Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption
(USC Thesis Other)
The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE CURSE OF LOYALTY: INTERDEPENDENT SELF CONSTRUAL AND SUPPORT
FOR CORRUPTION
By
Priyanka Joshi
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)
August 2016
2
DEDICATION
Neelesh, for treating my aspirations as your own, you have been with me every step of the way,
and I am grateful for your companionship, love, and faith.
My parents, for your overzealous enthusiasm and unrelenting spirit, traits that I have
unknowingly adopted.
Ajji, you are a born psychologist and a living inspiration.
Myra, for being a grounding force in my life, you make every moment meaningful.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my mentor Nate Fast. Nate, your passion
for research, depth of knowledge, keen eye for human psychology, and commitment to your
students has played a big role in making the journey towards the doctorate stimulating and
enjoyable, most of the time. I have benefited tremendously from your generous guidance, high
standards, and invaluable feedback. You epitomize a true guide, scholar, and philosopher.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee—Cheryl Wakslak,
Peter Kim, Wendy Wood, and Scott Wiltermuth, each of whom has played an integral part in my
training. Cheryl, I have truly valued your mentorship, encouragement, and friendship through my
years in graduate school. I have learnt so much about being an academic and a person from you,
I am still not sure about the details of managing work and family, but you clearly serve as a role
model. Your excitement about research and scientific acumen and rigor are truly inspiring. Peter,
I want to thank you for serving as an advisor on many occasions, for conversations about
research and academic life, and for your intellectual contributions to the dissertation. Wendy, I
want to thank you for your guidance and mentorship in my initial years in graduate school, you
truly took me under your proverbial wing when I needed it the most. Scott, thank you for serving
as the expert in morality on the committee.
I want to thank Nandini Rajagopalan and Kyle Mayer for their guidance. I am also
thankful to Jesse Graham and members of the VIM Lab for their inputs on my research. I also
owe gratitude to Norman Miller for passing on the Campbellian experimental spirit and to Lynn
Miller for the discussions on evolution and human behavior. There were many faculty and
reviewers whose inputs I have benefited from including Sarah Townsend, Jennifer Overbeck and
Jen Mueller. Many research assistants have dedicated their time to my projects and have played
4
an integral role in the completion of my dissertation—Mindy Truong, Chris Koeu, Sarah
Nuslein, Kian Siong Tey, Linda, Raquel, and Hoang. I would like to thank members of the OB
Lab and Hierarchy Networks and Technology Lab for their comments and feedback on
manuscripts. Thanks to Jennifer Lim, Queenie Taylor, Michelle Lee, and Liz Chang for their
help with coordinating subject pool and navigating university bureaucracies. My colleagues and
collaborators on projects have played an important role in my graduate experience and I truly
appreciated their camaraderie—Yeri Cho, YooKyoung Kim, Adam Wood, Roshni Raveendhran,
Derek Harmon, Mariam Krikorian, Heejin Woo, Pablo Mondal, Alex Wang, Jennifer Labrecque,
Medha Raj, Tim Hayes, Marija Spanovic, and Mayuko Onuki.
Finally, I want to thank my family (and friends who are akin to family). Your support,
encouragement, and faith plays a vital role in every step I take. Even though mentioned last, you
are clearly a vital force in my life. I want to thank my non-academia friends who have often
times created a much needed distraction from academic life.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 6
ABSTRACT 7
INTRODUCTION 9
SELF CONSTRUAL, ROLE EXPECTATIONS, AND SUPPORT FOR CORRUPTION 10
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH 18
STUDY 1A 19
STUDY 1B 21
STUDY 2 22
STUDY 3 29
STUDY 4 34
STUDY 5 39
GENERAL DISCUSSION 42
CONCLUSION 46
REFERENCES 47
APPENDIX A 53
6
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Correlation table representing the relation between university cultural interdependence
and NCAA sanctions (Study 2)
Figure 1: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act (Study 3)
Figure 2: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act (Study 4)
Figure 3: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act that benefited the group (Study 5)
Figure 4: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act that harmed the group (Study 5)
7
ABSTRACT
Corruption thrives when individuals fail to take actions to stop it. In this dissertation, I
integrate research on the self and social roles to illuminate when and why individuals overlook
corrupt behavior in groups and organizations. I hypothesize that group members with an
interdependent self-construal are more likely than others to support corrupt actors that benefit the
group because benefitting group members is consistent with their social role expectations of
others. I begin by testing the idea interdependent self-construal is associated with benevolent
attributions about group member motives. As predicted, participants with an interdependent self-
construal, relative to those with an independent self-construal, expected group members to seek
collective gain (Studies 1a-1b). Next, I propose that because interdependent self-construal is
associated with positive expectations about group member motives, when group members meet
these expectations by engaging in pro-organizational corruption, they will be protected. Hence,
interdependent groups will experience greater emergence and proliferation of pro-organizational
corruption than independent groups. In Study 2, using an archival dataset of NCAA violations, I
show that interdependent schools were more likely to emphasize ingroup loyalty and experienced
greater emergence of unethical behavior. Next, I examine when and why interdependent self-
construal leads to tolerance of corruption by examining the effects of attributions about motives
of the deviant on punishment. In study 3, I show that interdependent self-construal leads to
greater tolerance of corruption, only when the corrupt practice is seen as motivated by group
interest. In study 4, I examine the mediating role of social role expectation of group members on
lower punishment of corrupt behavior, finding that interdependent self-construal influences
benevolent expectations about group members and results in protection of the corrupt member,
only when the behavior is pro-organizational. Finally, in Study 5, I replicate the previously found
8
effects of interdependence on tolerance of corruption and specifically examine the effects of
outcome of the corrupt act on punishment. Implications for research on the culture, roles, and
corruption is discussed.
9
INTRODUCTION
Corruption, embezzlement, fraud, these are all characteristics which exist everywhere. It is
regrettably the way human nature functions, whether we like it or not. What successful
economies do is keep it to a minimum. No one has ever eliminated any of that stuff.
--Alan Greenspan
Corruption—defined as the misuse of public office, trust, or power for personal or
collective gain (Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson, & Trevino, 2008)—is common across different types
of organizations, including government agencies, religious groups, academic institutions,
accounting firms, and pharmaceutical companies, to name a few. Corruption leads to lower trust
in the organization and its members, increased perception of unfairness among societal members,
as well as costs to the legal system to keep corrupt acts under check (Eicher, 2009). National
level corruption is associated with reduced economic growth, restrictive trade policies, and
reduced private investment (Treisman, 2007). Accordingly, the World Bank has identified
corruption as an important barrier to social and economic welfare. Given these negative
consequences, understanding the underlying factors that allow corruption to emerge and persist
is important.
Although little is known about why people respond favorably or unfavorably to others’
corrupt acts, the question of when and why individuals engage in corrupt behaviors has received
much attention (for a review, see Moore & Gino, 2013). For instance, people are more likely to
cheat when exposed to symbols of wealth and abundance than when exposed to scarcity (Gino &
Pierce, 2012). People also cheat more when wearing counterfeit products, as these bogus
products make people feel less authentic resulting in a distance from their moral values (Gino,
Norton, & Ariely, 2010). People cheat more when multiple people benefit from the cheating than
10
when there is a sole beneficiary (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2013; Wiltermuth, 2011). In addition,
when their dishonest behavior benefited others, people viewed their behavior as less unethical
and more justifiable (Gino et al., 2013). Individuals who have a strong moral identity, such that
their morals play an important role in their self definition (Aquino & Reed, 2002), are less likely
to engage in unethical behavior, even when situational characteristics predispose them do so.
Aside from factors that motivate individuals to engage in corrupt behaviors, predicting
how those around them will respond is important. Indeed, in many cases, corruption occurs and
persists largely because members of the group or organization willfully choose not to speak up,
electing instead to protect the corrupt members. Given this, understanding when and why people
support corrupt ingroup members is critical to predicting the conditions under which corruption
is most likely to thrive. Surprisingly, little is known about the psychological factors that lead
people to offer or withhold support for corrupt group members. I seek to address this issue by
examining how group culture influences people’s responses to corrupt group members. In
particular, I examine the somewhat ironic possibility that interdependent culture may create
conditions under which corruption can thrive.
