The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Who Gets the Moral Credit? The Source of Moral Recognition Shapes Unethical Workplace Intentions Beyond Moral Justification
Abstract
Moral licensing research suggests that prior moral behavior can sometimes relax self‐regulation, increasing openness to subsequent misconduct. Yet moral recognition may also foster moral consistency, particularly when moral credit is clearly attributable to the self or conveyed through norm‐relevant authority. In a controlled experimental study, we tested whether the source of moral recognition—individual, team‐based, or leader‐based—differentially predicts unethical workplace behavioral intentions and moral justification, and whether any effects on unethical intentions persist beyond moral justification. Overall, condition influenced both outcomes. Planned contrasts indicated lower unethical intentions following personal (individual) recognition compared to team‐based recognition and a neutral control condition. Moral justification was positively associated with unethical intentions, consistent with moral disengagement accounts, but it did not mediate the effects of moral recognition cues. Multicategorical models further showed residual inhibitory effects of individual‐ and leader‐based recognition on unethical intentions after controlling for moral justification. Together, these findings challenge a simple licensing interpretation and instead suggest that moral recognition tied to personal agency or authority‐based norms may function as a self‐regulatory cue, reducing unethical intentions through self‐regulatory processes not fully captured by explicit moral justification. Implications for moral licensing theory and organizational recognition practices 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.
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.geb.2021.12.001 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167215572134 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00438.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.001 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781316225608.004 · DOI
- 10.1111/spc3.12500 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0227036 · DOI
- 10.1177/0149206314546196 · DOI
- Hayes A. F., 2022, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach
- 10.1080/08959285.2023.2248961 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167211400208 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-023-05608-5 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10490-020-09736-8 · DOI
- 10.15626/MP.2018.878 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5465/amj.2008.0276 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00082.x · DOI
- 10.1108/JABES-08-2020-0099 · DOI
- 10.1177/01461672251345512 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x · DOI
- 10.1111/jasp.12732 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80024-2 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.07.002 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Scaffidi Abbate, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2026-06-29
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 586-594
- ISSN
- 0021-9029
- 1559-1816
- Cited by
- 0
- Language
- en
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