2012_JBE_Temptation

7/30/2019 2012_JBE_Temptation

1/38

T. L.P. Tang & T. Sutarso (2012) Journal of Business Ethics 1

The final version of this paper was published in online first (before print copy 2013):

Tang, T. L. P., & Sutarso, T (2012). Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces oftemptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender.Journal of BusinessEthics, DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1475-3.

Falling or Not Falling into Temptation? Multiple Faces of Temptation,

Monetary Intelligence, and Unethical Intentions across Gender

Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Toto Sutarso

Abstract: We develop a theoretical model, explore the relationship between Temptation (both

reflective and formative) and unethical intentions by treating monetary intelligence (MI) as amediator, and examine the direct (temptation to unethical intentions) and indirect (temptation tomonetary intelligence to unethical intentions) paths simultaneously based on multiple-wavepanel data collected from 340 part-time employees and university (business) students. The

positive indirectpath suggested that yielding to temptation (e.g., high cognitive impairment andlack of self-control) led to poor monetary intelligence (low stewardship behavior but highcognitive meaning) that, in turn, led to high unethical intentions (theft, corruption, anddeception). Our counterintuitivenegative direct path revealed that those who controlled their

temptation had high unethical intentions. Due to the multiple faces of temptation (thesuppression effect), maliciously controlled temptation led to deviant intentions. Subsequent

multi-group analysis across gender reformulated the mystery of temptation: Males negativedirect path generated a darkimpact on unethical intentions; females positive indirect path didnot, but offered great implications for consumer behavior. Both falling and not falling intotemptation led to unethical intentions which varied across gender. Our counterintuitive, novel,and original theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions may spark curiosity and add newvocabulary to the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer psychology, andbusiness ethics.

Keywords: Temptation (Impulsive Behavior, Cognitive Impairment, Self-Control, Social MoralValue, and Getting Rich), Monetary Intelligence (Motive, Stewardship, Meaning), DeviantIntentions (Theft, Corruption, Deception), Reflective vs. Formative, Gender, Love of Money

For the past several decades, we have witnessed numerous cases of corruption, scandals,and unethical behaviors involving large corporations (Enron, Worldcom) and individuals (Bernie

Madoff) (Ashforth et al., 2008; Gino et al., 2011). Deviant behaviors have harmful effects onindividuals, organizations, and the large society. Approximately five percent (5%) of global


2/38


annual revenues, more than $2.9 trillion, were lost due to various forms of corruption orunethical behaviors (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2010). This is a world-widephenomenon that deserves researchers attention (Fisman & Miguel, 2007; Kish-Gephart et al.,

2010; Tang et al., 2011). Due to its pervasive impact, researchers attempt to identify plausiblereasons behind these unethical and deviant behaviors (Christian & Ellis, 2011).

According to theory of planned behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1991), attitudes toward thebehavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control predict behavioral intention that, in

turn, predicts behavior. Researchers have examined TPB in many fields (Armitage & Conner,2001; Cordano & Frieze, 2000; Manning, 2009) and the relationship between temptation andaddictive behaviors -- eating (Hofmann et al., 2007, 2010), drinking (Collins et al., 2000;Maddock et al.,2000), smoking (Hudmon et al., 1997), and gambling (Holub et al., 2005);

consumer behavior (Baumeister et al., 1994; Baumeister et al., 2008); and more recently,unethical behaviors (Mead et al., 2009; Restubog et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2005; Tenbrunsel,1998). The contribution of TPB in our understanding of the temptation to unethical intentions

relationship is not as ubiquitous as most researchers once thought, however.Theory of free will (Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008) suggests that people value self-control,follow rules, and make intelligent and rational decisions. Self-control is the psychologicalcapacity that enables individuals to enact behaviors that are consistent with their long-term goals(e.g., of being an ethical person) and refrain form engaging in behaviors that are driven by short-

term selfish motives (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). The lack of self-control is associated withimpulsive behavior and cognitive impairment. In our culture, there are many rules and standards,including moral rules to which individuals must conform (Mead et al., 2009, p. 594). Strongethical standards curb unethical behavior intentions (Ariely, 2008; Tang, 2012). Rational choiceis directly related to getting the most bang for the money (Mickel & Barron, 2008) and selecting

the best products (Baumeister et al., 2008). Very little research has combined the fields ofconsumer behavior, psychology of money (Monetary Intelligence), and business ethics toinvestigate the temptation to unethical intentions relationships.

Our present study attempts to fill the void. We adopt theory of free will (consumerbehavior; Baumeister, 2002; Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008) as the foundation of our majortheoretical framework and apply the notion of temptation (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) in the context ofunethical intentions (business ethics; Chen & Tang, 2006; Tang & Chiu, 2003). We propose atheoretical measurement model that (1) getting rich (affective), (2) impulsive behavior

(behavioral), and (3) cognitive impairment (cognitive), i.e., the ABC of an attitude, as well as (4)social moral values (subjective norm), and (5) loss of self-control (perceived control) arecomponents of temptation that leads to two consequencesbecoming selfish and deviatingfrom important goals (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). We develop a theoretical structural equation

(SEM) model (Figure 1), explore the relationship between temptation and deviant intentions,treat monetary intelligence (psychology of moneymotives, stewardship, and meaning of money,Tang, 1992; Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2012) as a mediator and gender as a moderator, and


3/38


investigate the direct and indirect paths simultaneously based on multiple-wave panel datacollected from 340 part-time employees who are also university students in a business class.

Figure 1. A theoretical model of temptation, MI, and unethical intentions

The reflective Temptation construct has five significant sub-constructs, whereas theformative model offers some novel insights: High levels of impulsive behavior, cognitiveimpairment, and lack of self-control and low levels of social moral values and getting rich defineTemptation that, in turn, is related to becoming selfish and overlooking important goals. Weexplore two parsimonious SEM models of Temptation (reflective vs. formative): The positiveindirectpath (Paths 2 and 3) suggests that falling into temptation leads to poor monetaryintelligence (low stewardship and high cognitive meaning of money) that, in turn, entices them tohave high deviant intentions. Our counterintuitivenegativedirectpath (Path 1) shows that thosewho do not fall into Temptation have high theft, corruption, and deception intentions. Theoverall impact is negative: Maliciously controlled temptation is significantly related to unethicalintentions. Our subsequent multi-group analyses across gender reformulated the mystery oftemptationa negative direct path for males, but a positive indirect path for females. For males,the overalldark impact of temptation on unethical intentions is substantial, causing graveconcerns; for females, overalldark impact is trivial; but offers great implications for consumerbehavior. Our counterintuitive novel findings make significant theoretical, empirical, andpractical contributions (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007), spark curiosity, and add new

vocabulary to the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer behavior, andunethical behavior intention in the literature.

Theory and Hypotheses

Temptation: Construct Conceptualization

According to Locke (1969: 334), the first question a scientific investigator must ask is nothow can I measure it? but rather, what isit? In order to understand the construct clearly and


4/38


achieve a solid construct conceptualization, researchers must use specific, accurate, and explicitterms and define the conceptual construct precisely in a positive direction without circular ortautological argument (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; MacKenzie et al., 2011). We define

temptation below.What is temptation? From the Greek word Peirasmos, temptation is the state of being

enticed, allured, or seduced. It carries two meaningsbeing misled into sin or enticed to dowrong, or being put to the test. We approach the temptation construct from the perspectives of

consumer behavior and business Ethics. First, consumers desire to perform an act (consumption)leads to instant gratification (Tice et al., 2001) but causes great regret or guilt later. Second,when tempted, most people are willing to be a little dishonest, regardless of the risks. Peoplerationalize their dishonesty easily when cheating is one step removed from cash (Ariely, 2008).