SELF CONSTRUAL, ROLE EXPECTATIONS, AND SUPPORT FOR CORRUPTION
A first step toward understanding when group members will support (versus punish)
corrupt actors is to unpack the construct of corruption itself. As noted earlier, corruption involves
misusing one’s position or standing in order to achieve personal or collective gain. Examples of
corruption include lying, bribery, nepotism, and otherwise breaking the law in order to obtain
desired outcomes. Importantly, corrupt acts can benefit the individual engaging in the corrupt
act, the larger organization to which the corrupt member belongs, or both (Ashforth & Anand,
2003; Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). For instance, the accounting fraud at Enron and WorldCom
11
benefited multiple players, including the firms, top managers, and employees. Similarly, the
willingness of banks to bend rules to allow for risky investments and loans that led to the
financial crisis in 2008 benefited the banks as well as the borrowers, albeit in the short term.
Corrupt practices such as giving bribes to win a contract can potentially benefit not only the high
ranked individual giving the bribe, but also the members of their ingroup.
In the present research, I examine the role of self construal in predicting punishment of
corrupt acts that are pro-organizational. In fact, the realization that many immoral acts in
organizations are likely to benefit the organization has led researchers to examine the
antecedents of willingness to engage in unethical behavior that benefits the group, often labelled
as pro-organizational unethical behavior (Chen, Chen, & Sheldon, 2016; Thau, Derfler-Rozin,
Pitesa, Mitchell, & Pillutla, 2015; Umphress, Bingham, Mitchell, 2010; Umphress & Bingham,
2011). For instance, people who are strongly identified with a group are more willing to engage
in pro-organizational unethical behavior in the context of strong reciprocity norms (Umphress et
al., 2010) and external competition (Chen, Chen, & Sheldon, 2016). Furthermore, people are
more willing to engage in pro-organziational unethical behavior when risks of social exclusion
are salient (Thau et al., 2015). Much of this research has examined the causes of unethical
behavior, rather than people’s willingness to support other’s unethical behavior. However,
unwillingness of group members to speak up against ongoing corruption plays an important role
in the persistence of corruption. By drawing attention to factors that influence the willingness of
group members to stand up against corruption, I intend to highlight the important role that group
members play in reducing or supporting corrupt practices within the group.
I am interested in examining the effects of an interdependent self-construal on tolerance
of corruption. While previous research has examined the role of moral identity and ethical norms
12
on moral judgments, I am specifically interested in the ways in which interdependent self-
construal or the tendency to define oneself in relation to groups influences punishment or support
for corrupt practices. I draw on research on social roles to suggest that interdependent self-
construal influences expectations about group member motives and further influences
willingness to support group serving corruption.
Social Role Expectations
An initial clue as to what would lead group members to support a corrupt actor can be
found in the literature on social roles. To the degree that an actor’s corrupt behavior can be
construed as consistent with one’s social role expectations, group members may find it more
acceptable. The term role is typically used to refer to the set of behaviors and expectations that
an individual is expected to follow (e.g., Biddle, 1986). Social roles inform what behaviors and
attitudes are desired, appropriate, and acceptable in particular contexts and are useful because
they facilitate the smooth functioning of groups and organizations (Ashforth, 2000; Biddle, 1986;
Sluss, van Dick, & Thompson, 2011). Individuals are generally rewarded for meeting role
expectations and punished for failing to meet their role demands. First, observers respond
positively with greater trust, liking, and commitment to those who meet their role expectations.
For instance, patients are more satisfied with doctors who behave in ways that fit their perceived
role expectations (Larsen & Rootman, 1967). Second, observers tend to reject and sanction
individuals who do not meet role expectations. For instance, women who are highly assertive
and/or have high organizational status violate stereotypical gender role expectations and,
consequently, often experience backlash and negative attributions (Rudman & Glick, 2001).
Taken together, the research on social roles suggests that, to the degree that individuals perceive
a corrupt group member to be acting in accord with his or her social role, they will be more
13
likely to support the actor by not reporting or punishing him/her.
Independent versus Interdependent Self Construal
We propose that self-construal influences people’s expectations about what it means to
fulfill the role of ingroup member. Specifically, we suggest that interdependent self-construal,
which involves the expansion of one’s self-concept to include close others and significant groups
in one’s self definition (Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Oyserman & Lee, 2008), results in a strong
prescriptive expectation that group members seek to benefit the group and are committed to
group goals. Indirectly supporting this idea, previous research shows that interdependent self-
construal is associated with an assumption of common fate with the group. Individuals who have
an interdependent self-construal perceive a strong alignment between what is beneficial to self
with what benefits the group, such that their personal wellbeing is more strongly influenced by
the outcomes of the group than individuals who have individualistic values (Cross, Morris, &
Gore, 2002; Oyserman & Lee, 2008). As a result, interdependent individuals are more committed
to group goals (Earley, 1993; Hofstede, 1980), show enhanced prosocial orientation (Cross,
Morris, & Gore, 2002), and are less likely to socially loaf in group situations (Earley, 1989) as
compared to independent individuals, who tend to define their selves separately from their
groups (Markus & Kitayama, 2010).
Drawing from these ideas, we suggest that defining oneself interdependently with one’s
group leads to prescriptive expectations that ingroup members will actively pursue collective
gain. Because interdependent self-construal influences the extent to which an individual is
motivated to benefit the group, it may also influence the extent to which people expect other
group members to be motivated by similar group goals. Support for this line of thinking comes
from research examining cross-cultural differences in propensity to trust ingroup members.
14
Collectivistic cultures show greater trust in ingroup members than individualistic cultures (Huff
& Kelley, 2003. Collectivistic norms are associated with a stronger ingroup bias, such that
collectivists judge ingroup members more favorably than individualists (Gomez, Kirkman, &
Shapiro, 2000). Collectivistic cultures also value and prioritize benevolence more than
individualistic cultures (Schwartz, et al., 2001). While this previous research has focused on
cross-cultural and international differences, I believe that the individual level characteristic of
interdependent self-construal will result in a similar expectation of ingroup benevolence. Like
collectivists, I predict that interdependent individuals, who value group outcomes and define
their self in terms of the group, will expect similar group-serving motives and behaviors from
group members. Accordingly, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals with an interdependent self-construal are more likely than
those with an independent self-construal to expect that group members possess group-serving
motives.
Expectancy Violations
Expectancy violation theory (Burgoon, 1993) predicts that people pay attention to and
sanction behaviors that violate their expectations and respond favorably to behaviors that meet
expectations. This theory has found much support and shows that when faced with ambiguous
interactions, people’s expectations about the interaction often shape their experiences and the
extremity of their judgment. The more others’ behavior deviates from descriptive expectations
that people hold about situations, the more extreme the response to it (Kernahen, Batholow, &
Bettencourt, 2000). Based on this theory, I predict that the tendency of interdependent
individuals to expect group members to be motivated by collective gain will result in the
tendency to support individuals who meet these role expectations, even when their behavior is
15
corrupt. Individuals who have an interdependent self-construal are less likely than those with an
independent self-construal to see corrupt behaviors that are motivated by collective gain as
violating expectations. Corrupt behaviors may meet expectations about benevolence of group
members when a) the behavior benefits the group and b) the actor is motivated by benevolent
intentions. However, when the corrupt behavior harms the group or is self-interested, it will
violate the interdependent individual’s expectations about the benevolence of group members,
giving way to punishment rather than protection of the deviant.
Previous research suggests that collectivists value benevolence more than individualists
when making social judgments. Individuals from collectivistic cultures place greater emphasis on
the extent to which a behavior actually harms others rather than the extent to which it is fair and
just, when making ethical judgments (Miller, 1994). Similarly, when making judgments about
severity of deviance, collectivists place greater emphasis on the actual harm caused by the
deviance than individualists (Miller, 1994). Because of the importance collectivists and
individuals with an interdependent mindset place on benevolence of group members (Schwartz
& Ros, 1995; Schwartz et al., 2001), they may be more likely than individualists to protect group
serving corruption.
Pro-organizational unethical behavior or corruption is characteristic of group serving
corruption, that is, members engage in the unethical behavior in order to benefit themselves as
well as the group. These behaviors meet expectations about group member benevolence, even
though they are immoral. Because, interdependent self-construal is likely to result in tolerance
and support of such group serving behaviors, interdependent groups may be particularly
susceptible to the emergence and proliferation of pro-organizational unethical behaviors.
