非工作时间通信技术过载对员工不道德亲家庭行为的影响机制研究

依据认知失调理论和角色理论，基于320名企业员工两个时点的纵向调研数据，探究了非工作时间通信技术过载通过工作—家庭内疚感诱发员工不道德亲家庭行为的机制，厘清了家庭支持型主管行为和员工角色道德在上述关系中所起到的调节作用。研究结果表明，非工作时间通信技术过载通过工作—家庭内疚感对员工不道德亲家庭行为产生正向影响；家庭支持型主管行为和员工角色道德均在工作—家庭内疚感与不道德亲家庭行为的关系间起负向调节作用；家庭支持型主管行为通过员工角色道德的中介作用间接负向调节工作—家庭内疚感对不道德亲家庭行为的影响。这些结论既是对不道德亲家庭行为研究领域的拓展，同时也为组织抑制员工不道德亲家庭行为提供了有益的指导。     

Investigating the impact of guilt and shame proneness on consumer ethics: a cross national study

Studies show that emotions of guilt and shame significantly influence how people live their daily lives when it comes to making ethical decisions. Nonetheless, individuals’ proneness toward guilt and shame has received limited attention in consumer behaviour literature. The study focuses on the impact of anticipated emotions (i.e. guilt and shame) on various consumers’ ethical and unethical behaviours. Using a combination of a panel data sample and a university sample, the overall results between the two countries (i.e. Australia and Indonesia) reveal more similarities than differences. Consumers with high guilt‐proneness are less likely to agree on those unethical behaviours. This study has important theoretical implications for understanding the similarities and differences between both nations and the impact of guilt and shame proneness on consumer ethics.     

Justifying Deviant Behavior: The Role of Attributions and Moral Emotions

We present two studies investigating the impact of causal perceptions and the moral emotions of anger, shame, and guilt on the justification of deviant workplace behavior. Study 1 tests our conceptual framework using a sample of undergraduate business students; Study 2 examines a population of practicing physicians. Results varied significantly between the two samples, suggesting that individual and contextual factors play an important role in shaping the perceptual and emotional processes by which individuals form reactions to undesirable affective workplace events. Implications of these findings for the study of ethics, emotions, and attributions, as well as for promoting ethical behavior, are discussed.     

Pride in my past: Influencing sustainable choices through behavioral recall

Emotional appraisal research has demonstrated that recalling a past behavior and its associated emotions can influence future behavior. However, how such recalled emotions shape sustainable consumer choice has not been examined. This study examines the role of recalled pride and guilt in shaping sustainable purchase intentions and the mediating role of anticipated pride and guilt. A conceptual model is proposed for motivating sustainable purchase intentions through the emotions associated with the behavioral recall. The model is applied in two experiments with online consumers examining purchase intentions of low carbon cars. Recalling feelings of pride associated with a past sustainability‐related behavior increases sustainable purchase intention, as compared with a neutral recall. This effect occurs through the mediation of both anticipated pride at the prospect of a sustainable behavior choice and anticipated guilt if the future choice is not sustainable. Similar hypotheses relating to recalled guilt at past unsustainable behavior were not supported. The study contributes to research on sustainable consumption, revealing an emotional route by which past behavior can influence future behavior. It also adds to emotional appraisal research by showing the role of specific self‐conscious emotions in forming this route, as prior research has focused more broadly on emotional valence.     

Anger Strays,Fear Refrains: The Differential Effect of Negative Emotions on Consumers’ Ethical Judgments

Although various factors have been studied for their influence on consumers’ ethical judgments, the role of incidental emotions has received relatively less attention. Recent research in consumer behavior has focused on studying the effect of specific incidental emotions on various aspects of consumer decision making. This paper investigates the effect of two negative, incidental emotional states of anger and fear on ethical judgment in a consumer context using a passive unethical behavior scenario (i.e., too much change received). The paper presents two experimental studies. Study 1 focuses on the interaction of moral intensity (amount of change) and incidental emotion state in predicting the ethical judgment while study 2 investigates the underlying causal mechanism behind the process, using a mediation analysis. The results reveal a significant interaction between moral intensity and incidental emotion. Specifically, individuals in the state of incidental fear exhibit higher levels of ethical judgment as the moral intensity increases as compared to individuals in the state of incidental anger. Further, perceived control is found to mediate the relationship between emotional state and ethical judgment under higher moral intensity condition.     

