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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“these items do not reflect any attempts to provide an employee’s justification of managerial mistreatment in a workplace context.”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moore et al.’s (2012) moral justification dimension item in the Propensity to Morally Disengage Scale does not reflect our construct”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“attribution of blame dimensions of both studies has more appropriate items to adapt to our construct”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al., 2012
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
Tabri, N., & Elliott, C. M. (2012) · Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology · doi:10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787 · Cited by 39,094
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 19,180
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5 · Cited by 16,280
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,211
Scale Development: Theory and Applications.
Xie, Y.-P., & Devellis, R. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2075704 · Cited by 14,143
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Bandura A, 1990, Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of mind, 161
- Brief AP, 2001, Groups at work: Theory and research, 471
- 10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.497 · DOI
- Duffy MK, 2005, Moral disengagement and social identification: When does being similar result in harm doing?
- Duffy MK, 2002, Moral disengagement and antisocial behavior at work
- Gross E, 1978, Organizational crime: A theoretical perspective, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 55
- 10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8 · DOI
- Rest JR, 1990, DIT manual
- Schwab DP, 1980, Construct validity in organizational behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3
- 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.102 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/258313 · DOI
- Treviño LK, 2008, Motivated moral disengagement: Dispositional and situational influences on ethical reasoning and behavior
- U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 2010, Information reporting program advisory committee: Tax gap subgroup report
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(Un)Ethical Behavior in Organizations
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745 · Cited by 794
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000111 · Cited by 519
D’Arcy, J., Herath, T. C., & Shoss, M. K. (2014) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222310210 · Cited by 552
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000111 · Cited by 439
The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions.
Welsh, D. T., Ordóñez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036950 · Cited by 392
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
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-02-27
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-48
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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