Previous research shows that members of groups characterized by interdependence or
16
collectivism construe their self interdependently whereas members of independent groups
construe their self as unique or independent from others. Hence, one would expect that due to the
tendency of interdependent individuals to protect group serving corruption, interdependent
groups would experience greater pro-organizational corruption than independent groups.
Furthermore, interdependent self-construal will lead to tolerance of corruption, only when the
corrupt act can be perceived as group serving. When unethical behaviors harm the group,
however, one would not expect interdependence to lead to support of the behavior. Accordingly,
I posit the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Individuals with an interdependent self-construal are less likely than those
with an independent self-construal to punish group members who engage in pro-organizational
corruption.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals with an interdependent self-construal expect group members to
be motivated by benevolence, and only protect pro-organizational corruption when these
expectations are met.
Hypothesis 4: Interdependent groups are more susceptible to the emergence of pro-
organizational corruption than independent groups.
On the surface, these suggestions might seem contradictory to previous work on
expectancy violation effects showing that people judge deviant ingroup members more harshly
than deviant outgroup members (Marques & Paez, 1994). Previous research on the ‘black sheep
effect’ suggests that we hold ingroup members to higher standards than outgroup members.
Hence when ingroup members violate our high expectations, we punish them more severely than
outgroup members who commit the same violation. However, this previous research examines
situations in which deviant acts cause harm to the group. Consequently, when participants feel
17
interdependent with the ingroup, they may personally feel harmed by the deviant’s actions and
hence make harsher judgments about the harm causing ingroup deviant. When a member of the
outgroup engages in harm causing deviance, participants may not feel that they will accrue the
costs of the deviant’s actions, resulting in lower punishment. In the current research, I examine
situations in which the unethical behavior is in fact beneficial for the group. When unethical
actors desire to benefit the group and are successful in this endeavor, interdependent individuals
may support such group-serving corruption.
If supported, these predictions will provide a number of theoretical advances. Firstly, this
research contributes to theory regarding the effects of interdependence on behavior. Previous
research suggests that interdependent self-construal influences one’s own cognitions, emotions,
and behaviors, showing that feeling interdependent with others results in greater perspective
taking, positive emotions, and prosocial behaviors (Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2001; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Yet, researchers have not examined how self-construal may influence
expectations of others and hence modify ones social judgments. My research is among the first to
suggest that interdependence not only influences one’s own behavior, but can also shape the
expectations we place upon others. Secondly, I extend role theory to suggest that role
expectations may be influenced by individual-level variables such as self-construal. Role
theorists have taken into account how cultural and situational factors influence expectations
placed upon individuals, but no research has examined how one’s own self-construal can
influence role expectations. Finally, my research extends existing theorizing on corruption and
unethical behavior by extending research attention beyond factors that lead individuals to engage
in corrupt acts to focus on members of the group who may serve to protect those engaging in
corrupt behaviors. We inform previous theories on responses to deviant members of the group by
18
suggesting that the outcome of the deviant act is critical in determining whether those who feel
interdependent with the group will punish the deviant actor or, instead, support the deviance.
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
Across a series of studies, I examine the effects of interdependence on responses to
corrupt actors in one’s group by using either a naturally occurring basis for these cognitions
(Study 1A and Study 2) or a mindset priming method (Study 1B, Study 3, Study 4, and Study 5),
an approach that has been widely used and validated to reflect individual differences in
independence and interdependence (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Oyserman & Lee,
2008). I begin by examining whether participants with an interdependent self-construal confer
greater benevolent motives to group members, expecting their group members to be motivated
by collective gain, more so than participants with an independent self-construal (Studies 1A and
1B). In Study 2, using archival data of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA)
sanctions, I examine whether universities with an interdependent culture experience greater
corruption than universities with an independent culture. In Study 3, I use a behavioral paradigm
to examine whether interdependent mindset leads to lower punishment of a student who cheats
on a word puzzle task, when the student indicates that they were motivated to benefit the group
rather than benefit the self. In Study 4, I examine whether interdependent self-construal results in
greater expectation that group members are motivated by collective gain. I further examine if
these expectations about group member motives explains why interdependent individuals are
more willing to protect group serving corrupt members. Finally, in Study 5, I examine whether
the tendency among those with an interdependent mindset to exonerate corrupt acts are
moderated by perceived motives of the actor as well as the outcome of the corrupt act. Thus,
across a series of study, I seek to draw converging evidence to examine the effects of
19
interdependence on corruption.
STUDY 1A
I begin with two studies to test the idea that people who define themselves
interdependently with their group expect members of their group to be motivated by collective
gain (Hypothesis 1). Participants completed a measure of individual differences in independence
and interdependence along with measures assessing their expectations regarding the motives of
ingroup and outgroup members.
Method
Participants: Participants were 68 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers ranging in
age from 18-63 years (M=33.4, SD=11.00) who participated in exchange for $0.5.
Interdependence measure: Participants completed a measure of independence and
interdependence (Singelis, 1994), using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Examples of items measuring independence included “I enjoy being unique and
different from others in many ways,” and “I feel it is important for me to act as an independent
person.” Examples of items measuring interdependence included “I feel good when I cooperate
with others,” and “my happiness depends on the happiness of those around me.”
Role expectations about motives of ingroup members: Participants rated the extent to
which they expected members of their group to be motivated by collective gain. They stated their
agreement with the following statements: “Members of my group will be motivated to benefit
my group” and “Members of my group will be motivated to benefit each other”, using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Role expectations about motives of outgroup members: Participants also rated the extent
to which they expected members of other groups to be motivated to benefit their own group
20
members. They stated their agreement with the following statements: “Members of other groups
will be motivated to benefit their own group” and “Members of other groups will be motivated to
benefit their own group members”, using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Results and Discussion
As expected, participants’ scores on interdependence (after controlling for independence)
predicted the extent to which they expected ingroup members to be motivated by collective gain,
B(67)= .72, SEB=.23, t=3.10, p=.003. Interdependence did not effect the extent to which
participants believed outgroup members would be motivated to benefit their own group
members, B(67)= .08, SEB=.25, t=.33, p=.74. Further, participants’ scores on the measure of
independence did not predict the extent to which they expected ingroup members to be motivated
by collective gain, B(67)= .05, SEB=.19, t=.25, p=.79; or outgroup members to be motivated by
collective gain, B(67)= .02, SEB=.84, t=.02, p=.98. Further, a repeated measures ANOVA
showed that participants were more likely to believe that members of their own group were more
motivated to benefit their group members than members of the outgroup, F (1,67)= 8.72, p=.004.
In addition, participants’ scores on measures of interdependence interacted with ratings of
ingroup and outgroup members motives towards collective gain, such that participants who
scored higher on interdependence were more likely to believe that ingroup members will be more
motivated by collective gain as compared to outgroup members, F(1,67)= 9.99, p=.002. Thus,
participants who define themselves interdependently are more likely than others to include the
motive to benefit the group as part of the ingroup member role.
21
STUDY 1B
After finding that interdependence is correlated with expectations about motives of
ingroup members, I wanted to test whether manipulating interdependence has similar effects. I
hypothesized that participants primed with interdependence are more likely to expect their group
members to be motivated by collective gain as compared to participants primed with
independence.
Method
Participants: Participants were 92 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers (48
women, 44 men), ranging in age from 18-73 years (M=36.22, SD=15.05) who participated in
exchange for $0.3.
Pronoun identification task: After providing consent to participate in the study,
participants were primed with either independence or interdependence via a task in which they
identified pronouns in a paragraph presented to them (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In the
independence mindset condition, the paragraph consisted of pronouns with a focus on I (e.g., me,
myself), whereas in the interdependence mindset condition, the paragraph consisted of pronouns
with a focus on We (e.g., us, our). Participants were asked to click on all the pronouns found
within the paragraph.
Following the pronoun identification task participants completed measures of role
expectations regarding ingroup member motives towards collective gain (Same as Study 1A)
Results and Discussion
Data of thirteen participants who did not complete the pronoun identification task were
excluded from analysis. As expected, participants primed with interdependence were more likely
to expect their ingroup members (M=5.36, SD=.90) to be motivated by collective gain as
22
compared to participants primed with independence (M=4.81, SD=1.27), t(78)=2.26, p=.02.
The pilot studies find support for Hypothesis 1, suggesting that people with an
interdependent mindset expect group members to be motivated by collective gain, more so than
people with an independent mindset. In the next study, I examine the implications of this
tendency for interdependent individuals expect benevolence from group members. Specifically,
using archival data of university deviance, I examine whether interdependence leads to greater
support and proliferation of pro-organizational corruption (Hypothesis 2 and 4).