The Role of Moral Emotions and Consumer Values and Traits in the Decision to Support Nonprofits

We investigate the mediating role of moral emotions and their contingency on individual characteristics between perceptions of corporate ethical/unethical actions and consumer support for nonprofits. We conducted two between-subjects experiments to test our hypotheses on a sample of adult consumers. The results show that social justice values moderate elicitation of gratitude upon exposure to corporate ethical actions, which subsequently impacts consumer support for nonprofits. Furthermore, important individual characteristics (social justice values, moral identity) moderate the elicitation of negative moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) upon perception of corporate unethical actions, which then leads to consumer support for nonprofits. Our study adds to extant research on prosocial behavior by investigating how actions by for-profit companies impact individual helping and by examining a new psychological mechanism (i.e., moral emotional processes and their contingencies) underlying consumer support for nonprofits.     

Fairness,Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making: Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness

In this article, we describe the influence of violations of community standards of fairness (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, 1986a) on subsequent ethical decision-making and emotions. Across two studies, we manipulated explanations for a common action, and we find that explanations that violate community standards of fairness (e.g., by taking advantage of an in crease in market power) lead to greater intentions to behave unethically than explanations that are consistent with community standards of fairness (e.g., by passing along a price increase). We find that perceptions of justifiability mediate this relationship. We also find that individuals derive significant psychological benefits (greater satisfaction, greater happiness, and reduced anger) from engaging in unethical behavior following perceived violations of fairness. Maurice Schweitzer is an Associate Professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on the negotiation process, and he is interested in deception, trust, and emotions. His work has appeared in several journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Donald E. Gibson is an Associate Professor at the Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University. His research focuses on emotions in the workplace, specifically anger. He also does research on organizational role models and social comparison processes. His work has appeared in journals including Organization Science, Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and Journal of Vocational Behavior.     

Anger punishes,compassion forgives: How discrete emotions mitigate double standards in consumer ethical judgment

Prior research has identified that consumers may judge similar unethical behaviors differently depending on the actor in such behaviors; a phenomenon called double standards. While some studies have examined why consumer double standards may occur, it is less clear how to mitigate their occurrence. The present study examines the role of different, discrete emotions – anger and compassion – in mitigating double standards using two experimental studies, involving a total of 562 participants from Indonesia. The results indicate the existence of double standards, in that consumers were harsher in their judgment of unethical conduct by prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) companies. More importantly, the findings establish that anger and compassion can diminish double standards in consumer ethical judgments. Furthermore, these emotion effects are explained by two distinct mechanisms. Specifically, anger reduces repurchase likelihood when mediated by perceived justice, while compassion mediated by forgiveness increases repurchase likelihood. The research limitations and implications are also discussed.     

Moral Emotions and Unethical Bargaining: The Differential Effects of Empathy and Perspective Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotiation

Two correlational studies tested whether personality differences in empathy and perspective taking differentially relate to disapproval of unethical negotiation strategies, such as lies and bribes. Across both studies, empathy, but not perspective taking, discouraged attacking opponents’ networks, misrepresentation, inappropriate information gathering, and feigning emotions to manipulate opponents. These results suggest that unethical bargaining is more likely to be deterred by empathy than by perspective taking. Study 2 also tested whether individual differences in guilt proneness and shame proneness inhibited the endorsement of unethical bargaining tactics. Guilt proneness predicted disapproval of false promises and misrepresentation. Empathy did not predict disapproval of false promises when guilt proneness was included in the analysis. The comparatively private nature of the sin of false promises suggests that private ethical breaches are more likely to be deterred by anticipated guilt, while ethical breaches with clear interpersonal consequences are more likely to be deterred by empathy.     

An examination of the emotions that follow a failure of co-creation

Service research has contributed to our understanding of the externally-directed emotions that customers experience, such as anger. However, there is limited knowledge about the self-directed emotions that customers experience, such as shame and guilt. This knowledge is specifically lacking within the context of failure of co-created products and services. Our mixed-method research delineates the self-directed emotions that arise when co-created products and services fail. We found that failure of co-created products differ from general situations of failure in that externally-directed emotions attain latency and customers experience self-directed emotions such as guilt, shame, and self-pity. We also found that the self-directed emotions are driven by (a), sadness, and (b), the nature of the causal attributions that the customers ascribe to the failure. This effect was moderated by the degree of co-creation. After analyzing our findings, we discuss the theoretical and practical relevance of the study.     