It is the weak temptation, as compared to strong temptation, that has an inhibiting effect on self-regulation process, forming a bigger threat for long-term goal attainment (Kroese et al., 2011).Peoples temptation to break the simple, small rules is titillating because it temporally brings a

sense of excitement to life and can be rationalized easily. This is the reason why so many peopleare easily enticed to eat chocolate, shop spontaneously, and do bad, deviant, and unethical things.Resisting temptation, on the other hand, takes a lot of will-power, clear thinking, and self-controlthat may or may not deliver us from evil.

Components of temptation.A key to understanding the motivational mechanisms of

deviance lies in theories of self-regulation (Christian & Ellis, 2011). Deviant behaviors arevolitional, but are different from crimes of passion (due to sudden unexpected impulses) andimpulsive behavior/consumption. Following TPB, theory of free will (Baumeister, 2002;Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008), and ABC model of an attitude (Bagozzi et al., 1979), we definetemptation as a multi-dimensional individual difference variable with five components: (1)

getting rich, (2) impulsive behavior, (3) cognitive impairment, (4) social moral values, and (5)lack of self-control. The entity to which it applies is people. We discuss these constructs below.

Getting rich (affective). Why do people (e.g., CEO/CFO of Enron and Bernie Madoff)fall into temptation and engage in unethical behaviors? Enrons executives were provided withsubstantial bonuses in the form of stock options. Given the size of the bonus payments, thetemptation to engage in unethical behavior was, in hindsight, disturbingly obvious (The DailyRecord, 2003). When tempted, most are willing to be a little dishonest and to do whatever ittakes to become rich. Getting rich is a highly emotional, affective aspect of peoples moneyattitudes. Those who want to get rich will take risks and engage in unethical behaviors (Tang etal., 2008, Tang et al., 2011).

Impulsive behavior (behavioral). Those who fall into temptation follow their hearts, seekinstant gratification (Tice et al., 2001), and act in an impulsive and spontaneous way. People

suddenly have an urge to do something, act on that impulse without carefully or thoroughlyconsidering whether it is consistent with their long-range goals, ideals, and plans (Baumeister,2002). Most impulses are resistible, yet sometimes prove irresistible when their self-control has


5/38


failed (Rook, 1987). Some opportunistic people may capture the moment and engage in unethicalbehaviors when opportunities present themselves in the environment.

Cognitive impairment (cognitive). Comparing three types of theories regarding how

people restrain impulses and override incipient responses: willpower and strength, cognitiveprocesses, and self-control as a skill, Baumeister (2002) supported the willpower and strength

model. Sleep deprivation causes workplace deviance due to the depletion of self-regulatoryresources (Christian & Ellis, 2011). When crucial self-regulatory resources have been depleted,

people without a strong will become weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually andexperience cognitive impairment. Due to temptation, people become disoriented and lose theirabilities to concentrate on important, long-term goals. However, executives in recent scandalsstrategically planned, cleverly organized, deceitfully miss-led, and carefully controlled/executed

their unethical act (theft, corruption, and deception) with concerted efforts and executivefunction. These scandals arenotcaused by executives lack of intelligence or brains, noraccidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive impairment; but rather, by their self-interests, malicious

intent, and lack of wisdom, virtue (Feiner, 2004: 85; Tang & Liu, 2012).We posit that mostpeople engage in unethical behaviors to fulfill their specific, selfish, and strategic and intentionalpurposes which are quite different from consumers who yield to temptation and buy impulsivelyat shopping malls. In other words, compared to CEO/CFO of Enron and Bernie Madoff, mentallychallenged individuals may not have the intellectual competencies to execute unethical behaviors.

Lack of self-control (perceived control). Self-control is the ability to override or changeones inner responses, as well as to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies (such as impulses)

and refrain from acting on them (Tangney et al., 2004, p. 274). When people lose trackof theirbehavior, they experience a self-control breaks down. People in a sad mood eat unhealthy snackfoods more than those without emotional distress. When people are upset, they indulge

immediate impulses to make themselves feel better, which amounts to giving short-term affectregulation priority over other self-regulatory goals (Tice et al., 2001, p. 53). Acts of self-regulation withoutrest or replenishment (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) impair subsequent self-regulatory efforts (Gino et al., 2011, p. 192). Self-control is the poorest among people who haveperformed a prior act of self-control.People who are on a diet tend to eat more pieces of candywhen given the opportunity in an experiment than those who are not. Further, both trait self-control and self-control depletion predicted impulsive cheating behavior on a problem-solvingtask (Baumeister et al., 1998; Mead et al., 2009; Muraven et al., 2006;Rosenbaum, 1993).

People with high self-control have less aggressive behavior (Latham & Perlow, 1996) and lowerdeviant behaviors (Bordia et al., 2008). In a cold nonvisceral state, the presence of temptationprompts cognition to support self-control; whereas in a hot visceral state, temptation promptsthe same cognitive processes to support impulsive behavior (Nordgren & Chou, 2011). Thus,

some cold-hearted individuals seize the opportunity to become corrupt and engage in unethicalbehaviors for financial gains, but do not do it impulsively to make themselves feel better (cf.Tice et al., 2001). As mentioned, peoples decisive unethical behaviors reflect their strong self-control and executive function. That is, they do it on purpose. It is notan accident.


6/38


Social moral values (subjective social norm). Getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princetonstudents to contemplate their own ethical values eliminates cheating completely, while offeringpoker chips to redeem for cash, a few seconds later, doubles the level of cheating (Ariely, 2008,

p. 24; Aquino et al., 2009; Tang, 2012). With a high level of supervisory guidance, a high (orlow) level of behavioral integrity (Simons, 2002; Simons et al., 2007) curbs (or incites) deviant

behavior (Dineen et al., 2006). People with high love of money and low perceptions regardingthe authenticity of supervisors personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) had the highest

unethical behavior intention; whereas those with high love of money and high ASPIRE had thelowest (Tang & Liu, 2012). Thus, supervisors authentic personal integrity and character(ASPIRE) is a moderator and makes a difference. There are several important implications: Mostpeoples ethical intentions and behaviors are influenced by ethical values and cultures at the

individual and organization levels (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Weiss et al., 2010). Temptationspresented positively or negatively in the social context control individuals ethical or unethicalintentions. Taken together, we assert that these five sub-constructs make significant and

independent contributions to our theoretical measurement model of temptation.

Relationships between Constructs and Measures (Reflective vs. Formative)

We discuss the nature of the relationships between the constructs and measures, below.For decades, most researchers in social sciences have used a reflective model for attitudinal

constructs rather than aformative model (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). Recent developments inmeasurement theory and application lead some researchers to re-consider constructs, such as jobsatisfaction, not as a reflective model, but as a formative modela composite or aggregate of thesatisfaction with pay, promotion, supervisor, coworkers, and the work itself (Williams et al.,2003). Further, some scholars strongly advocated the use of formative measurement model and

suggested that paths emanating from a miss-specified construct may lead to Type I errors,whereas paths leading to a miss-specified construct may lead to Type II error (Jarvis et al., 2003;MacKenzie et al., 2005, 2011). Others expressed concerns regarding its merits (Edwards, 2011).We describe and compare both reflective and formative models of Temptation, next.

