Dirty Hands Make Dirty Leaders?! The Effects of Touching Dirty Objects on Rewarding Unethical Subordinates as a Function of a Leader’s Self-Interest

Abstract

We studied the role of social dynamics in moral decision-making and behavior by investigating how physical sensations of dirtiness versus cleanliness influence moral behavior in leader-subordinate relationships, and whether a leader's self-interest functions as a boundary condition to this effect. A pilot study (N = 78) revealed that when participants imagined rewarding (vs. punishing) unethical behavior of a subordinate, they felt more dirty. Our main experiment (N = 96) showed that directly manipulating dirtiness by allowing leaders to touch a dirty object (fake poop) led to more positive evaluations of, and higher bonuses for, unethical subordinates than touching a clean object (hygienic hand wipe). This effect, however, only emerged when the subordinate's unethical behavior did not serve the leader's own interest. Hence, subtle cues such as bodily sensations can shape moral decision-making and behavior in leader-subordinate relationships, but selfinterest, as a core characteristic of interdependence, can override the influence of such cues on the leader's moral behavior.

A cultural look at moral purity: wiping the face clean

“…Beyond this minimal level of existential universality, however, the scientific literature is in the dark about whether different cultures are comparable or incomparable in the moral functions of purification (e.g., guilt reduction; Zhong and Liljenquist, 2006 ) and the effective forms of purification (e.g., washing hands, rinsing mouth; Lee and Schwarz, 2010 ). Although there is a rapidly growing body of experimental evidence for the diverse consequences of physical cleansing on moral emotion, judgment, and behavior (e.g., Schnall et al, 2008 ; Liljenquist et al, 2010 ; Zhong et al, 2010 ; Helzer and Pizarro, 2011 ; Huang et al, 2011 ; Ritter and Preston, 2011 ; Cramwinckel et al, 2013a , b ; Xu et al, 2014 ), this work is completely silent on issues of universality, because all the data have come exclusively from Western samples. On the other side of the world, cleansing may have different (or the same) moral functions, and even the same moral consequences may result from different (or the same) effective forms of cleansing.…”

Compromised Ethics in Hiring Processes? How Referrers’ Power Affects Employees’ Reactions to Referral Practices

“…This may also be the case when people judge negative behaviors. Research in moral psychology has hinted to the possibility that observers of unethical behaviors seek harsher punishments to the degree that the actor benefited from the act (Cramwinckel et al, 2013;Vitell & Muncy, 1992). Generally, Ridgeway (1981Ridgeway ( , 1982 found that people have more respect for and make more positive evaluations of group members with a group-oriented rather than self-oriented motivation.…”

“…Understanding how a subordinate views and morally judges his/her manager based on the manager's decisions-and, in this context, a hiring decision-is important because moral judgments are a major driver of potentially punitive or negative reactions and behaviors on the part of the "judge" (Cramwinckel et al, 2013;Vitell & Muncy, 1992). Harsher moral judgments of an individual (i.e., a manager) generally translate into harsher reactions to the actor's decision (i.e., a hiring decision), which has been consistently shown in the literature on third-party reactions to unethical behavior.…”

“…We apply principles from the literature on attribution of motives (Cramwinckel, De Cremer, van Dijke, 2013;Lin-Healy & Small, 2013;Vitell & Muncy, 1992) to research on relational power (Emerson, 1962;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) to propose that employees' moral evaluations of the hiring manager's acceptance of a referral depend on employees' attributions of the manager's self-and organization-concern motives, and that, in turn, these moral evaluations affect support for the decision. Specifically, we argue that employees will be more (less) likely to suspect hiring managers' selfinterested abuse of their organizational positions when the referral came from a high-(low-)power person.…”

When Money Makes Employees Warm and Bright: Thoughts of New Money Promote Warmth and Competence

“…Clean smells promoted virtuous behavior, as reflected by greater intentions to volunteer and donate to charity (Liljenquist, Zhong, & Galinsky, 2010). In the organizational literature, physical sensations of dirtiness led leaders to be more lenient towards subordinates who acted unethically (Cramwinckel, De Cremer, & Van Dijke, 2013). These findings suggest that physical contact with clean or dirty stimuli can transfer the associated properties to the self.…”