rang-
ing from low-level work groups all the way up to the boardroom. Unfortunately, as a field, we know very little about the
processes that shape group ethical decision-making. Research has clearly demonstrated that groups exhibit unique and
emergent qualities (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000), but the extent to which any of these emergent qualities involve
or impact ethics is largely unexplored (see Chen, Treviño, & Humphrey, 2019 for a recent exception).
14 MITCHELL ET AL .

By the same token, behavioral ethics has rarely tackled higher levels of analyses, such as divisions, departments, and
organizations, in a meaningful way. This is problematic because so much of what captures both the imagination and the
ire of the public are large-scale events of unethical conduct in organizations. The Wells Fargo scandal, for example,
involved thousands of people operating with an incredibly high degree of coordination (McLean, 2017). Organizational
theorists and sociologists recognize that such events constitute more than just the sum of individual behaviors—they
involve unique cross-level processes that give rise to situations that are largely inconsistent with our understanding
of individual-level behavioral ethics. For example, Bunderson (2001) argued that at the organizational level unethical
conduct or “normal injustices” can emerge for which no individual is to blame. Unfortunately, relying wholly on the
individual as a level of analysis will prevent us from fully understanding these kinds of phenomena.

2.2.3 Diversity of methods

As the call to this special issue implies, we see great value in the field deploying a diverse set of empirical methods
for exploring behavioral ethics phenomena. In our opinion, the willingness of the authors in this issue to use methods
that best fit their research question clearly enhanced their capacity to make a contribution to the field. As we scan
the academic environment, we see many methods regularly used in other areas that could be quite informative to the
study of behavioral ethics. For example, ESM effectively captures the natural ebb and flow of individuals as they make
decisions at work and elsewhere, but its use in behavioral ethics research is quite limited. Nevertheless, as Umphress
et al. demonstrate in this issue, ESM can address many behavioral ethics questions quite effectively.
In addition, it seems likely that as a field we are failing to take advantage of opportunities afforded by the infor-
mation age. As Gino and Pierce (2010) illustrated in their study of vehicle emissions inspectors, ethical and unethi-
cal behavior likely lurks in large datasets, if scholars will only take the initiative to find and utilize them. Similarly, we
encourage scholars to actively seek out naturally occurring experimental conditions, as the nature and speed of change
in information technology makes such situations more common than is widely understood (Maréchal & Thöni, 2019).
The field would also benefit from additional use of qualitative research methods, which have a unique capacity
to identify processes and concepts not easily exposed in quantitative approaches. For example, den Nieuwenboer,
Vieira da Cunha, and Treviño (2017) found that unachievable goals set by top management created pressure that moti-
vated middle managers to use routines to induce their employees to engage in unethical behavior. Their ethnographic
approach surfaced cross-level processes that would otherwise remain hidden. In another example, Sonenshein (2006)
adopted a social constructionist’s perspective and demonstrated that employees use language to craft and shape social
issues in such ways that facilitate their acceptance. Importantly, generating such insights required qualitative methods.
Although qualitative research is challenging for a number of reasons, a proliferation of tools (i.e., software) is
making qualitative research more accessible and more efficient. Furthermore, we note that entirely new qualitative
approaches are emerging. For example, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (Fs/QCA) is a social science method
developed in order to combine case-oriented and variable-oriented quantitative analysis (Gabriel et al., 2018). Poten-
tially facilitating both the development and confirmation of theory, this kind of analysis could be useful to behavioral
ethics scholars interested in expanding the generalizability of a case-based approach to research.

2.3 Building bridges to practice

One of the most pressing challenges for behavioral ethics scholars is to extend the significance and applicability of
behavioral ethics research findings to those in organizations. Many of the factors discussed above contribute to this
challenge. Broad definitions that focus on issues of high social consensus, perfunctory applications of theories, and
experimental techniques often work together to generate research findings that have limited use and/or appeal to
managers. Thus, if the field responds to our previous points, we believe that behavioral ethics research can have more
impact on practice. These points notwithstanding, we suggest that scholars can take at least two additional steps to
improve the practical meaningfulness of their research.
MITCHELL ET AL . 15

First, scholars should be regularly grounding their research question and methods in managerial practice. Regular
contact (i.e., conversations) with practicing managers represents a start toward this goal, but researchers can also take
steps in study to ground their work. For example, two common methodological practices in experimental work are to
include attention checks and to assess the extent to which the participants have guessed the hypotheses. Both prac-
tices improve the validity of the study. An additional check would be to assess aspects of the study on realism. Pilot and
in-study items can assess the extent to which the process (e.g., item content, scenario content, and general domain)
reflects managerial practice. If participants, a sample of the population to whom the results will generalize, indicate
that a particular item or section of the research process is inconsistent or irrelevant to their work experiences, this
suggests that the outcome might be inconsistent or irrelevant, as well. To the extent that the data-gathering process is
grounded in managerial practice, results should naturally be more useful to managers.
Second, we suggest that scholars should be as willing to discuss their ongoing research with the general population
as they are with other scholars. Good scholarship typically involves several rounds of feedback: friendly reviews, con-
ference presentations, brown bags, and so forth. Through such mediums, the scholarship is rigorously honed. A similar
process can sharpen the managerial relevance of an article. To the extent that a scholar is willing to share research
in nonscholarly settings (e.g., MBA classes, online surveys, practitioner conferences, etc.) and accept feedback about
its practical relevance, the scholar can develop a better sense of the extent to which the research is applicable to real-
world experience and how. Although this might seem like an extraordinary set of steps for what amounts to a very small
section of a published article, given the gap between the importance of making such connections and the field’s overall
track record of doing so effectively, we think that such steps are warranted.