Reflective model. We treat the five sub-constructs or factors as an imperfect reflection ofthe underlying latent constructTemptation. The indicators and the first-order latent factors areviewed as manifestations of the overall focal construct; the focal construct exists separately at adeeper and more embedded level than its first-order factors and items; and a change in the focal

construct would be expected to produce a change in all of its factors and items. The indicatorsand first-level sub-constructs are best thought of as reflective of the focal construct. The directionof the relationship flows from the latent construct to the indicators. Direct manipulation of aparticular indicator will nothave an effect on the latent variable. It is appropriate when a

researcher is interested in measuring a stable focal construct over time or across situations, or hasseveral randomly selected parcels of items each of which is reflective of a focal construct.

Formative model. We treat items and the five first-order sub-constructs (factors) as areflective model and consider the five sub-constructs as distinguishable perspectives, defining


7/38


characteristics, or formativeindicators, of Temptation. The elimination of any single sub-construct will restrict the overall construct in a significant way. The non-interchangeable sub-dimensions (antecedents) formulate the Temptation construct that, in turn, is related to two or

more items or reflective measures that capture the overall construct or various consequences(outcomes). The patterns for the formation and consequence of Temptation depend on different

outcomes involved in the analyses. [Our reflective andformative models of temptation (withresults of the present study) are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively and Appendix A.]

After discussions of the fallacy of formative measures, Edwards (2011) proposedalternatives to formative measurement. Our model (presented in Figure 3) actually fits thedescriptionan alternative to the conventional formative measurement model that avoids theshortcomings of formative measurement (Edwards, 2011). It is a model that replaces formativemeasures with facet constructs and multiple reflective measures (see Figure 6, Edwards, 2011, p.384). In this case, the construct is nothing more than a label for its dimensions consideredcollectively (p. 384). In summary, we establish a Temptation measure (as a trait) and explore

the validity in a theoretical SEM model.Step 1, to achievemodel identification, a formative construct must emit paths to (1) atleast two unrelated latent constructs with reflective indicators, (2) at least two theoreticallyappropriate reflective indicators, or (3) one reflective indicator and one latent construct withreflective indicators (Jarvis et al., 2003). Step 2, in order to establish the validity (nomological

network of correlations) of the Temptation construct, we adopt two models of Temptation (i.e.,reflective vs. an alternative to conventional formative measurement) in two separate analyses andselect two additional outcome items (Items 18 and 19, Figure 4) and two additional constructs:unethical intentions (PUB) (reflective) and Monetary Intelligence (MI) (formative) for tworeasons: First, the Temptation construct taps directly and indirectly on both constructs that are

content-valid measures. Second, we treat Monetary Intelligence as a mediator and examine thedirect path (Temptation Unethical Intentions) and the indirect path (TemptationMonetaryIntelligence Unethical Intentions) simultaneously. Since we treat Monetary Intelligence as aformative measurement model, we also included two additional outcome variables(Machiavellianism) (Tang & Chen, 2008; Tang & Tang, 2010).

Unethical Behavior Intentions

It is impossible to directly measure managers actual corruption or unethical behaviors

because most behaviors are performed in private, except in formal criminal investigations ofcorruption cases, police records (e.g., Fisman & Miguel, 2007), and laboratory experiments(Ariely, 2008). However, people are willing to provide accurate information for specificquestions in an anonymous survey (Richman et al., 1999; Schoorman & Mayer, 2008). The

convergence of the incumbents self-report and the coworkers peer-report on counterproductivebehavior suggests that self-reported unethical intention is a reasonable surrogate measure ofbehavior (De Jonge, & Peeters, 2009; Fox et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2007).


8/38


Amongworkplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), counterproductive behavior(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2010), corruption, and misbehavior,researchers have examined the propensity to engage in unethical behaviors (PUB) (Tang & Chiu,

2003) that is a subset of organizational deviances performed against organizations (Robinson &Bennett, 1995). The PUB scale includes theft, corrupt intent, and deception. The corrupt intent

sub-scale involves the misuse of position, power, or authority for personal or organizational gain(receiving gifts, money, bribery, and kickbacks); acts committed against the company (sabotage

and theft); and acts conducted on behalf of the organization (laying off employees for personalgain) (Ashforth et al., 2008; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). These constructs have been testedempirically in China (Du et al., 2007), Hong Kong (Tang & Chiu, 2003), Macedonia (Sardoska& Tang, 2009, 2012), the US (Piffa et al., 2012), and more than 31 geopolitical entities/countries

across six continents (Tang et al., 2011) and cited in review articles (e.g., Kish-Gephart et al.,2010) and textbooks (Bateman & Snell, 2013).

Temptation to Unethical BehaviorsWe focus on the direct path between temptation and unethical intentions (Path 1). One of

the real root causes of the corporate scandals is the overemphasis American corporations havebeen forced to give in recent years to maximizing shareholder value without regard for the effectof their actions on other stakeholders (Kochan, 2002, p. 139). Profit-based mechanisms create a

huge amount of pressure and opportunity for managers and have serious flaws. Enrons

executives were provided with substantial bonuses in the form of stock optionsa temptationthatmight have caused executives todeceptively manipulate accounting procedures by cookingthe books and intentionally engage in unethical behaviors (The Daily Record, 2003; Kennedy &Lawton, 1993). As mentioned, scandals and unethical behaviors in the US and around the world

are caused by executives intentional actions and are not accidents or honest mistakes. Theydid it on purpose and not due tocognitive impairment and/or lack of self-control, in particular.High love-of-money individuals have high Machiavellianism and high risk tolerance (Tang et al.,2008). Domain-specific temptation explained 40 percent of the unique within-individual variancein impulsive behavior (Tsukayama et al., 2012). On the basis of the ancient wisdom (those whowant to get rich are falling into temptation) and empirical research findings, we test Hypothesis 1,below.

Hypothesis 1: Temptation is directly related to unethical behavior intentions.

Monetary Intelligence (MI)

For the past three decades, researchers have examined numerous money-related attitudesand measures (Furnham, 1984; Furnham & Argyle, 1998; Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Srivastava et

al., 2001; Yamauchi & Templer, 1982). Among them, the Money Ethic (MES, Tang, 1992) orthe Love of Money construct, a subset of MES (Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang & Chen, 2008; Tanget al., 2006, 2011) has become one of the most cited and systematically used constructs of moneyattitude in the literature (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999). It is mildly related to materialism (Belk,


9/38


10/38


well being (Norvilitis et al., 2006). The US saving rates in 2006 dropped to all time low atminus 0.5 percent since the Great Depression (Associated Press, 2006). Only 14 percent ofAmericans have confidence in their ability to retire comfortably (Helman et al., 2012). People

lose track of their self-control, become cognitively impaired, fall into temptation, and spend theirmoney impulsively (Baumeister, 2002). Choices made after losses are riskierthan that after

gains (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Following a vicious cycle, temptation is related to poor MI(lower stewardship of money and higher value toward the enjoyment of having money). We test

our Hypothesis 2 as follows:Hypothesis 2: Temptation is related to monetary intelligence.

MI to unethical intentions (Path 3). The affective component of money attitude is

associated with deviant behaviors and unethical intentions (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Tang &Chen, 2008; Tang et al., 2011). Money is often associated with achievement and recognition,status and respect, freedom and control, and power (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; see Colquitt et al.,

2011). Considering money as a sign of their achievement leads to low satisfaction with pay andlife (Fishbach et al.,2003; Srivastava et al., 2001; Tang, 1992, 2007). Pay dissatisfaction causespeople to become corrupt in the name of justice (Greenberg, 1993), equity (Gino & Pierce,2009ab), revenge (Ashforth & Anand, 2003), or retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Thosewho do not manage their money carefully (Dew & Xiao, 2011; Mickel et al., 2003) have many

foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.Hypothesis 3: Monetary intelligence is related to unethical intentions.