Emotions and dissonance in ‘ethical’ consumption choices

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of emotions and the prevalence of dissonant/incongruent choice behaviour within the context of ethical consumption. Based on 31 in-depth interviews with British consumers, the findings demonstrate that consumers consciously indulge in ‘ethical’ and ‘unethical’ behaviour (as defined by respondents themselves), often within short time frames, and that they often compensate for unethical choices by making ethical choices later on (and vice versa). The study provides evidence that positive and negative emotions are a key driver of this dissonant behaviour. Guilt is the most salient emotion, and a taxonomy of guilt in this context is derived from the data. Consumers are found to employ guilt-management strategies in order to sustain contradictory behaviour and manage cognitive dissonance. A conceptual framework is derived in order to summarise the observed role of emotions in ethical consumer choice. The paper also provides additional explanations of the manifestation of the attitude–behaviour gap.     

Guilt, Shame, and Reparative Behavior: The Effect of Psychological Proximity

Research has paid scant attention to reparative behavior to compensate for unintended wrongdoing or to the role of emotions in doing the right thing. We propose a new approach to investigating reparative behavior by looking at moral emotions and psychological proximity. In this study, we compare the effects of moral emotions (guilt and shame) on the level of compensation for financial harm. We also investigate the role of transgressors’ perceived psychological proximity to the victims of wrongdoing. Our hypotheses were tested through a scenario based questionnaire on a sample of 261 participants. Analyses indicate that (1) guilt has a stronger effect on the level of compensation than shame; (2) psychological proximity influences the level of guilt, shame, and compensation; and (3) shame interacts with psychological proximity to predict compensation, whereas guilt mediates the relationship between psychological proximity and compensation.     

Leading with moral courage: The interplay of guilt and courage on perceived ethical leadership and group organizational citizenship behaviors

This study uses a moderated mediation model to investigate the role of leaders’ moral courage and guilt in promoting group‐level organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Based on the idea that leaders model ethical behavior among followers, we examine whether leaders’ display of morally laden emotions weaken follower perceptions of ethical leadership, thus disrupting the influence of moral courage on followers. Two independent studies examined the proposed model. Study 1 used an experimental design to examine leaders’ moral displays, testing the interactive effects of leader moral courage, and guilt on follower perceptions of ethical leadership. Study 2 used a multisource field study with 100 leaders and 336 subordinates to explore how a leader displays of courage and guilt influenced group‐level OCB, mediated by ethical leadership. Consistent with our theoretical model, we find an indirect positive relationship between a leader’s moral courage and group OCB. However, we also find that this effect is weakened by displays of guilt by the leader.     

Integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images

Most studies on retail price images do not capture the complete domain of this construct because they predominantly measure the cognitive dimensions of price perception. The current paper extends this research by integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images. Results from an empirical study demonstrate that several price‐related emotions mediate the impact of cognitive price image dimensions on intentions to shop in retail stores. Such effects exist for distress, anger, contempt, shame, and guilt. Furthermore, these emotions have an incremental effect on shopping intentions beyond the mere cognitive price image dimensions. Hence, integrating these emotions in the analysis of retail price images improves the prediction of such intentions considerably. An analysis of direct, indirect, and total effects shows that price‐level perception influences shopping intentions negatively via increased contempt, shame, and guilt, but positively via value for money. Value proves to be a central dimension of a retailer's price image as value influences shopping intentions directly, but also via reduced distress, anger, contempt, shame, and guilt. The results yield important research and management implications, as integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images extends the understanding of customer reactions to retailers' pricing activities. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

‘The Business of Ethics and Gender’

Unethical decision-making behavior within organizations has received increasing attention over the past ten years. As a result, a plethora of studies have examined the relationship between gender and business ethics. However, these studies report conflicting results as to whether or not men and women differ with regards to business ethics. In this article, we propose that gender identity theory [Spence: 1993, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 624–635], provides both the theory and empirical measures to explore the influence of psychological gender traits and gender-role attitudes on ethical perceptions of workplace behaviors. Statistical analyses of the data reveal that based on sex alone, no differences occur between men and women in their ethical perceptions. Yet, when a multidimensional approach to gender is applied, results show that expressive traits and egalitarian gender-role attitudes contribute to both men’s and women’s propensity to perceive unethical workplace behaviors as unethical. The implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are presented.     