3 CONCLUSION

As a field, behavioral ethics has made great strides in understanding the causes and conditions of ethical and unethical
conduct. The articles presented in this special issue represent what we consider to be both new frontiers on the topic
and models for how research on behavioral ethics can be conducted. We are hopeful that these articles will provoke
behavioral ethics scholars to generate theoretical and empirical contributions that exhibit the highest levels of rigor
and more effectively bridge the scholar–practitioner gap. We eagerly await the discussions that they inspire.

ORCID

Marie S. Mitchell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0651-6273

REFERENCES

ACFE. (2018). Report to the nations: 2018 Global study on occupational fraud and abuse. In Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.
Retrieved from https://www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2018/default.aspx
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 452–471.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development and adap-
tation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Babalola, M. T., Greenbaum, R. L., Amarnani, R. K., Shoss, M. K., Deng, Y., Garba, O. A., & Guo, L. (2020). A business frame perspec-
tive on why perceptions of top management’s bottom-line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors. Personnel
Psychology, 73(1), 19–41.
Badaracco, J. L., Jr. (1997). Defining moments: When managers must choose between right and right. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of
mind (pp. 161–191). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16 MITCHELL ET AL .

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behav-
ior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145–174.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewitz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior and moral
development (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). Normal injustices and morality in complex organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 181–190.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, A., Treviño, L. K., & Humphrey, S. (2019). Ethical champions, emotions, framing, and team ethical decision making. Journal
of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000437
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
den Nieuwenboer, N., Vieira da Cunha, J., & Treviño, L. K. (2017). Middle managers and corruptive routine translation: The
social production of deceptive performance. Organization Science, 28, 781–803.
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., & Keng-Highberger, F. T. (2020). How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral
disengagement. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 73–93.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgement: The affect influsion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.
Gabriel, A. S., Campbell, J., Djurdjevic, E., Johnson, R. E., & Rosen, C. (2018). Fuzzy profiles: Comparing and contrasting latent
profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis for person-centered research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 21(4), 877–904.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010). Robin Hood under the hood: Wealth-based discrimination in illicit customer help. Organization
Science, 21, 1176–1194.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101, 266–385.
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the
moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343–359.
Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. New York, NY: Penguin.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review,
108, 814–834.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). Ecology of stress. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Jennings, P. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Hannah, S. T. (2015). The moral self: A review and integration of the literature. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 36, S104–S168.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 366–395.
Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, 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.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kuenzi, M., Mayer, D. M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2020). Creating an ethical organizational environment: The relationship between
ethical leadership, ethical organizational climate, and unethical behavior. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 43–71.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lapsley, D., & Narvaez, D. (2004). Moral development, self, and identity. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Leavitt, K., & Sluss, D. M. (2015). Lying for who we are: An identity-based model of workplace dishonesty. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 40, 587–610.
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.
Maréchal, M. A., & Thöni, C. (2019). Hidden persuaders: Do small gifts lubricate business negotiations? Management Science,
65, 3877–3888.
McLean, B. (2017, May 31). How Wells Fargo’s cutthroat corporate culture allegedly drove bankers to fraud. Vanity Fair.
Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/wells-fargo-corporate-culture-fraud
Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39,
11–30.
Momboisse, R. (1967). Riots, revolts, and insurrection. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Moore, C., & Gino, F. (2013). Ethically adrift: How others pull our moral compass from true North, and how we can fix it. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 33, 53–77.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement
and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of
Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.
MITCHELL ET AL . 17

PwC. (2018). Pulling fraud out of the shadows: Global Economic Crime and Fraud Survey 2018. Retrieved from www.pwc.
com/fraudsurvey
Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard towards out-groups. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 84, 1270–1286.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recog-
nition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243.
Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical exam-
ination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1610–1624.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Saunders, P. (1990). Social class and stratification. New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith-Crowe, K., & Zhang, T. (2016). On taking the theoretical substance of outcomes seriously: A meta-conversation. In D. A.
Palmer, R. Greenwood, & K. Smith-Crowe (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 17–46).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1158–1172.
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than
mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65–93.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of
Management Annals, 2, 545–607.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15,
103–125.
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 635–660.
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing business ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32,
951–990.
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 759–780.
Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., Stoverink, A. C., & Leavitt, K. (2020). Feeling activated and acting unethically: The influence of
activated mood on unethical behavior to benefit a teammate. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 95–123.
Vohs, K. D. (2015). Money priming can change people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144, 1–8.
Walker, L. (2004). Gus in the gap: Bridging the judgment-action gap in moral functioning. In D. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral
development, self and identity (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 2, 137–160.
Weber, J., & Gillespie, J. (1998). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.
Yam, K. C., Chen, X. P., & Reynolds, S. J. (2014). Ego depletion and its paradoxical effects on ethical decision making. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 204–214.
Yip, J. A., Schweitzer, M. E., & Nurmohamed, S. (2018). Trash-talking: Competitive incivility motivates rivalry, performance, and
unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 125–144.

How to cite this article: Mitchell MS, Reynolds SJ, Treviño LK. The study of behavioral ethics within organiza-
tions: A special issue introduction. Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12381