Most companies use codes of conduct, ethics training, and regular communication to ensure that employees know about rules to follow to avoid misconduct. In the present research, we focused on the type of language used in codes of conduct and showed that impersonal language (e.g., “employees” or “members”) and personal, communal language (e.g., “we”) lead to different behaviors because they change how people perceive the group or organization of which they are a part. Using multiple methods, including lab- and field-based experiments (total N = 1,443), and a large data set of S&P 500 firms (i.e., publicly traded, large U.S. companies that are part of the S&P 500 stock market index), we robustly demonstrated that personal, communal language (compared with impersonal language) influences perceptions of a group’s warmth, which, in turn, increases levels of dishonesty among its members.
AakerJ.VohsK. D.MogilnerC. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.
3.
AzevedoR. T.PanasitiM. S.MaglioR.AgliotiS. M. (2018). Perceived warmth and competence of others shape voluntary deceptive behaviour in a morally relevant setting. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 25–44.
4.
BeckerG. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. In WittR.ClarkeA.FieldingN. (Eds.), The economic dimensions of crime (pp. 13–68). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BernhardH.FehrE.FischbacherU. (2006). Group affiliation and altruistic norm enforcement. American Economic Review, 96, 217–221.
6.
BohnetI.FreyB. S.HuckS. (2001). More order with less law: On contract enforcement, trust, and crowding. American Political Science Review, 95, 131–144.
7.
ClarkM. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549–557.
8.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
9.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ.PowellM. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 333–338.
10.
ClarkM. S.OuelletteR.PowellM. C.MilbergS. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103.
11.
DoosjeB.EllemersN.SpearsR. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.
12.
FeldmanY. (2018). The law of good people: Challenging states’ ability to regulate human behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed)stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
14.
GächterS.RennerE.SeftonM. (2008). The long-run benefits of punishment. Science, 322, 1510.
15.
GneezyU.RustichiniA. (2000). A fine is a price. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–17.
16.
GoodwinG. P.PiazzaJ.RozinP. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168.
17.
HildrethJ. A. D.GinoF.BazermanM. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 16–36.
18.
KajackaiteA.GneezyU. (2017). Incentives and cheating. Games and Economic Behavior, 102, 433–444.
19.
Kish-GephartJ. J.HarrisonD. A.TreviñoL. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.
20.
KouchakiM.GinoF. (2016). Memories of unethical actions become obfuscated over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 6166–6171.
21.
KouchakiM.SmithI. H. (2014). The morning morality effect: The influence of time of day on unethical behavior. Psychological Science, 25, 95–102.
22.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
23.
MazarN.AmirO.ArielyD. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.
24.
MillsJ.ClarkM. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 121–144.
25.
MishinaY.DykesB. J.BlockE. S.PollockT. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 701–722.
26.
PaineL.DeshpandeR.MargolisJ. D.BettcherK. E. (2005). Up to code: Does your company’s conduct meet world-class standards?Harvard Business Review, 83, 122–133.
27.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371.
28.
Sánchez-PagésS.VorsatzM. (2007). An experimental study of truth-telling in a sender–receiver game. Games and Economic Behavior, 61, 86–112.
29.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2011). Mean gods make good people: Different views of God predict cheating behavior. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 85–96.
30.
SigallH.MillsJ. (1998). Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in social psychology experiments: But are they necessary?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 218–226.
31.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2013, January). Life after P-hacking. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2205186
32.
UmphressE. E.BinghamJ. B.MitchellM. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780.
33.
WeickK. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. In StawB. (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 41–74). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