STUDY 2
The aim of Study 2 was to examine the effects of cultural interdependence on support for
unethical behavior, particularly unethical behavior that can be characterized as pro-
organizational. I used data from the National Collegiate Athletic Associations (NCAA) in order
to test the idea that cultural interdependence would lead to greater emergence and proliferation of
corruption (Hypothesis 2 and 4). I measured cultural interdependence by analyzing the language
used by university presidents in their annual address to students. I relied on presidential speeches
as leaders of universities are most likely to shape and embody the culture of the university
(Schein, 1985; Baron & Hannan, 2002; O’Rielly, Caldwell, Chatman, & Doerr, 2014). A team of
research assistants used publically available speeches as well as contacted universities in order to
obtain the speeches of university presidents. When the speech was not available, they used
alternate documents to measure cultural interdependence in universities (Appendix A). I drew on
recent developments in the field of psycholinguistics to measure interdependent cultural norms
expressed in these speeches and tested whether interdependence predicted NCAA sanctions
received by the school in the last five years. I used the NCAA sanctions database because
majority of the unethical behaviors were pro-organizational (e.g. providing extra financial aid or
23
impermissible benefits to a student athlete, allowing ineligible students to compete, and
impermissible offcampus contacts with prospects and family members) and involved deviance
that usually was beneficial to a team or university, at least in the short term.
Context and Sample
The NCAA is a national governing body that regulates sports activities of more than 1200
colleges and universities across United States and Canada. The NCAA defines its core purpose
as seeking to “govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to
integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the
student-athlete is paramount.” In meeting with these goals, the NCAA plays an active role in
ensuring fairness in college sports by regulating and monitoring the ethical standards of athletic
programs and by setting standards and guidelines to assure fairness in competitions.
The NCAA committee on infractions actively monitors athletic programs, conducts
hearings and reviews when universities and colleges violate NCAA guidelines, and prescribe
penalties for violating institutions. A violation is deemed as a major infraction if the violation
“provides an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage.” On the other hand, secondary
violations are those that “provide only a limited recruiting or competitive advantage and is
isolated or inadvertent in nature.” Universities can chose whether to keep the secondary
violations private or allow a public record of these violations. On the other hand, all major
violations by the NCAA participating schools are made publically available by NCAA along
with a public report that provides details about nature of the violation, dates of violation,
sequence of events, number of people and teams involved, as well as the penalties incurred.
Sanctioned Schools
For the time period from Jan 1, 2010 to August 1, 2015; One hundred and three schools
24
received NCAA sanctions for engaging in major violations (Division 1: 63, Division 2: 17, and
Division 3:25). A research assistant coded the nature of infraction committed by the school by
reading the public report. In order to avoid subjectivity in coding, the research assistant coded
using criteria that are used by NCAA to report violations. For instance, NCAA provides
information about whether a university adequately monitored its athletic program as well as
whether the violation was self-reported. The research assistant coded for these variables not only
because I was interested in examining the effects of cultural interdependence on monitoring
tendencies, but also because the NCAA documents conveniently allowed us to code these
variables. Each of the infraction was coded using the criteria indicated below:
Self-report of violation: The NCAA report indicates whether a violation was self-
reported. If the report did not mention that the violation was self-reported, it was coded as not
self-reported (1= self-report; 2=not self-reported).
Failure to monitor: The NCAA report identifies whether a university failed to monitor
the deviance. If no information was provided about the universities monitoring systems, the
violation was coded as adequately monitored (1=failed to monitor, 2=adequately monitored).
Individual, group, or institutional level deviance: If the NCAA report identifies specific
individuals who were involved in the deviance (e.g. head coach, assistant) then the deviance was
coded as an individual level deviance. If the violation involved a specific sports team and its
members (e.g. special treatment for basketball players, discrepancies in financial aid provisions
to athletes) then the deviance was coded as a group level deviance. When multiple different
teams and officers in the University were involved in engaging and supporting the deviance, then
the violation was coded as an institutional level violation (1=individual level; 2=group level;
3=institutional level).
25
Number of years on probation: The first author also coded the sanctions placed by NCAA
against the particular individual, team, or university by noting the number of years the
individual, team, or school was on probation for committing the violation as indicated in the
NCAA report. This served as a measure of severity of deviance.
Research assistants coded whether the university document obtained was a presidential
speech or an alternate document. They were also requested to note the gender of the university
president in order to control for effects of gender on university president’s language use.
Matched Sample of Schools that Did Not Receive a Sanction
I sought to examine whether universities that received NCAA sanctions differed from
universities that did not receive an NCAA sanction. Approximately one third of the schools
received NCAA sanctions in the last 25 years, allowing us to select a sample of schools that
never received an NCAA sanction. In order to select a comparison group of universities that
differed in their tendency to engage in deviant activities, we selected a random sample of schools
that did not receive any NCAA sanctions in a 25 year period from Jan 1, 1990 to August 1, 2015.
The schools were matched by division such that the number of schools from each division in the
control group (non-sanctioned schools) were the same as the number of schools from each
division in the list of sanctioned schools, in order to control for any erroneous effects of school
status on culture and propensity to receive sanctions.
Measuring Interdependent Norms
Interdependent norms were measured by coding university documents for the extent to
which they used the collective pronoun ‘we’ versus the independent pronoun ‘I’ to address
members of the organization (Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2013). A team of research
assistants obtained speeches of university presidents from the year 2009, the year prior to which
26
we examined whether the school received an NCAA sanction, in order to eliminate the
possibility of reverse causality. We contacted the university special collections office, president’s
office and the university library to obtain the speech, when the speech was not publically
available in written, audio, or video formats. Audio and video speeches were transcribed by
research assistants and Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Research assistants who were
assisting us in locating the speeches were asked to use the following guidelines if they were not
able to locate the university president address to the students for the year 2009, they were
requested to adopt the sequence indicated in Appendix A to obtain a university document to
measure interdependence.
Interdependence was measured by creating a ratio of the number of times the university
president used the pronoun we instead of I while addressing students. We used a word count
software called Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) in order to obtain an estimate of the
extent to which the university president used the pronoun we and I. The ratio of we to I usage
was created as an index of cultural interdependence at the university. I then examined whether
cultural interdependence predicted the tendency to engage in unethical behavior. I was also
interested in examining whether interdependence resulted in greater support for corrupt behavior
involving reduced self-reporting of deviance, lower institutional monitoring, and involvement of
other individuals in the deviance as reflected in greater incidence of group and institutional level
deviance.
Results and Discussion
The interdependence scores were log-transformed due to non-normality of distribution.
Table 1 represents the correlation coefficients between log transformed interdependence scores
and outcome variables. As expected, cultural interdependence predicted the likelihood of
27
receiving an NCAA sanction, B=.64, SEB=.25, p=.01 (president gender and type of university
document included as covariates). Next, I examined whether interdependence led to greater
group and institutional level violations suggesting that other group members played a role in the
spread of corruption in interdependent schools. Cultural interdependence was associated with
greater support and involvement of others in violations, experiencing greater group and
institutional level violations, B=.23, SEB=.11, p=.03. In addition, I examined whether
interdependent schools were less likely to self report deviance and showed lower monitoring,
reflecting an unwillingness to speak up against corruption. I found that interdependence was not
associated with self reporting of deviancce, B=.11, SEB=.31, p=.72. However, cultural
interdependence was associated with lower monitoring by institutions and sports coaches, B=.90,
SEB=.44, p=.04. Cultural interdependence did not predict number of years on probation or
deviance severity, B=.23, SEB=.16, p=.14.
These findings provide evidence to suggest that 1) interdependent institutions were more
likely to engage in unethical violations and 2) Interdependent institutions showed greater support
for unethical behavior by demonstrating lower monitoring and group level deviance. I find that
interdependence does in fact lead to greater corruption and that interdependent groups are more
likely to fail to monitor unethical behavior and further are more likely to experience group level
violations, suggesting that interdependent groups may in fact be more likely to allow and support
unethical behavior. Thus, these data provides initial evidence to suggest that interdependence
paves the way for emergence of corruption and leads to organizational support for group serving
corruption.
