CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,159Ethics in Business and EducationJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

WHY EMPLOYEES DO BAD THINGS: MORAL DISENGAGEMENT AND UNETHICAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Open access
MOORE, CELIA, DETERT, JAMES R., KLEBE TREVIÑO, LINDA, BAKER, VICKI L., MAYER, DAVID M.·2012·Personnel Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We examine the influence of individuals’ propensity to morally disengage on a broad range of unethical organizational behaviors. First, we develop a parsimonious, adult‐oriented, valid, and reliable measure of an individual's propensity to morally disengage, and demonstrate the relationship between it and a number of theoretically relevant constructs in its nomological network. Then, in 4 additional studies spanning laboratory and field settings, we demonstrate the power of the propensity to moral disengage to predict multiple types of unethical organizational behavior. In these studies we demonstrate that the propensity to morally disengage predicts several outcomes (self‐reported unethical behavior, a decision to commit fraud, a self‐serving decision in the workplace, and supervisor‐ and coworker‐reported unethical work behaviors) beyond other established individual difference antecedents of unethical organizational behavior, as well as the most closely related extant measure of the construct. We conclude that scholars and practitioners seeking to understand a broad range of undesirable workplace behaviors can benefit from taking an individual's propensity to morally disengage into account. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 125 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Bandura A, 1990, Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of mind, 161
  2. Brief AP, 2001, Groups at work: Theory and research, 471
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.497 · DOI
  4. Duffy MK, 2005, Moral disengagement and social identification: When does being similar result in harm doing?
  5. Duffy MK, 2002, Moral disengagement and antisocial behavior at work
  6. Gross E, 1978, Organizational crime: A theoretical perspective, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 55
  7. 10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8 · DOI
  8. Rest JR, 1990, DIT manual
  9. Schwab DP, 1980, Construct validity in organizational behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3
  10. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.102 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.2307/258313 · DOI
  12. Treviño LK, 2008, Motivated moral disengagement: Dispositional and situational influences on ethical reasoning and behavior
  13. U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 2010, Information reporting program advisory committee: Tax gap subgroup report

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–999 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
MOORE, C., DETERT, J. R., KLEBE TREVIÑO, L., BAKER, V. L., & MAYER, D. M.
Affiliations
  • London Business School (GB)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Albion College (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
MOORE, CELIA
ORCID
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-27
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
1-48
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
OpenAlex
W2119482439
Cited by
1,159
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 140 · 2025: 126 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 7
FWCI
69.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
moral disengagement, individual differences, fraud, self-serving behavior, unethical workplace behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review