It is plausible that our direct path and indirect path may be operated differently based onour theoretical model. Suppression occurs when the indirect effect has the opposite sign of

the direct effect (Shrout & Bolder, 2002, p. 430) which explains why a theoretically interestingrelation is not strong. That is, the direct and indirect effects of similar magnitudes and oppositesigns result in a non-zero and non-significant overall relationship. We challenge the assumptionthat temptation leads to the dark side of unethical intentions consistently (Hypothesis 1) andargue that due to our positive indirect effect (suppression effect, Hypotheses 2 and 3), temptationmay nothave a strong and negative relationship with unethical intentions for all participants. Amoderator is a qualitative (e.g., sex, race, class) or quantitative (e.g., level of reward) variablethat affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor

variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). We treat genderas a moderator and test our model using multi-group analysis (Amos).

Gender

Males have higher concerns for money, career advancement than ethical values (Beu etal., 2003; Deshpande, 1997; Hoffman, 1998), compared to females. Ethics training may havelimited effects for females but no effect for males (Conroy & Emerson, 2004; Ritter, 2006;Traiser & Eighmy, 2011). The top business schools not only fail to improve the moral character


11/38


of students but actually weaken it (Schneider & Prasso, 2002). Students who take a singlesemester of introductory economics show a significant decline in honesty and increase in self-interest (Frank et al., 1993). Highly educated executives in recent scandals received their training

at the best business schools (Merritt, 2002). Machiavellianism mediates the relationship betweenlove of money and unethical intentions for business students but not for psychology students, for

male students but not for female students, and for male business students but not for femalebusiness students (Tang & Chen, 2008). Male students are more unethical than female students.

Hypothesis 4: The dark impact of temptation on unethical intentions is stronger formales than for females.

Method

Procedure. The first author collected data from 340 students (male = 221, 65.0%; female= 119, 35.0%; return rate = 95%) who took a management class in the college of business,accredited by AACSB-International, at a state university in the southeastern US for four years. In

a 16-week semester, students completed eight two-page (on one sheet of paper) surveys andother activities for course credits confidentially with initials and the last four digits of their socialsecurity number in order to match these eight-panel survey data. Participants completed thesesurveys at least one or two weeks apart in the semester. This procedure avoids the possibleimpact of fatigue/memory, common method variance bias, and enhances the psychological

separation of predictors and criteria (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The professor was blind regardingstudents survey results and debriefed the purposes of this study at the end of the semester.

Measures.We adopted our 15-item, 5-factor Temptation Scale; the 30-item, 10-factorMonetary Intelligence Scale (MI, Tang, 1992; Tang et al., 2012); 4-item Machiavellianism(Mach IV, 4 items, two items from Tactics and two items from Views of Human Nature, Christie

& Geis, 1970; Tang & Chen, 2008); and three sub-constructs (Theft, Corruption, and Deception)of the 15-item, 5-factor Propensity to Engage in Unethical Behavior Scale (PUB) (Chen & Tang,2006; Tang & Chiu, 2003) (see Appendix A). We used a 5-point Likert scale with stronglydisagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5) as anchors forTemptation, Monetary Intelligence, and Machiavellianism measures.For the PUB scale, we useda different set of anchors: very low probability (1), low probability (2), average (3), highprobability (4), and very high probability (5) and provided the following instructions. If youwere given the opportunity in your work environment, what is the probability that you may

engage in the following activities. It is a measure of self-prediction. We also collecteddemographic variables (e.g., gender, age, years of education, current job tenure, and income),and many other filler items. We used (IBM-Amos) and the following criteria for configuralinvariance (passing 5 out of 6 criteria): (1) chi-square and degrees of freedom (2/df), (2)

incremental fit index (IFI> .90), (3) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI> .90), (4) comparative fit index(CFI> .90), (5) standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR < .10), and (6) root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA < .10) (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We achieve metricinvariance when the differences between unconstrained and constrained multi-group


12/38


confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFAs) are not significant (CFI, RMSEA < .01, Cheung &Rensvold, 2002). All measures in the present study were collected at least one week apart, forsome more than two months apart.

Results

Descriptive Statistics.The means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alpha, and

correlations of demographic variables, temptation, five sub-components of temptation, monetary

intelligence, and unethical intentions for the whole sample are presented in Table 1. All five sub-constructs of temptation were significantly correlated. Cronbachs alpha and compositereliability for Temptation were .81 and .81, respectively (Table 1).1 Age was significantlycorrelated with years of education, job experience, and income. Income was also associated with

levels of education and job experience. Monetary Intelligence was related to the sub-construct ofsocial moral values. Unethical intentions were related to gender (male), low Temptation, lowcognitive impairment, and strong self-control.

The Temptation Scale (Reflective vs. Formative)

For our 15-item, 5-factor Temptation Scale, we selected two additional items to achievemodel identification for our formative model (Jarvis et al., 2003). These items depicted not onlytwo consequences of temptationbecoming selfish (Item 16, see Appendix A) and deviating

from important goals (Item 17) (Gino et al., 2011) but also the overall notion of temptation.The direction of the relationship flows from Temptation to sub-constructs for our reflectivemodel; but from sub-constructs to Temptation for the formative model.

Our formative model (Figure 3: 2 = 190.73, df= 104,p < .001, 2/df= 1.83,IFI= .95,TLI= .93, CFI= .95, SRMR = .04,RMSEA = .06) was better than the reflective model (Figure 2:2 = 237.82, df= 114,p < .001, 2/df= 2.09,IFI= .92, TLI= .91, CFI= .92, SRMR = .05,RMSEA = .06). The differences between the two were significant (i.e., 2 = 47.09, df= 10,p< .001; CFI= .0249 > .010). For our reflective model, the regression weights (factor loadings)for the five sub-constructs according to the descending order were as follows (Figure 2):Impulsive Behavior (.86), Cognitive Impairment (.83), Self-Control (.82), Social Moral Value(.48), and Getting Rich (.31), respectively. For the formative model, the paths were .49, .32, .32,-.23, and -.16, respectively. In both models, all regression weights and paths were significant.For the formative model, the highest correlation among five sub-constructs was between

impulsive behavior and cognitive impairment (.74) which was smaller than .80 (Kim, 2011).These five non-interchangeable sub-constructs are relatively independent and make significantand different contributions to the Temptation construct. High correlations among sub-constructsprovide high reliability for the overall reflective Temptation construct, whereas low correlations

among sub-constructs reveal independent contributions to the same overall formative construct(Edwards, 2011).

1We do not discuss students second 48-item Temptation scale, completed about 10-12 weeksapart (Cronbachs alpha = .85), in this paper.


13/38


Figure 2. Results of the temptation scalea reflective model

Figure 3. Results of the temptation scalea formative model


14/38


Measurement Invariance

We examined measurement invariance of our Temptation Scale across gender using ourreflective model (Figure 2). First, regarding configural (factor structure) invariance, the fit

between our measurement model and our data for the male sample (2 = 156.21, df= 104,p< .0007, 2/df= 1.50,IFI= .95, TLI= .93, CFI= .95, SRMR = .05,RMSEA = .05) was slightly

better than that for the female sample (2 = 160.39, df= 104,p < .0003, 2/df= 1.54,IFI= .92,TLI= .89, CFI= .91, SRMR = .07,RMSEA = .07), due to the different sample size (males = 221

vs. females = 119). Second, we checked metric (factor loading) invariance using a multi-groupconfirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) across gender. There was a good fit for the unconstrainedmodel (2 = 316.79, df= 208,p < .0000, 2/df= 1.52,IFI= .94, TLI= .91, CFI= .93, SRMR= .05,RMSEA = .04). In our constrained MGCFA, we set all the paths from items to the first-

order latent constructs to be equal for males and females (2 = 330.20, df= 218,p < .0000, 2/df= 1.51,IFI= .93, TLI= .92, CFI= .93, SRMR = .05,RMSEA = .04). The differences betweenunconstrained and constrained MGCFAs were not significant (CFI= RMSEA = .00 < .01).