The purpose of study 1 was to examine the relation between cultural interdependence and
tolerance of pro-organizational unethical behavior. In a field study of university culture and
28
engagement in unethical behavior in the context of sports organization, we find that cultural
interdependence predicts engagement in unethical behavior. Furthermore, interdependent
universities are more likely to experience group level violations, suggesting that individual
members in interdependent groups may be more likely to support and engage in unethical
behaviors themselves. Finally, interdependent groups are also more inclined to turn a blind eye to
group member transgression, hence failing to monitor institutional members.
In the studies that follow, I examine the causal role of cultural interdependence in
predicting tolerance of corrupt and unethical behavior. Furthermore, I examine situational
characteristics that lead to support for unethical behavior, examining the ways in situational
circumstances may promote corruption in interdependent groups. Drawing on social role theory,
I suggest that cultural interdependence results in tolerance of pro-organizational corruption, only
when the corrupt behavior is seen as motivated by group interest. Because cultural
interdependence results in the expectation that group members will benefit the group and
facilitate its outcomes, those who benefit the group by engaging unethically are supported. In the
study that follows, I examine the role of interdependence in tolerance of corruption. Furthermore,
I examine the mediating role of expectations of benevolent motives of group members by
showing mediation through moderation. By showing the interdependence leads to tolerance of
corruption, but only when the corrupt member is perceived to be motivated by collective gain
rather than personal gain, we seek to provide evidence of the role of social role expectations in
predicting tolerance of corruption.
29
Table 1: Correlation table representing the relation between university cultural interdependence
and NCAA sanctions (Study 2)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Interdependence
score
1
NCAA sanction
1:yes, 0:no
.19** 1
Self-report of
violation 1:yes, 2:no
-.05 - 1
Failure to monitor
1:Failed 2:Did not
-.20* - -.20* 1
Nature of violation
1:Individual,
2:Group, 3 institution
. 21* - -.11 -.27** 1
Years on probation .14 - .18 -.40** .42** 1
President gender -.003 -.01 .02 .01 -.01 -.12 1
University document
1:Speech 2: Alternate
.32** .12 .09 -.16 .02 .05 .02 1
*p<.05, **p<.01
STUDY 3
Study 3 was designed to test the hypothesis that interdependent self construal leads to
protection of corruption, but only when the corruption can be construed as meeting the social
role expectations of a good group member. I use a behavioral paradigm to examine whether
participants primed with an interdependent mindset protect a group member who cheats on a task
when the cheater provides collective gain as the justification for engaging in the unethical
behavior (Hypothesis 2 and 3). In a 2 (mindset: independence vs. interdependence) X 2 (motive
of the cheater: personal gain vs. collective gain) experimental design, participants who were
primed with either independence or interdependence were given the word jumble task of a group
member who had ostensibly cheated on the task along with a comment from the cheater
indicating their motive for engaging in the unethical act. Participants then completed ratings of
punishment of the cheater as well as indicated the amount of money they would give the cheater.
30
I expected that participants primed with interdependence will not only be less likely to punish the
group member who provides collective gain as the rationale for engaging in the unethical act, but
will also reward the behavior by giving them more money than they deserve.
Method
Participants: Participants were 130 students from a west coast university (47 women, 84
men) who participated in exchange for course credit.
Procedure: Participants arrived in groups of 6-10 students in each session. They were
divided into two identical rooms such that each room consisted of 3-5 participants. Participants
were informed that the experiment consisted of a series of tasks. In the first task, participants
were given the following instructions:
“In this study, you will be matched with another USC student participating in this session
sitting in the room adjacent to yours. You will both be presented with some tasks and will
be requested to provide an impression of each other based on responses on the task. You
have been randomly selected to complete a writing task, whereas the student in the other
room that you have been matched with will be performing a word jumble task. You will
be requested to first complete the writing task. Your description to the writing task will
be then presented to the participant you have been matched with. Following which, you
will be provided with the word jumble task of the other participant. The word jumble task
involves a monetary reward. Participants will be paid 50cents for each word jumble they
solve correctly starting from the beginning. For instance, if the participant solves the first
3 word jumbles and is unable to solve the fourth one but completes the remaining word
jumbles, they are requested to only reward themselves 50cents for the first 3 jumbles they
solved correctly, resulting in a reward of 1dollar 50cents. Further, if a participant solves
31
all the 10 jumbles, then all participants will receive .5 extra credit. Participants are
requested to score their own word jumble by indicating whether they were or were not
able to unscramble the letters to form a word. They are given specific instructions to take
the monetary reward from an envelope given to them that contains 1 dollar bills and
quarters and return the remaining amount along with the envelope to the experimenter.”
After providing these instructions, participants were given the writing task, which was used to
prime either an independent or interdependent mindset.
Writing task: Participants in the independent condition were requested to write about a
particular situation in which they worked alone to complete a task whereas participants in the
interdependent condition were requested to write about a situation in which they worked with
others to complete a task (Gino & Galinsky, 2012). After completing the writing task,
participants were given the word jumble task of the student who had ostensibly cheated on the
task. The task also included a comments section in which the student apparently wrote their
motive for engaging in the unethical act.
Cheating situation: Participants were presented with the word jumble answer sheet
(adapted from Gino & Galinsky, 2012) in which the student had wrongly scored their responses
to indicate that he or she had correctly solved all the word jumbles. The student had supposedly
wrongly unscrambled the word jumbles to indicate that ‘guant’, ‘oracl’, and ‘smoveeldy’ were
words. The answer sheet also indicated that the student had taken $5 as the total reward and had
solved all the 10 puzzles.
Motive of the cheater: In the self-gain condition, the comment on the word jumble task
read “I want the extra money” whereas in the collective gain condition, the comment read “I
want everyone to get extra credit.”
32
Participants were given a few minutes to review the word jumble answer sheet of the
student with whom they were ostensibly matched. Participants were asked to indicate how much
money the students deserved. Participants were then presented with a questionnaire requesting
them to provide an impression of the participants. The questionnaire asked the participant to
indicate how much they would punish the cheater by stating their agreement or disagreement
with the item “This individual should be punished” which was interspersed between other
irrelevant items about rewards and general impression.
Results
Data from four participants who did not complete the writing task (less than 3 sentences)
were excluded from analysis. First, I examined participants’ ratings of punishment. A 2
(independence vs. interdependence mindset) X 2 (personal vs. collective gain motive) ANOVA,
yielded a main effect of motive, F(1, 125)=9.93, p=.002, such that participants were less likely to
punish the cheater who provided the motivation to benefit the group (M=4.19, SD=1.26) as
justification for the cheating as compared to the cheater who claimed to be motivated by self gain
(M=4.85, SD=1.06). Further, the two-way interaction effect was significant, F(1, 125)=5.41,
p=.02, such that participants primed with interdependence were less likely to punish the cheater
who claimed to be motivated by collective gain (M=3.81, SD=1.33) than the cheater who was
motivated by self gain (M=4.92, SD=1.07), t(63)=3.66, p=.001. Participants in the independent
condition did not differ in their ratings of the cheater who was motivated by collective gain
(M=4.62, SD=1.51) and the cheater who was motivated by self gain (M=4.78, SD=1.51),
t(124)=.78, p=.53, See Figure 1.
Next, I examined participants’ willingness to assign money to the cheater. A
2(independence vs. interdependence mindset) X 2(personal vs. collective gain motive) ANOVA,
33
yielded a main effect of motive, F(1, 124)=5.30, p=.02, such that participants in the
interdependent condition (M=2.81, SD=1.38) assigned more money to the cheater than
participants in the independent condition (M=2.18, SD=1.63). The two-way interaction effect of
mindset priming and motive of the corrupt actor was significant, F(1, 125)=6.19, p=.01. As
expected, participants primed with interdependence assigned more money to the cheater when
collective gain (M=3.12, SD=1.25) was reported as the motive for cheater than self-gain
(M=1.84, SD=1.76) Participants primed with independence did not differ in the extent to which
they assigned money to the cheater motivated by collective gain (M=2.46, SD=1.46) or self-gain
(M=2.51, SD=1.41), t(60)=.02, p=.89.
Thus, interdependent self-construal leads to lower punishment of a group member who
cheats to benefit the group. This study demonstrates that even in experimentally created minimal
groups, participants primed with interdependence are more likely to protect a member who
engages in group-serving corruption than participants primed with independence. Not only are
participants less likely to punish the group oriented corrupt member, but they are also more
likely to reward them by assigning more money.
