The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Francesca Gino - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • license to cheat voluntary regulation and Ethical Behavior
    Management Science, 2013
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Erin L Krupka, Roberto A Weber
    Abstract:

    Although monitoring and regulation can be used to combat socially costly unEthical conduct, their intended targets can often avoid regulation or hide their Behavior. This surrenders at least part of the effectiveness of regulatory policies to firms' and individuals' decisions to voluntarily submit to regulation. We study individuals' decisions to avoid monitoring or regulation and thus enhance their ability to engage in unEthical conduct. We conduct a laboratory experiment in which participants engage in a competitive task and can decide between having the opportunity to misreport their performance or having their performance verified by an external monitor. To study the effect of social factors on the willingness to be subject to monitoring, we vary whether participants make this decision simultaneously with others or sequentially, as well as whether the decision is private or public. Our results show that the opportunity to avoid being submitted to regulation produces more unEthical conduct than situati...

  • bringing ethics into focus how regulatory focus and risk preferences influence un Ethical Behavior
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2011
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Joshua D Margolis
    Abstract:

    Abstract In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross Ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unEthically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her Behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking Behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous Behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ Ethical Behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).

  • bringing ethics into focus how regulatory focus and risk preferences influence un Ethical Behavior
    Social Science Research Network, 2010
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Joshua D Margolis
    Abstract:

    In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of a task or incentive schemes) influences people’s likelihood to cross Ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unEthically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her Behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking Behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous Behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that an organization’s framing of ethics influences individuals’ Ethical Behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).

  • nameless harmless blameless when seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of un Ethical Behavior
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2010
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Lisa L Shu, Max H Bazerman
    Abstract:

    People often make judgments about the Ethicality of others’ Behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such Behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unEthical Behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unEthical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of Ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the Ethicality of the perpetrator of an unEthical action. Our studies show that people judge Behavior as more unEthical when: (1) identifiable vs. unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the Behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people’s willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.

  • contagion or restitution when bad apples can motivate Ethical Behavior
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Chenbo Zhong
    Abstract:

    Abstract When there is a “bad apple” in the group, are we more likely to follow the example or compensate for their sins? Three experiments showed that whether a group member’s unEthical actions lead to contagion or restitution depends on the presence of out-group observers. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to compensate for the transgression of an in-group member than an out-group member when there were out-group observers. Experiment 2 varied the presence of out-group observers and showed that such compensatory Behaviors occur only in the presence of out-group members. We suggest that the presence of out-group observers trigger a self-categorization process that induces guilt in individuals for their group members’ transgressions. Indeed, associated guilt mediated the relationship between in-group member’s unEthical Behavior and participants’ compensatory Behavior (Experiment 3). These results suggest that norms implied by others’ Behavior and group categorization are important determinants of Ethical Behavior.

Max H Bazerman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • nameless harmless blameless when seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of un Ethical Behavior
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2010
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Lisa L Shu, Max H Bazerman
    Abstract:

    People often make judgments about the Ethicality of others’ Behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such Behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unEthical Behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unEthical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of Ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the Ethicality of the perpetrator of an unEthical action. Our studies show that people judge Behavior as more unEthical when: (1) identifiable vs. unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the Behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people’s willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.

  • nameless harmless blameless when seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of un Ethical Behavior
    Social Science Research Network, 2008
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Lisa L Shu, Max H Bazerman
    Abstract:

    People often make judgments about the Ethicality of others’ Behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such Behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unEthical Behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unEthical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of Ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the Ethicality of the perpetrator of an unEthical action. Our studies show that people judge Behavior as more unEthical when (1) identifiable versus unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the Behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people’s willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.