We achieved configural and metric invariance across gender for the Temptation Scale whichgave us confidence to test our theoretical SEM across gender.

Common Method Variance (CMV)

Due to our longitudinal data, common method variance (CMV) should not be a concern

(Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). Following suggestions in the literature, we adoptedHarmans single-factor test and examined the unrotatedfactor solution involving 54 items andall three variables of interest in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and identified 15 factors,with eigenvalue greater than one. We listed the scale and amount of variance explained (Total =70.29%) below: MI (16.87%), PUB (9.72%), Temptation-Lack of Self-Control (7.31%), MI

(5.23%), Temptation-Cognitive Impairment (4.93%), Temptation-Impulsive Behavior (3.63%),MI (3.24%), Temptation-Getting Rich (3.07%), Temptation-Social Moral Values (2.84%), andconstructs with cross-loadings (2.61%, 2.45%, 2.33%, 2.09%, 2.03%, and 1.95%) respectively.No single factor accounted for the majority of the covariance in the independent and criterionvariables. Common method variance was not a concern in this research.

Our Theoretical Model

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA) tends to over-reject a true model

due to small sample size and model complexity (Tang et al., 2006, p. 446). To maintain alarge sample size to item ratio and reduce model complexity for the whole sample andsubsequent multiple-group analyses across subgroups of gender using our SEM model, weestablished aparsimonious model using 15 parcels/items5 parcels for Temptation with 2

outcome items, 3 parcels for Monetary Intelligence with 2 outcome parcels, and 3 parcels forUnethical Intentionsinstead of60. The sample size to item ratio was 23 (340/15 = 22.67).We adopted two different itemsItems 18 (plunge men into ruin and destruction) and 19(corrupt our moral beliefs or ethical standards) (Appendix A) for the Temptation construct


15/38


(reflective vs. formative), appropriate in the business ethics context. We treated MonetaryIntelligence (Tang et al., 2012) as a formative measurement with three sub-constructsaffectivemotive, behavioral stewardship, and cognitive meaningand two additional outcome parcels

(two items each) for the Machiavellianism construct, also appropriate in the business ethicscontext (Tang & Tang, 2010). The reflective unethical intentions construct had three sub-

constructs: Theft, Corrupt Intent, and Deception (Chen & Tang, 2006).

Reflective ModelOurparsimonious theoretical model with a reflective Temptation construct (2 = 160.12,

df= 85,p < .000, 2/df= 1.88,IFI= .95, TLI= .93, CFI= .95, SRMR = .06,RMSEA = .05) ispresented in Figure 4. Our counterintuitive, significant, negative direct path revealed that

temptation was significantly related to unethical intentions (Path 1 = -.20, p < .003), supportingHypothesis 1. Our significant,positive indirect path suggested that a high level of temptation wasrelated to poor monetary intelligence (Path 2 = .15,p < .05) that, in turn, was related to high

unethical intentions (Path 3 = .28,p < .001). Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. Due to multiplefaces of temptation and the suppression effect, the overall impact from temptation to unethicalintentions was negative: The standardized total impact (-.158) was the sum of the direct impact (-.200) and the indirect impact (.0428 = .154 * .278). Carefully controlled malicious temptation

Figure 4. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (reflective), MI, and

unethical behavior intentions (the whole sample)


16/38


17/38


standardized total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative [total impact (-.197)= direct impact (-.201) + indirect impact (.004)]. Corrupt intent (.95) had the strongest factor

loading, followed by deception (.76) and theft (.64). Males temptation has a strong dark impact on unethical intentions. The meaning of money contributed significantly (.47, p < .001) while

stewardship behavior contributed marginally (-.16,p = .054) to MI.

Females. The negative direct path was non-significant (-.172, n.s.), but the positiveindirect path was significant (TemptationMonetary Intelligence = .341,p < .01; MonetaryIntelligence Unethical Intentions = .480,p < .05) (Figure 6). MI was a mediator. Resultssupported Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis 1. The indirect impact from temptation to

unethical intentions was substantial (.164 = .341 * .480). The overall standardized total impactfrom temptation to unethical intention was negative but trivial [total impact (-.007) = directimpact (-.171) + indirect impact (.164)]. Deception (.91) had the strongest factor loading,

Figure 5. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (reflective), MI,

and unethical behavior intentions (the female sample)


18/38


followed by corrupt intent (.51) and theft (.39). Females temptation has a weak dark impact onunethical intentions.

MANOVA results. We checked the mean differences next. Our multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) of demographic variables (age, education, job experience, and income)

across gender was not significant (F(4, 199) = .73,p > .05, Wilks lambda = .986, partial etasquared = .014, power = .233). MANOVA results regarding major variables across gender were

significant (F(11, 321) = 2.40,p = .007, Wilks lambda = .924, partial eta squared = .076, power= .954). Males had lower stewardship behavior (3.47 vs. 3.67), but higher theft (1.40 vs. 1.22),corruption (1.54 vs. 1.32), and deception (1.52 vs. 1.26) than females.

Formative ModelResults of our SEM model with formative Temptation (2 = 106.48, df= 74,p < .0080,

2/df= 1.44,IFI= .98, TLI= .97, CFI= .98, SRMR = .05,RMSEA = .04) are presented in Figure

7. Comparing Figures 4 and 7, our formative model was superior to the reflective model ( 2

=53.64, df= 11, CFI= .03, RMSEA = .01). The negative direct path revealed that temptation

Figure 7. Results of our theoretical model involving temptation (formative), MI, and

unethical behavior intentions (the whole sample)


19/38


(low cognitive impairment and high self-control) was significantly related to unethical intentions(-.22,p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Our significant,positive indirect path suggested that ahigh level of temptation (high cognitive impairment and lack of self-control) was related to poor

monetary intelligence (low stewardship but high cognitive meaning of money) (.16,p < .05) that,in turn, was related to high unethical intentions (.28,p < .001) (Hypotheses 2 and 3). The overall

impact from temptation to unethical intentions (-.170) was the sum of the direct impact (-.215)and the indirect impact (.045 = .16 * .28). Carefully controlled malicious temptationlow

cognitive impairment and high self-controlwas related to deviant intentions. Overall,temptation creates a dark impact on unethical intentions for participants in the whole sample.Among five sub-constructs, Cognitive Impairment (.59) and Self-Control (.40) contributedsignificantly and positively to Temptation. Stewardship behavior (-.15) and cognitive meaning of

money (.34) contributed significantly to MI. Regarding unethical intentions, corrupt intent (.89)seemed to be more prevalent than deception (.77) and theft (.63).

Males. Figure 8 (2

= 181.77, df= 148,p < .0308, 2

/df= 1.23,IFI= .98, TLI= .97, CFI= .98, SRMR = .05,RMSEA = .03) shows that the direct path was negative (-.22,p < .01)


unethical behavior intentions (the male sample)


20/38


(Hypothesis 1). For the indirect path, temptation was not significantly related to MI (.02) that inturn, was significantly associated with unethical intentions (.22,p < .01), supporting Hypothesis

3, but not Hypothesis 2. MI was not a mediator. The overall indirect impact from temptation tounethical intentions was inconsequentially small (.004 = .02 * .22). Both MI and temptation

contributed significantly to unethical intentions. The total impact from temptation to unethicalintention was negative [total (-.215) = direct (-.219) + indirect (.004)]. Corrupt intent (.95) had

the strongest factor loading, followed by deception (.76) and theft (.64). Males temptation has astrong dark impact on unethical intentions.