34
.
Figure 1: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act (Study 3).
STUDY 4
In Study 4, I sought to examine the mediating role of benevolent expectations about
group members in explaining why interdependent self-construal leads to protection of corrupt
behavior (Hypothesis 3). To examine whether participants with an interdependent mindset
protect corrupt group members who serve group interests, we used a 2 (mindset: independence
vs. interdependence) X 2 (outcome of the corrupt act: harmed the group vs. benefited the group)
design. Participants were either primed with independence or interdependence. Participants then
read a corruption scenario involving an official in their county who misrepresented information
in order to obtain a development grant for the county. The corrupt act either resulted in harm to
group or benefited the group. Participants then completed ratings of punishment of the corrupt
official. We examined whether role expectations about group member motives explain why
interdependent individuals protect those who engage in group serving corruption.
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Independent mindset Interdependent mindset
Harm to group
Benefit to group
35
Method
Participants: Participants were 200 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers (96
women, 104 men), ranging in age from 18-66 years (M=34.69, SD=12.25) who participated in
exchange for $0.50.
Pronoun identification task: After providing consent to participate in the study,
participants were primed with either independence or interdependence via a task in which they
identified pronouns in a paragraph presented to them (Same as Study 1B). In the independence
mindset condition, the paragraph consisted of pronouns with a focus on I (e.g., me, myself),
whereas in the interdependence mindset condition, the paragraph consisted of pronouns with a
focus on We (e.g., us, our). Participants were asked to click on all the pronouns found within the
paragraph.
Following the pronoun identification task participants completed measures of role
expectations regarding ingroup member motives and read the corruption scenario (presented in a
random order).
Role expectations about motives of ingroup members: Participants rated the extent to
which they expected members of their group to be motivated by collective gain. They stated their
agreement with the following statements: “Members of my group will be motivated to benefit
my group” and “Members of my group will be motivated to benefit each other”, using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Corruption Scenario: Participants were then presented with the corruption scenario
involving a county official named Dave Rogers who had applied for a development grant.
Participants read the following details about the corrupt act:
36
“Dave Rogers, a county commissioner had applied for the development grant early in the
year. The grant monies could be used towards general county functions including building and
maintaining roads, recreational facilities, running hospitals and schools, as well as towards
adoption and foster care programs. The allocation of the grant depended on a number of factors
including county plans for road construction, performance of schools and social service
programs, number of families below federal poverty line, and the total contributions of the
county to state taxes. Dave Rogers over reported the number of families in your county whose
family income was below the federal poverty line. He exaggerated the number of families below
poverty line by 25% of the actual number of families in the grant application.” In addition,
participants were told that “when determining the allocation of the grant to your county, the
criteria of number of families below the poverty line was given importance and influenced the
allocation decision. County commissioners who obtain a grant for your county receive a bonus of
10% of their salary at the end of the fiscal year.”
Outcome of the corrupt act: In the outcome harm condition, participants read that the
county was penalized $700,000 from the basic county allocation, whereas in the outcome benefit
condition, participants were told that their county received the $700,000 development grant.
After reading the scenario, participants rated the extent to which they would punish Dave
Rogers by stating their agreement with four statements including, “Dave Rogers should be
punished,” using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Participants also indicated the extent to which they held Dave Rogers responsible for his actions
(Dave Rogers is responsible for his actions; Dave Rogers had no choice) and the extent to which
they were willing to take his perspective (I would do the same thing, if I was in Dave Rogers
shoes; If I was in Dave Rogers position, I would take the same action) by completing two items
37
related to each using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Finally, participants completed a demographic questionnaire.
Results and Discussion
A 2 (mindset: independence vs. interdependence) X 2 (outcome of the corrupt act:
benefited the group vs. harmed the group) between participants ANOVA, yielded a main effect of
mindset priming, such that participants primed with an interdependence mindset were less likely
to punish the county official who engaged in a corrupt act (M=5.35, SD=1.31) as compared to
participants primed with an independent mindset (M=5.74, SD=1.08), F(1,198)=4.58, p=.03.
There was a marginal interaction effect of mindset priming and outcome of corrupt act, F(1,
198)=3.13, p=.07. When the corrupt act harmed the group, participants primed with
independence (M=5.68, SD=1.10) and those primed with interdependence (M=5.63, SD=1.06)
did not differ in their ratings of punishment, t(104)=.31, p=.76. In contrast, as expected, when the
corrupt act benefited the group, participants primed with interdependence (M=5.07, SD=1.51)
were less likely to punish the corrupt official than participants primed with independence
(M=5.71, SD=1.06), t(93)=2.33, p=.02. As expected, participants who were primed with
interdependence and read about a corrupt official whose behavior benefited the group were least
likely to punish the official as compared to participants in the other three experimental
conditions, F(196)=2.94, p=.03 (See Figure 2).
In addition, participants who were primed with an interdependent mindset (M=5.62,
SD=1.08) were more likely to expect group members to be motivated to benefit the group than
participants primed with an independent mindset (M=5.62, SD=1.08). Participants expectations
about group member motives to benefit the group predicted punishment ratings, B=-.14, SE=.06,
t=-2.35, p=.02, such that the greater the attribution of benevolence towards group members, the
38
less severe were the punishment ratings. In addition, ratings of group member motives mediated
the relation between interdependent self-construal and punishment of the corrupt actor.
Interdependence prime did not significantly predict punishment ratings, when motives of group
members was included in the model, B=-.30, SE=17, t=-1.74, p=.08 (95% bootstrapping
confidence intervals of indirect effects, LL=-.001, UL=-.06).
Furthermore, interdependence did not influence ratings of responsibility or perspective
taking, F’s < .80, p> .35, ruling out alternative explanations suggesting that interdependence
results in lower attributions of responsibility towards individuals (Morris & Peng, 1994) and
overall greater perspective taking (Gino & Galinsky, 2012). Participants primed with an
interdependent self-construal expected group members to be motivated by collective gain,
resulting in protection of those who engaged in corrupt behavior with the intent to benefit the
group. Thus, interdependence influences social role expectations of group members which
influences their responses to corrupt group behavior.
Figure 2: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act (Study 4)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Independent mindset Interdependent mindset
Harm Benefit
39
STUDY 5
The purpose of Study 5 was to show that the tendency to protect the group-serving
corrupt member among those who have an interdependent self-construal is only seen when the
corrupt behavior does, in fact, benefit the group (Hypothesis 2 and 3). Furthermore, I sought to
replicate the findings of Study 4 using a different corruption scenario and with a different
population. I predicted that when the corrupt behavior harms the group, participants primed with
interdependence will forgo the tendency to protect the deviant collectively oriented deviant. In a
2 (mindset: independence vs. interdependence) X 2 (outcome of corrupt behavior: harm vs.
benefit) X 2(motive of the corrupt official: personal gain vs. collective gain) experimental
design, participants read about a corrupt official at their university who admitted a student in
exchange for endowment funds.
Method
Participants: Participants were 300 students from a West coast university (women=157,
143 men; Mage=20.5) who participated in exchange for course credit.
Pronoun identification task: After providing consent to participate in the study,
participants were primed with either independence or interdependence using the pronoun
identification task (same as Study 2).
Corruption Scenario: After providing consent to participate in the study, participants
were presented with a scenario about a corrupt official at their university. Participants read that
an official in their University Office of Admissions gave preferential treatment to a student when
making admission decisions and that the student, whose application had previously been
disregarded as below expectations, was later flagged as ‘important to the university’ by the
official. The student’s parents were ostensibly in talks with the official to donate a large sum of
40
money to the Business school in exchange for the student’s admission to the university.
Outcome of the corrupt act: In the group harm condition, participants were informed that
the parents of the student did not contribute to the university endowment and reported their
dealings with the university official to news media resulting in a significant decline in
endowment that year. In the group benefit condition, participants were told that the parents
contributed generously to the endowment and used their connections to seek other contributors,
resulting in a significant increase in the university endowment.
Motives of the corrupt official: In the personal gain condition, participants read that “the
official was not concerned about obtaining funds for USC. Instead the possibility of receiving a
bonus motivated the senior official to admit the student.” In the collective gain condition,
participants read that “the official was not concerned about obtaining the bonus for himself.
Instead the possibility of receiving funds for USC motivated the official to admit the student.”