Richard J Zeckhauser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • social class and un Ethical Behavior a framework with evidence from a large population sample
    Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2013
    Co-Authors: Stefan T Trautmann, Gijs Van De Kuilen, Richard J Zeckhauser
    Abstract:

    Differences in Ethical Behavior between members of the upper and lower classes have been at the center of civic debates in recent years. In this article, we present a framework for understanding how class affects Ethical standards and Behaviors. We apply the framework using data from a large Dutch population sample. The data include objective measures of class, survey responses relating to Ethical Behavior, and results from an experiment designed to probe Ethical choices. Ethical Behavior proves to be affected by (a) moral values, (b) social orientation, and (c) the costs and benefits of taking various actions. Strong class differences emerge in each of these areas, leading to differences in Behavior. Moreover, strong differences among different conceptions of class (wealth, education, etc.) produce additional variation. We argue that the relationship between class and Ethical Behavior is far from a simple pattern; it is a complex mosaic.

  • social class and un Ethical Behavior a framework with evidence from a large population sample
    Research Papers in Economics, 2013
    Co-Authors: Stefan T Trautmann, Gijs Van De Kuilen, Richard J Zeckhauser
    Abstract:

    Differences in Ethical Behavior between members of the upper and lower classes have been at the center of civic debates in recent years. This paper presents a framework for understanding how class affects Ethical standards and Behaviors. The framework is applied using data from a large Dutch population sample. The data include objective measures of class, survey responses relating to Ethical Behavior, and results from an experiment designed to probe Ethical choices. Ethical Behavior proves to be affected by (i) moral values, (ii) social orientation, and (iii) the costs and benefits of taking various actions. Strong class differences emerge in each of these areas, leading to differences in Behavior. Moreover, strong differences among different conceptions of class (wealth, education, etc.) produce additional variation. We argue that the relationship between class and Ethical Behavior is far from a simple pattern; it is a complex mosaic.

  • social class and un Ethical Behavior evidence from a large population sample
    Social Science Research Network, 2012
    Co-Authors: Stefan T Trautmann, Gijs Van De Kuilen, Richard J Zeckhauser
    Abstract:

    We test whether and how membership in the upper class affects Ethical Behavior in a large representative population sample. Using objective measures of socioeconomic status to define class, we find no evidence of a general tendency for upper class to be less Ethical, although we do replicate previous findings that higher status leads to less condemnation of infidelity. We also find evidence that higher class status leads to more self-focus and disengagement, as previously shown in laboratory studies with convenience samples.

Joshua D Margolis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • studying Ethical Behavior in the field challenges and opportunities
    Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012
    Co-Authors: Celia Moore, Lamar Pierce, Joshua D Margolis
    Abstract:

    Organizational researchers are increasingly interested in exploring what predicts and what can mitigate unEthical Behavior. However, a heavy dependence on laboratory studies in this active area of ...

  • bringing ethics into focus how regulatory focus and risk preferences influence un Ethical Behavior
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2011
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Joshua D Margolis
    Abstract:

    Abstract In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross Ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unEthically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her Behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking Behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous Behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ Ethical Behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).

  • bringing ethics into focus how regulatory focus and risk preferences influence un Ethical Behavior
    Social Science Research Network, 2010
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Joshua D Margolis
    Abstract:

    In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of a task or incentive schemes) influences people’s likelihood to cross Ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unEthically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her Behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking Behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous Behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that an organization’s framing of ethics influences individuals’ Ethical Behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).

Lisa L Shu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • nameless harmless blameless when seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of un Ethical Behavior
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2010
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Lisa L Shu, Max H Bazerman
    Abstract:

    People often make judgments about the Ethicality of others’ Behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such Behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unEthical Behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unEthical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of Ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the Ethicality of the perpetrator of an unEthical action. Our studies show that people judge Behavior as more unEthical when: (1) identifiable vs. unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the Behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people’s willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.

  • nameless harmless blameless when seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of un Ethical Behavior
    Social Science Research Network, 2008
    Co-Authors: Francesca Gino, Lisa L Shu, Max H Bazerman
    Abstract:

    People often make judgments about the Ethicality of others’ Behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such Behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unEthical Behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unEthical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of Ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the Ethicality of the perpetrator of an unEthical action. Our studies show that people judge Behavior as more unEthical when (1) identifiable versus unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the Behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people’s willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.