Gratitude,delight, or guilt: The role of consumers' emotions in predicting postconsumption behaviors

This study investigates the relationships among appraisals (goal congruence/incongruence and agency), consumption emotions (gratitude, happiness, guilt, anger, pride, and sadness), and post‐consumption behaviors (positive and negative word of mouth, repurchase intention, and complaint behavior). The findings demonstrate that these emotions predict different specific types of post‐consumption behaviors and that they are elicited by appraisals specified in the psychology literature. In particular, gratitude but not happiness, predicts repurchase intention and positive word of mouth. By contrast, guilt inhibits complaint behaviors and negative word of mouth. The implications of these findings for marketing practice are discussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Reexaminating Perceived Ethics Issues and Ethics Roles among Employment Managers

This paper reexamines the perceived ethical issues and roles of employment managers based on their responses to a recent "Ethical Issues in Human Resource Management Survey." This research addresses five major questions including: 1) Whether employment managers' perceptions of the factors influencing unethical behavior vary according to gender, job position, and company size, 2) What are the perceived frequency and seriousness of misconduct among HR functional areas, 3) Whether groups of employment managers (i.e., males and females) vary significantly in their perceptions of the seriousness of unethical events, 4) Whether gender and organizational level influence how often particular ethics roles are played, and 5) What particular roles are being played by employment managers as they respond to ethical dilemmas. The findings show that regardless of gender, position, or company size, employment managers' ethical behavior is influenced most by the behavior of senior managers and their immediate supervisors. In addition, the respondents believe that ethical misconduct occurs more often and is most serious in specialties such as employment, health, safety, and security, and compensation. Gender, industrial category, and company size have a significant impact on how serious unethical practices were perceived to be. Finally, seven of the eight ethics roles were matched with the ethical dilemmas submitted by the survey respondents.     

Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices

A significant body of research concludes that stable beliefs of perceived consumer effectiveness lead to sustainable consumption choices. Consumers who believe that their decisions can significantly affect environmental and social issues are more likely to behave sustainably. Little is known, however, about how perceived consumer effectiveness can be increased. We find that feelings of guilt and pride, activated by a single consumption episode, can regulate sustainable consumption by affecting consumers’ general perception of effectiveness. This paper demonstrates the impact that guilt and pride have on perceived consumer effectiveness and shows how this effect rests on the ability of these emotions to influence perceptions of agency. After experiencing guilt or pride, consumers see themselves as the cause of relevant sustainability outcomes. The process of causal attribution associated with these emotions influences consumers’ use of neutralization techniques. Through the reduction in consumers’ ability to neutralize their sense of personal responsibility, guilt and pride positively influence perceived consumer effectiveness. The inability to rationalize-away their personal responsibility, persuades consumers that they affect sustainability outcomes through their decisions. The research advances our understanding of sustainable consumption and identifies a new avenue for the regulation of individual consumer behavior that has significant implications for the development of sustainable marketing initiatives.     

The Best I Can Be: How Self‐Accountability Impacts Product Choice in Technology‐Mediated Environments

Technology‐mediated environments are important not only as the location for an increasing proportion of purchases, but also as an even more pervasive part of the purchase journey. While most research into online consumer behavior focuses on attitudes as an antecedent of product choice, this article focuses on an important but hardly explored variable that may be impacted by technology‐mediated environments: self‐accountability. Laboratory experiments suggest that self‐accountability may influence online purchases, but this has not been confirmed in field studies. Furthermore, although this prior work suggests that self‐accountability may impact product choice through the elicitation of guilt, the role of positive emotions has not been explored. Using two surveys with online retailers, this paper (a) shows that in a technology‐mediated environment, self‐accountability influences product choice; (b) proposes and confirms a complementary route for this effect through pride that is stronger than that through guilt; and (c) evidences the relationship between self‐accountability and perceived consumer effectiveness. These results show a clear opportunity for digital marketers to encourage self‐accountability, to thereby elicit pride and not just guilt, and hence to impact consumer decision making in technology‐mediated environments, particularly when choices have sustainability implications.     

Assertiveness Bias in Gender Ethics Research: Why Women Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Gender is one of the most researched and contentious topics in consumer ethics research. It is common for researchers of gender studies to presume that women are more ethical than men because of their reputation for having a selfless, sensitive nature. Nevertheless, we found evidence that women behaved less ethically than men in two field experiments testing a passive form of unethical behavior. Women benefited to a larger extent from a cashier miscalculating the bill in their favor than men. However, in three follow-up studies, we found that women did not necessarily intend to benefit at the expense of someone else. Women are less prone to speak up to a cashier than men are, even when the mistake is made in their disfavor. These results reveal that gender differences in assertiveness affect differences in unethical behavior.