Females. The negative direct path was non-significant (-.171). For the positive indirect

path, temptation was related to MI (.34,p < .01) that in turn, was associated with unethicalintentions (.48,p < .01) (Figure 9). Results supported Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis1. The indirect impact from temptation to unethical intentions was substantial (.166 = .345

* .480). The overall total impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative but trivial[total (-.005) = direct (-.171) + indirect (.166)]. Deception (.90) had the strongest factor loading,


unethical behavior intentions (the female sample)


21/38


followed by corrupt intent (.52) and theft (.40). For females, temptation has a weak dark impacton unethical intentions. We will not repeat the same MANOVA results here.

Discussion

In this study, we investigate Temptation from the perspectives of consumer behavior,psychology of money, and business ethics. We explore the relationship between temptation and

unethical behavior, treat monetary intelligence as a mediator, and examine the direct and theindirect paths simultaneously using the whole sample and across gender based on multi-paneldata collected from 340 part-time employees who are also university students in a business class.This study reveals several novel and counterintuitive insights. We briefly present our theoretical,

empirical, and practical contributions below.Theoretical contributions. First, we carefully define the Temptation construct using

reflective and formative theoretical models and present solid empirical support for this individual

difference variable. We adopt an alternative model with facet constructs and multiple reflectivemeasures (see Figure 6, Edwards, 2011) that avoids the shortcomings of formativemeasurement. Our Temptation construct is a label for its dimensions considered collectively. Thereflective Temptation model has five strong factor loadings for its sub-constructs and a highCronbachs alpha (.81). For the formative model, the correlations among five constructs are all

below .80, suggesting that all sub-constructs make significant and separate contributions to theoverall Temptation construct. Three constructs contribute positively while two constructscontribute negatively to Temptation. It has a good composite reliability (.81) (Table 1).

Second, we develop a theoretical model, solve a part of the mystery and identify multiplefaces of Temptationa negative direct path as well as a positive indirect path for the whole

sample. Both the reflective and formative models provide similar results and a strong validity forthe Temptation construct. Specifically, our formative model identifies specific sub-constructsthat make significant contributions to Temptation and our SEM model: For thepositive indirectpath, people fall into temptationlack of self-control and cognitive impairmentdisplay poormonetary intelligence (poor stewardship behavior but high meaning) that, in turn, entices them tohave high unethical intentions. For the negative directpath, temptationstrong self-control andlow cognitive impairmentis related to unethical intentions.

Temptation prompts cognition to support self-control in a cold nonvisceral state; but

prompts the same cognitive processes to support impulsive behavior in a hot visceral state(Nordgren & Chou, 2011). Both cold and hot states reflect our direct and indirect paths ofour theoretical model, respectively. Since the indirect path is positive, whereas the direct path isnegative; a suppression effect exists (Shrout & Bolder, 2001). Because the overall impact is

negative and substantial, controlled temptation leads to unethical intentions.Third, our multi-group analysis across gender reveals the following profound findings,

based on both reflective and formative models: a negative direct path for males and a positiveindirect path for females. Males negative direct path creates a strong overall dark impact on


22/38


unethical intentions due to (1) a powerful negative path and (2) a limited positive suppressioneffect. On the other hand, females positive indirect path creates a negligible overall dark impacton unethical intentions because the strong positive suppression effect eliminates almost all the

negative direct effect. Males display the cold state whereas the females pay attention to thehot state. Males unethical intentions are dominated by corruption, whereas females aredeception. The multiple faces of Temptation reveal specifically: There is an importantimplication regarding business ethics for men and consumer behavior for women. Overall, males

are more unethical than females, among business students.For ourformative SEM model, only two sub-constructscognitive impairment and lack

of self-controlcontribute significantly to Temptation. Low stewardship behavior and highcognitive meaning formulate the monetary intelligence (MI) construct that is related to high

unethical intentions. Stewardship of money makes significant contributions toward and formulatesMonetary Intelligence. The formation and consequence of a formative construct depend on thecontext of the study and offer additional information and insights than a reflective model.

Cognitive and control components of Temptation (TPB, Ajzen, 1991) help us understand thisconstruct. Our findings provide important theoretical implications for researchers interested instudying consumer behavior (Baumeister, 2002; Baumiester et al., 2008), psychology of money(Milkovich et al., 2011), and deviant behavior (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010).

Empirical contributions. Our very well developed theoretical constructs match with

systematically applied and highly cited measures in the literature and a sample of businessstudents with proper work experiences. We cant provide counterintuitive, interesting, and noveldiscoveries without collecting data from a good sample. We demonstrate Temptation s strongreliability (Cronbachs and composite reliability), validity, and rigorous measurementinvariance results across genders. Results enhance the generalizability of our findings and

provide confidence to future researchers in conducting cross-cultural research in under-researched areas of the world.

Practical and actionable implications. Very little research has combined the fields ofconsumer behavior, psychology of money (Monetary Intelligence), and business ethics toinvestigate the temptation to unethical intentions relationships. When constructsthat do notnormally come near one anothercollide, the ultimate novelty of the solution will be greater(Amabile, 1998; Tang, 2010). We apply multiple lenses and provide a new, cross-disciplinaryperspective by infusing theory of free willconstructs traditionally dominated by scholars in the

economic psychology and consumer behaviorinto the business ethics domain.We clearly demonstrate the complexity of identifying both positive and negative paths for

the whole sample and across gender using a very simple yet elegant and sophisticated theoreticalmodel. We apply the carefully developed theory with solid psychometric properties to assess

intra-personal and inter-personal and future cross-cultural differences in temptation. Futureresearchers may develop training programs to help people assess and understand (cognitive andcontrol aspects) temptation, money smart, unethical intentions, and other new constructs,


23/38


propose possible changes to improve actionable behaviors, and enhance satisfaction in differentaspects of their lives.

The self-control and cognitive thinking aspects of our temptation construct serve as a

double-edge sword because strong self-control and cognitive ability are associated with unethicalintentions, but lack of self-control and cognitive impairment are related to poor monetary

intelligence. First, acts of self-regulation withoutrest or replenishment (Muraven & Baumeister,2000) impair subsequent self-regulatory efforts (Baumeister, 2002; Gino et al., 2011). Self-

control is the poorest among people who have performed a prior act of self-control.Sleepdeprivation causes workplace deviance due to the depletion of self-regulatory resources(Christian & Ellis, 2011). When crucial resources have been depleted, they are more likely toyield to temptation and act impulsively. People without a strong will become weak physically,psychologically, and spiritually.Second, recent scandals arenotcaused by executives lack ofintelligence or brains, nor accidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive impairment; but rather, bytheir lack of wisdom, virtue (Feiner, 2004: 85; Tang & Liu, 2012) and malicious intent.

Most cold-heartedly executives and individuals with self-control and executive function seize theopportunity to engage in unethical behaviors for financial gains. Alternatively, mentallychallenged individualsprobably cant execute unethical intentions properly.