After reading the scenario, participants completed ratings of punishment of the official
(same as Study 3).
Results and Discussion
Data from 8 participants who did not complete the pronoun identification task were
excluded from analysis. A 2 (mindset: independence vs. interdependence) X 2 (outcome of
corrupt behavior: harm vs. benefit) X 2 (motive of the corrupt official: personal gain vs.
collective gain) ANOVA yielded a main effect of outcome of corrupt behavior, F(1, 291)=18.22,
p<.001, such that when the behavior benefited the university (M=4.22, SD=1.51), the official was
punished less than when the behavior harmed the university (M=4.89, SD=1.45). There was an
overall main effect of mindset priming, F(1, 291)=4.88, p=.03, such that participants primed with
interdependence (M=4.40, SD=1.48) punished the corrupt official less than participants primed
41
with independence (M=4.71, SD=1.54). There was also a main effect of motive, F(1,
291)=27.14, p<.001, such that a corrupt official motivated by collective gain (M=4.14, SD=1.47)
was punished less than the official motivated by personal gain (M=4.95, SD=1.46). A significant
two-way interaction of outcome of the corrupt behavior and motive indicated that the motives of
the corrupt official more significantly impacted punishment ratings in the harm condition, but
less so in the benefit condition, F(1, 291)=5.22, p=.02. In addition, the three way interaction
effect of outcome of the corrupt act, mindset priming, and motive of the corrupt official was
significant, F(1, 291)=4.75, p=.03. As expected, in the outcome-benefit condition, participants
primed with interdependence were less likely to punish the corrupt official in the collective gain
condition (M=3.54, SD=1.23) than the personal gain condition (M=4.45, SD=1.52), t(73)=3.00,
p=.004. However, participants primed with independence did not differ in their ratings of
punishment of the corrupt official irrespective of whether he was motivated by personal
(M=4.44, SD=1.56) or collective gain (M=4.38, SD=1.57), t(72)=.17, p=.86. In the outcome-
harm condition, participants were less likely to punish the corrupt official who was motivated by
collective gain (M=4.29, SD=1.46) as compared to the corrupt official who was motivated by
personal gain (M=5.50, SD=1.16), t(141)=5.49, p<.001, irrespective of whether they were primed
with independence or interdependence.
Thus, the tendency to protect other-oriented corrupt individuals who benefit the group
holds true in the interdependence condition, but not in the independence condition. When primed
with interdependence, participants are more likely to protect group-oriented deviants. Because
interdependent individuals expect group members to be motivated by collective gain, they are
more willing to protect individuals who serve to benefit the group, even when they do so by
engaging in unethical behavior.
42
Figure 3: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act that benefited the group (Study 5)
Figure 4: Effects of self-construal mindset priming and outcome of the corrupt act on
punishment of a group member who engaged in the corrupt act that harmed the group (Study 5)
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research provides insight into when and why corruption persists in group and
organizational settings. I theorized that individuals who have an interdependent self-construal
expect group members to be motivated by collective gain and behave in group-serving ways. I
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Independent self-
construal
Interdependent self-
construal
Self gain
Collective gain
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Independent self-
construal
Interdependent self-
construal
Self gain
Collective gain
43
further hypothesized that this role expectation results in the protection of those who engage in
corrupt acts with the motive of benefitting the group, resulting in greater emergence and
sustenance of corruption in interdependent groups. On the other hand, creating a distance
between the self and one’s group by priming independence results in a reduced likelihood of
protecting those who engage in group serving unethical behaviors. The results of five studies
supported my predictions.
Studies 1A and 1B showed that interdependent individuals expect group members to be
motivated by collective gain, more so than independent individuals. Study 2 used field data to
show that cultural interdependence was associated with greater emergence of corruption. In
Study 3, using a behavioral paradigm I demonstrated that participants who have an
interdependent mindset protect a group member who cheats on a word puzzle, but only when the
cheater meets social role expectation of a benevolent group member by indicating that s/he was
motivated by collective interest. Study 4 showed participants primed with an interdependent
mindset were less likely to punish a deviant group member who misrepresented information in
order to get more money for the county, particularly when the corrupt act benefited the group
and not when it harmed the group. Study 5 provided additional support for our predictions with a
different participant population, showing that participants will protect an ingroup member who
engages in academic corruption to get more money for their university, but only when the
behavior is motivated by collective gain and benefits the group. These studies are among the first
to examine how self-construal influences responses to corruption, suggesting that
interdependence is associated with tolerance and protection of group members who engage in
corrupt behaviors. Because corrupt acts present a unique situation in which what is deviant may
not necessarily be harmful, it is important to examine how groups differ in the extent to which
44
people embrace corruption or, instead, stand up in opposition to it.
I show that priming interdependence influences expectations about the motives of others.
Previous research shows that self-construal shapes one’s own motives, values, cognitions, and
group related emotions (Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002). Extending this
research, I show that self-construal also influences expectations about others’ motives and
behaviors. Because role expectations influence what behavior would be considered normative in
a group, it not only shapes the behaviors of group members but also group members responses to
those behaviors. Interdependent individuals expect group members to be motivated by collective
gain and, therefore, protect those who engage in corrupt behaviors for the benefit of the group.
My research contributes to the work on cross cultural differences in person perception (Morris &
Peng, 1994), showing that interdependent individuals use different criteria to make social
judgments, placing a greater emphasis on benevolence than individuals who are individualistic.
My research is among the first to examine the costs of collectivism and group
interdependence by showing that interdependent individuals are less likely to punish corrupt
individuals in their group under certain circumstances. Previous research has emphasized the
positive aspects of collectivism and group interdependence such as enhanced cooperation among
group members (Earley, 1993; Wong & Hong, 2005), enhanced trust among group members
(Huff & Kelley, 2003; Chen, Peng, & Saparito, 2002) greater commitment to group goals
(DeDreu, Nijstad, & Kippenberg, 2008), increased helping behavior (Oyserman & Lee, 2008;
Wagner, 1995; Wong & Hong, 2005), and reduced deviance (Bond & Smith, 1995). However, I
demonstrate that group interdependence results in negative effects such as protection of deviants
who benefit the group. Group interdependence also leads to greater emergence and sustenance of
pro-organizational corruption. My research lends support to previous research showing that
45
priming interdependence is associated with greater willingness to engage in corrupt acts (Mazar
& Aggarwal, 2011) as well as increased likelihood of mimicking immoral behaviors of other
ingroup members (Gino & Galinsky, 2012).
This research also contributes to the study of cross cultural differences in deviance
tolerance (Chan, Gelfand, Triandis, & Tzeng, 1996; Gelfald et al., 2006; 2011). Previous
research suggests that interdependent cultures and collectivistic societies are less tolerant of
deviance. However, I suggest that when deviant acts benefit the group, interdependent
individuals may be more willing to justify and rationalize deviant behavior. I also inform
research on the black sheep effect (Marquez & Paez, 1994), which suggests that people are more
likely to punish deviance from ingroup members than outgroup members. I show that under
certain circumstances (e.g., a well-intended actor who wants to benefit the group by engaging in
an immoral act), individuals may be less likely to punish an ingroup deviant than an outgroup
deviant.
My research suggests that while interdependence may have many positive effects for
groups and organizations, it is important to also be aware of potential downsides, including
protection of deviants who are group oriented. One way that corruption may thrive in
interdependent groups and collectivistic cultures is through the unwillingness of group members
to punish corrupt acts that benefit the group. Indeed, these findings may help to illuminate why
certain countries characterized by high levels of interdependence are associated with greater
corruption than countries low in interdependence (e.g., Cullen, Porboteeah, & Hoegl, 2004;
Mazar & Agarwal, 2011; Wated & Sanchez, 2005) and ultimately highlight the importance of
incorporating safeguards against undetected corruption and unethical behavior in interdependent
groups.
46
My research also provides practical implications for organizations to reduce corruption.
Firstly, organizations that can be characterized as interdependent must realize that employees
may often unwittingly support corruption by not reporting it. Hence, organizations should set up
explicit norms about the nature of corruption and create awareness about the types of corruption
that may go unnoticed. Secondly, employees should be made aware of the long-term harm
caused by unethical behavior to the organization and society. In particular, articulating how
corruption can ultimately harm the group or organization may encourage individuals to report it.