Positive indirect path exists for females, but not for males. Here are some possibleimplications for consumers. Americans are on diet. The prevalence of dieting varied by

gender and race (the highest: white women, 21% vs. the lowest: Hispanic men, 8%). About 71%of all dieters reported that they were dieting to improve health, and 50% reported that they weredieting to lose weight (Paeratakul et al., 2002).Females are more likely to fall into temptationthan males because those who want to control themselves (e.g., on diet) may deplete self-regulatory resources quickly, spend their money spontaneously when given an opportunity,

engage in poor stewardship of money, and enjoy the moment (Baumeister et al., 1994, 2008;Tice et al., 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that males tend to exercise strong control, godirectly to the store, buy exactly what they want to buy quickly; whereas females are more likelyto fall into temptation, lose their control, distracted by advertisements and items on sale, makeunnecessary purchases, and buy items that are not originally intended. Consumers purchasingbehaviors are directly associated with their personal values (materialism and the love of money),financial responsibilities, demographic variables, previous acts of control, and varioustemptations in the social environment (Gardarsdottir & Dittmar, 2012). Due to temptation,

people become disoriented and lose their abilities to concentrate on important, long-term goals.Cognitive impairment causes impulsive behaviors, as a consequence. At the end of the day,hungry and exhausted consumers, for example, may buy many goods/products for instantgratification rather than their long-term goals. With strong and sufficient financial resources,

consumers may enjoy their consumptions. Without it, they may be deep in debt. Researchers andpractitioners must simplify options and choices for products and services; reduce complexity,overload, stress, and fatigue (sleep deprivation); avoid the depletion of self-regulatory resources;


24/38


and provide positive temptation (moral values) to enhance proper consumption and ethicaldecision-making in organizations.

Limitations. Our reflective (Figure 2) and formative (Figure 3) model of temptationshow strong relationships between the five sub-constructs and the overall temptation construct.

Further, we have provides good Cronbachs alpha and composite reliability for the temptationconstruct. However, two sub-constructs of temptation have weak reliability measures. Thus,future researchers may want to enhance these sub-constructs. Further, we collected data with a

reasonable sample size from one institution in the southeastern US. Scholars may want to testour theoretical models in other institutions, cultures, and countries to enhance thegeneralizability of constructs examined in the present study.

Conclusion. We investigate the relationship between temptation and unethical intentions,

treat monetary intelligence (MI) as a mediator, and examine the direct and indirect pathssimultaneously based on multiple-wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees anduniversity (business) students. Thepositive indirectpath suggests: Yielding to temptationhigh

cognitive impairment and lack of self-controlis related to poor monetary intelligence (lowstewardship behavior but high cognitive meaning) that, in turn, is related to high unethicalintentions. Our counterintuitive negative directpath reveals that controlling temptation (lowcognitive impairment and high self-control) is significantly related to unethical intentions (theft,corruption, and deception). Due to the multiple faces of temptationfalling and not falling into

temptation, the overall impactof temptation onunethical intentions is substantiallydark. Itimplies that maliciously controlled temptation is related to deviant intentions. Subsequentmulti-group analysis across gender reformulates the mystery of temptation: Males overall darkimpactof temptation on unethical intentions is substantial and significant due to a negative direct path.Females significant positive indirect path shows a negligible overall dark impact on unethicalintentions. Females dont have a maliciously controlled temptation to directly engage inunethical behaviors, but are likely to succumb to temptation, become less money smart, and havehigh unethical intentions. Overall, males are more unethical than their female counterparts. Bothfalling and not falling into temptation lead to unethical intentions ; temptations impact,however, varies across gender. Our findings offer great implications for researchers in consumerbehavior and business ethics. Our counterintuitive, novel, and original theoretical, empirical, andpractical contributions may spark curiosity and add new vocabulary to the conversationregarding temptation, money attitudes, consumer psychology, and business ethics.


25/38


APPENDIX A

The Temptation Scale

Antecedents of Temptation

Factor 1: Impulsive/Spontaneous Behavior

1. Temptations provoke us to think and act irrationally.2. Temptations motivate us to behave spontaneously and impulsively.3. Temptations persuade us to follow our feelings and hearts at the moment and take action right away.

Factor 2: Cognitive Impairment4. Temptations corrupt us and cause us to make inappropriate decisions.5. Temptations control our thoughts and behaviors and prevent us from concentrating on anything else.6. Temptations make us feel weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually.

Factor 3: Lack of Self-Control7. Temptations prevent us from thinking clearly about goals, ideals, and plans.8. Temptations weaken the control of our emotions, desires, urges, or itch.9. Temptations cause us to lose track of our own behaviors.

Factor 4: Social Moral Values10. Temptations persuade our role models (stars/CEOs) with status and power to cave in to them.11. Temptations are easier to accept when our friends and peers are doing them.12. Temptations presented positively (the Ten Commandments, honor code) reduce cheating and lying.

Factor 5: Getting Rich

13. Temptations are more prominent to those who want to get rich.14. Temptations are more salient (important) to those who have a high love-of-money orientation.15. Temptations are more powerful to those who want to take risks.

Consequences of TemptationA (Reflective vs. Formative)

16. Temptations provoke us to become selfish and ignore others needs, rights, and concerns.

17. Temptations stimulate us to get carried away and overlook (ignore) all other important matters.Consequences of TemptationB (SEM Model)18. Temptations lead us to foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.19. Temptations corrupt our moral beliefs or ethical standards.

Monetary Intelligence (MI)

Affective Motive of Money

Rich

1. I want to be rich.2. It would be nice to be rich.3. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good.

Motivator

4. Money reinforces me to work harder.5. I am motivated to work hard for money.6. I am highly motivated by money.

Importance

7. Money is valuable.8. Money is important.


26/38


9. Money is good.

The Behavioral Stewardship of Money

Make Money

10. I find smarter and better ways of making money.

11. I look for new and legal ways to make money.12. I am proud of my ability to make money.Budget Money

13. I budget my money very well.14. I use my money very carefully.15. I am proud of my ability to save money.

Donate Money to Charity

16. I give generously to charitable organizations.17. I believe in charitable giving.18. I give money to the Church (religious organization(s)).

Cognitive Meaning of MoneyRespect

19. Money makes people respect me in the community.20. Money helps me gain respect.21. Money allows me to express myself.

Achievement

22. Money represents my achievement.23. Money is a symbol of my success.24. Money reflects my accomplishments.

Power

25. Money is power.

26. Money gives one considerable power.27. Money controls and manipulates your behavior, when you are paid.Contribute-The Matthew Effect

28. More money should be paid to people with higher quality of performance.29. More money should be paid to people with more talent.30. More money should be paid to people with higher merit (performance).

Machiavellianism1. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.2. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.3. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.

4. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given achance.

Unethical Behavior Intentions (PUB)

Theft1. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking.


27/38


2. Take merchandise and/or cash home.3. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the customers).

Corrupt Intent4. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting records.5. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to ones position and power.

6. Lay off employees to save the company money and increase ones personal bonus.Deception7. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher bonus.8. Give customers discounts first and then secretively charge them more money later (bait & switch). 9. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know about their benefits.


28/38


REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50, 179-211.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity.Harvard Business Review, 76 (5), 76-87.Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-

cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moralidentity centrality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123-141.

Ariely, D. (2008). How honest people cheat.Harvard Business Review, 86(2), 24.Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-

analytic review.British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., and Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror

management account of materialism and consumer behavior.Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 14 (3), 198-212.

Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevio, L. K. (2008). Introduction to specialtopic forum: Re-viewing organizational corruption.Academy of Management Review, 33,670-684.

Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 25, 152.

Associated Press.(2006, January 30). U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933: Consumersdepleting savings to buy cars, other big-ticket items.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2010).Report to the Nations: On occupational fraudand abuse. 2010 Global fraud study. http://www.acfe.com/rttn.aspx.