Thirdly, organizations should not only emphasize the outcomes of its employees in terms of
financial gains to the organization, but also the processes by which employees attain these
outcomes. Given that corruption is less likely to be reported in interdependent contexts, it may be
particularly important to allow monitoring by external agencies, especially in occupations where
there is a high potential for corruption.
CONCLUSION
The present studies indicate that interdependent individuals and groups characterized by
high levels of interdependence are susceptible to the proliferation of corruption. Members of
such groups are more protective of those who engage in group-serving corrupt behaviors than
individuals with independent self-construal. It is my hope that the findings presented here will
assist researchers and organizational leaders wishing to prevent the spread of corruption.
47
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Treviño, L. K. (2008). Re-viewing
organizational corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 670-684.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of personality and social psychology,71(1), 83-93.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using
Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111-137.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48.
Chan, D. K. S., Gelfand, M. J., Triandis, H. C., & Tzeng, O. (1996). Tightness-looseness
revisited: A systematic examination in Japan and the United States. International Journal
of Psychology, 31, 1-12.
Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. (2002). Individualism, collectivism, and
opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of
Management, 28, 567-583.
Cross, S. E., Morris, M. L., & Gore, J. S. (2002). Thinking about oneself and others: The
48
relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 399–418.
Cullen, J.B., Parboteeah, K.P., & Hoegl, M. (2004). Cross-national differences in managers’
willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: A test of institutional anomie theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 411-421.
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information
processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, 22-49.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the
People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and
individualistic work groups. Academy of management journal, 36(2), 319-348.
Eicher, S. (Ed.). (2009). Corruption in international business: The challenge of cultural and
legal diversity. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Gelfand, M., Raver, J., Nishii, L., Leslie, L., & Lun, J., and colleagues (2011). Differences
between tight and loose societies: A 33-nation study. Science, 33, 1100-1104.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L., and Raver, J. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural
tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225-1244.
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior the
effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393-398.
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates
distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119, 15-26.
49
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010). The Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of
Faking It. Psychological Science, 21, 712–720.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of
wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142–155.
Gómez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-
group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(6), 1097-1106.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Vol. 5). Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist
societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81-90.
Kernahan, C., Bartholow, B. D., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2000). Effects of category-based
expectancy violation on affect-related evaluations: Toward a comprehensive
model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 85-100.
Kim, P.H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than
less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a
competence-vs. integrity- based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99(1), 49–65.
Kim, P.H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of
suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-
based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104.
Larsen, D. E., & Rootman, I. (1976). Physician role performance and patient satisfaction. Social
Science & Medicine, 10(1), 29-32.
50
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual
constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430.
Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The "black sheep effect": Social categorization, rejection of
in-group deviates and perception of group variability. European Review of Social
Psychology, 5, 37-68.
Mazar, N., & Aggarwal, P. (2011). Greasing the palm: Can collectivism promote
bribery? Psychological science, 22(7), 843-848.
Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus
duty based interpersonal moral codes. Cross Cultural Research, 28, 3-39.
Moore, C., & Gino., F. (2013). Ethically Adrift: How Others Pull Our Moral Compass from True
North, and How we Can Fix It. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33, 53–77.
Morris, M. W. & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for
physical and social events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3-73.
Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of
priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.
Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt
individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management
Review, 33(3), 685-709.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.
51
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different
method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542.
Schwartz, S.H., & Ros, M. (1995). Values in the West: A theoretical and empirical challenge to
the Individualism–Collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology, 1, 99–122.
Sluss, D.M., van Dick, R., & Thompson, B.S. (2011). Role theory in organizations: A relational
perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, Vol. 1: Building and helping the organization (pp. 505-534). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M.S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for
the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 100, 98-113.
Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of
cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211-244.
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons:
Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621-640.
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. 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(4), 769.
Wated, G., & Sanchez, J. I. (2005). The effects of attitudes, subjective norms, attributions, and
individualism–collectivism on managers’ responses to bribery in organizations: Evidence
from a developing nation. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), 111-127.
52
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115, 157-168.
Wong, R. Y. M., & Hong, Y. Y. (2005). Dynamic influences of culture on cooperation in the
prisoner’s dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429-434.
53
APPENDIX A
University commencement address by the president (preference given to fall commencement
over spring commencement) for the year 2009
University convocation address by the president for the year 2009
University commencement address by the president (preference given to fall commencement
over spring commencement) for the year 2006, 2007, or 2008 (preference given to the year
closest in time to 2009)
University convocation address by the president for the year 2006, 2007, or 2008 (preference
given to the year closest to 2009)
University commencement address by the president (preference given to fall commencement
over spring commencement) for the year 2010-2015 (preference given to the year closest in time
to 2009)
University convocation address by the president for the year 2010-2015 (preference given to the
year closest to 2009)
A letter from the president to students and faculty (preference given to a letter closest in time to
2009)
Welcome address to students on the presidents website (When audio or video version is
available, it is given preference over a written welcome note)
Welcome note to students by the second most senior person at the university
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Corruption thrives when individuals fail to take actions to stop it. I integrate research on the self and social roles to illuminate when and why individuals overlook corrupt behavior in groups and organizations. I hypothesize that group members with an interdependent self-construal are more likely than others to support corrupt actors that benefit the group because benefitting group members is consistent with their social role expectations of others. I begin by testing the idea interdependent self-construal is associated with benevolent attributions about group member motives. As predicted, participants with an interdependent self-construal, relative to those with an independent self-construal, expected group members to seek collective gain (Studies 1a-1b). Next, I propose that because interdependent self-construal is associated with positive expectations about group member motives, when group members meet these motives by engaging in pro-organizational corruption, they will be protected. Hence, interdependent groups will experience greater emergence and proliferation of corruption than independent groups. In Study 2, using an archival dataset of NCAA violations, I show that interdependent schools were more likely to emphasize ingroup loyalty and experienced greater emergence of unethical behavior. Next, I examine when and why interdependent self-construal leads to tolerance of corruption by examining the effects of attributions about motives of the deviant on punishment. In study 3, I show that interdependent self-construal leads to greater tolerance of corruption, only when the corrupt practice is seen as motivated by group interest. In study 4, I examine the mediating role of social role expectation of group members on lower punishment of corrupt behavior, finding that interdependent self-construal influences benevolent expectations about group members and results in protection of the corrupt member, only when the behavior is pro-organizational. Finally, in Study 5, I replicate the previously found effects of interdependence on tolerance of corruption and specifically examine the effects of outcome of the corrupt act on punishment. Implications for research on the culture, roles, and corruption is discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Increasing capabilities or decreasing cost: Fairness perceptions of job displacement due to automation and outsourcing
PDF
Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior
PDF
Technology, behavior tracking, and the future of work
PDF
The cost of a poker-face: consequences of self-regulation on emotion recognition and interpersonal perception
PDF
The morality of technology
PDF
Better now than later: the cost of victims' delayed accusations
PDF
When transparency fails: investigating the complexities of managing transparency in organizations
PDF
An examination of the association between spousal support and type 2 diabetes self-management
PDF
The structure of strategic communication: theory, measurement, and effects
PDF
Working-class advantages: when interdependent cultural norms can decrease threat in interpersonally uncertain interactions
PDF
The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment
PDF
Essays on bounded rationality and revenue management
PDF
Anthropomorphic sociality theory: how connections to nonhumans connect us to humans
PDF
The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace
PDF
The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice
PDF
Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence
PDF
Expressing values and group identity through behavior and language
PDF
Performance and attention novelty slows hedonic adaptation during habit formation
PDF
Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness
PDF
Selflessness takes time: altruistic (but not cooperative) prosocial behavior increases with decision time
Asset Metadata
Creator
Joshi, Priyanka D.
(author)
Core Title
The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption
School
Marshall School of Business
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Business Administration
Publication Date
07/26/2016
Defense Date
06/14/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Corruption,culture,Morality,OAI-PMH Harvest,pro-organizational unethical behavior,self construal
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Fast, Nathanael (
committee chair
), Kim, Peter (
committee member
), Wakslak, Cheryl (
committee member
), Wiltermuth, Scott (
committee member
), Wood, Wendy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
priyankajoshi2006@gmail.com,priyankj@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-279194
Unique identifier
UC11281318
Identifier
etd-JoshiPriya-4625.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-279194 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JoshiPriya-4625-2.pdf
Dmrecord
279194
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Joshi, Priyanka D.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
pro-organizational unethical behavior
self construal