Bagozzi, R. P., Tybout, A. M., Craig, C. S., & Sternthal, B. (1979). The contrast validity of thetripartite classification of attitudes.Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 88-95.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal ofPersonality and social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2013).Management: Leading & Collaboratingin the competitive world(10th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, andconsumer behavior.Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is theactive self a limited resource?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994).Losing control: How and why peoplefail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Sparks, E. A., Stillman, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Free will in consumerbehavior: Self-control, ego depletion, and choice.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(1), 4-13.

Belk, R. W. (1984). 3 scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity,and relationships to measures of happiness.Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 291-297.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal ofConsumer Research, 12 (3): 265-280.
http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=5http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=5http://apps.isiknowledge.com/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&db_id=&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&name=Sheldon%20KM&ut=000221918400002&pos=4http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&page=1&doc=1http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&page=1&doc=1http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=5http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=5http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=5http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=5http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&page=1&doc=1http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&page=1&doc=1http://apps.isiknowledge.com/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&db_id=&SID=1F85AHoiMcBldKnFilB&name=Sheldon%20KM&ut=000221918400002&pos=4http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=5http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=5


29/38


Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self.Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2),139-168.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 349-360.

Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-making: A

multidimensional construct.Business Ethics: A European Review, 12 (1), 1-3.Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigatingmediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (5), 104-1117.

Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethicalbehavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students.Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 69 (1), 77-93.

Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2012/forthcoming). The bright and dark sides of religiosity amonguniversity students: Do gender, college major, and income matter?Journal of BusinessEthics.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233-255.Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on workplacedeviance: A self-regulatory perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 913-934.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.Collins, R. L., Koutsky, J. R., & Izzo, C. V. (2000). Temptation, restriction, and the regulation of

alcohol intake: Validity and utility of the temptation and restraint inventory.Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, 61 (5), 766-773.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2011). Organizational behavior: Improvingperformance and commitment in the workplace. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: Afive-decade study of theAcademy of Management Journal.Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1281-1303.

Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and religion: Religiosity as apredictor of ethical awareness among students.Journal of Business Ethics, 50 (4), 383-396.

Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of US environmentalmanagers: Applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior.Academy of ManagementJournal, 43, 627-641.

Cozzolino, P. J., Sheldon, K. M., Schachtman, T. R., & Meyers, L. S. (2009). Limited timeperspective, values, and greed: Imagining a limited future reduces avarice in extrinsicpeople.Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 399-408.

The Daily Record. (2003, April 5). Commentary: Education, ethics, and sentences for Enronizingfinancial reports, Baltimore, MD, p. 1.

De Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports and coworker reports ofcounterproductive work behavior: A cross-sectional multi-source survey among healthcare workers.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 699-707.

Deshpande, S. P. (1997). Manager's perception of proper ethical conduct: the effect of sex, age,
http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=4CMGcEnCA@omAJMda7o&Func=Abstract&doc=1/2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=4CMGcEnCA@omAJMda7o&Func=Abstract&doc=1/2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=25&SID=4EO32cnE3AdB277nA2f&page=1&doc=7http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=25&SID=4EO32cnE3AdB277nA2f&page=1&doc=7http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=14http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=14http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=2BjmiAc@75oigI82cJj&page=1&doc=2http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=14http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=14http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=25&SID=4EO32cnE3AdB277nA2f&page=1&doc=7http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=25&SID=4EO32cnE3AdB277nA2f&page=1&doc=7http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=4CMGcEnCA@omAJMda7o&Func=Abstract&doc=1/2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=4CMGcEnCA@omAJMda7o&Func=Abstract&doc=1/2


30/38


and level of education.Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1): 79-85.Dew, J., & Xiao, J. J. (2011). The financial management behavior scale: Development and

validation.Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 22 (1), 43-59.Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral

integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior.Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91,622-635.Du, L. Z., Tang, T. L. P., & Yang, D. T. (2007). Money profile and unethical behavior: A studyof full-time employees and university students in China. (Chapter 7, pp. 135-148). In L.A. Parrish (Ed.).Business ethics in focus. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Publishers.

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods,14 (2), 370-388.

Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships betweenconstructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 155-174.

Feiner, M. (2004). The Feiner points of leadership. New York: Warner Business Books.Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation:

Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation.Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84 (2), 296-309.Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence fromdiplomatic parking tickets.Journal of Political Economy, 115 (6), 1020-1048.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know whatyoure doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior.International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41-60.

Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159-171.

Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personality andIndividual Differences, 5, 501-509.

Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge.Gardarsdottir, R. B., & Dittmar, H. (2012). The relationship of materialism to debt and financial

well-being: The case of Icelands perceived prosperity.Journal of Economic Psychology,33 (3), 471-481.

Gbadamosi, G., & Joubert, P. (2005). Money ethic, moral conduct and work related attitudes:Field study from the public sector in Swaziland.Journal of Management Development,24, 754-763.

Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processingof monetary gains and losses. Science, 295 (5563), 2279-2282.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009a). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence ofwealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 142-155.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009b). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20 (9),1153-1160.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: Howself-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 115 (2), 191-203.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderatorsof theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 54, 81-103.
http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4DOHeDKLM6J6dJooHI2&page=1&doc=1http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4DOHeDKLM6J6dJooHI2&page=1&doc=1http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=2http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=2http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=3&doc=110http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=3&doc=110http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=3&doc=110http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=3&doc=110http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=2http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=2http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4DOHeDKLM6J6dJooHI2&page=1&doc=1http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SID=4DOHeDKLM6J6dJooHI2&page=1&doc=1


31/38


Helman, R., Copeland, C., & VanDerhei, J. (2012). The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey:Job insecurity, debt weigh on retirement confidence, savings.EBRI issue brief/EmployeeBenefit Research Institute, 369, 5-32, 1.

Heney, D. (2012, April 16). Pastor of St. Paschal Baylon Catholic Church, Thousand Oaks, CA.Personal communication.

Hoffman, J. J. (1998). Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on thesituation.Journal of Managerial Issues, 10 (1), 60-73.Hofmann, W., Deutsch, R., Lancaster, K., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). Cooling the heat of

temptation: Mental self-control and the automatic evaluation of tempting stimuli.European Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (1), 17-25.

Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us not into temptation:Automatic attitudes, dietary restraints, and self-regulatory resources as determinants ofeating behavior.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 497-504.

Holub, A., Hodgins, D. C., & Peden, N. E. (2005). Development of the temptations for gamblingquestionnaire: A measure of temptation in recently quit gamblers. Addiction Research &Theory, 13 (2), 179-191.

Hudmon, K. S., Prokhorov, A. V., Koehly, L. M., DiClemente, D. C., & Gritz, E. R. (1997).Psychometric properties of the decisional balance scale and the temptations to trysmoking inventory in adolescents.Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 6(3),1-18.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of constructindicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199-218.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American-dream: Correlates of financial

success as a central life aspiration.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (2),410-422.

Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1993). Ethics and service marketing.Journal of Business Ethics,12 (10), 785-795.

Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service motivation: Reflective versusformative specification.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 521-546.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevio, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and badbarrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work.Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 1-31.

Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in corporations: Root causes, victims,and strategies for reform.Academy of Management Executive, 17, 139141.

Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2011). Tricky treats: Paradoxical effects of

temptation strength on self-regulation processes. European Journal of Social Psychology,41 (3), 281-2898.

Latham, L. L., & Perlow, R. (2006). The relationship of client-directed aggressive and nonclient-directed aggressive work behavior with self-control.Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 26(12), 1127-1041.

Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology ofa strong incentive.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29 (2), 161-209.

Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (1997). Sex, money and financial hardship: An empirical study of
http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=33http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=33http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=33http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=24http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=24http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=4EdE3MnIjAIB2jn96iC&page=1&doc=24http://apps.webofknowledge.c

2012_JBE_Temptation

Documents

Transcript of 2012_JBE_Temptation