Informe de Coyuntura Venezuela (febrero 2022) IIES-UCAB (Venezuela Macroeconomic Situation Report (February 2022) IIES-UCAB)

Sequín, Luis Zambrano; Guevara, Juan Carlos; Moreno, María Isabel Benito; Ponce, María Gabriela; Sosa, Santiago; Brienza, María Di

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4039118

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Corrected homogeneity coefficients were positive, item–total correlations varied between 0.69 and 0.83 (except one item), and removing any item would reduce or only slightly alter the Alpha coefficient. Regarding the scale's validity, as found by various researchers (Buchan, 2005; Celuch & Dill, 2011; Cohen et al, 1993; Flannery & May, 2000; Lincoln & Holmes, 2011; Reidenbach & Robin, 1990; Shawver & Sennetti, 2009; Yoon, 2010), attitude and subjective norm significantly predicted the intention of executing unethical behaviors (Study 1: R 2 = 0.695, F = 450.710, p <.001; Study 2: R 2 = 0.426, F = 147.856, p <.001). Attitude was a better predictor than subjective norm (Study 1: β At = 0.592, t = 17.235, p <.001; β SN = 0.334, t = 9.736, p <.001; Study 2: β At = 0.586, t = 12.301, p <.001, β SN = 0.102, t = 2.133, p = .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In moral terms, an attitude amounts to a judgment of a behavior's ethicality (right or wrong), which is a key component of the ethical decision-making models of both Rest (1986) and Jones (1991). Attitudes appear as significant predictors of intentions of executing unethical behaviors in varied organizational settings (Buchan, 2005; Celuch & Dill, 2011; Flannery & May, 2000; Yoon, 2010).…”

Section: The Propensity For Unethical Behavior (Pub)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) offers a simple and, at the same time, sociopsychologically comprehensive way of conceptualizing and operationally defining the PUB. Examples abound in behavioral ethics literature of using the TRA for defining this kind of constructs (Barnett & Valentine, 2004; Buchan, 2005; Celuch & Dill, 2011; Flannery & May, 2000; Yoon, 2010). One of the most popular theoretical models of ethical behavior, Rest’s (1986) the Four-Component Model, assembles similar elements to those of the TRA.…”

Section: The Propensity For Unethical Behavior (Pub)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TRA's original formulation defined subjective norms as individuals’ beliefs that relevant actors expect them to execute (or not) certain behaviors (normative beliefs), and their motivation to comply with such expectations. Subjective norms also predict intentions of behaving unethically (Celuch & Dill, 2011; Flannery & May, 2000; Yoon, 2010). However, afterward, Ajzen (2012) widened the concept of subjective norm, by recognizing that people's normative beliefs result not only from inferring what relevant actors expect from them (prescriptive norms), but also from observing or inferring what relevant actors do (descriptive norms).…”

Section: The Propensity For Unethical Behavior (Pub)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Individual and situational influences on the propensity for unethical behavior in responses to organizational scenarios

Santalla-Banderali

Malavé

2022

Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports two studies evaluating the impact of moral intensity, work experience, and gender on the propensity (attitude, behavioral intention, and subjective norm) for unethical behavior of Venezuelan students and employees responding to different organizational scenarios, and controlling the effects of moral disengagement and empathy. One study singled out moral disengagement as a covariate, and the other did the same with empathy. In both studies, moral intensity, work experience, and gender acted as independent variables. Each study consisted of around 400 participants (totaling 801 participants in both studies): one-half were students without work experience and the other half were employees. For manipulating moral intensity, we used six scenarios describing ethically questionable situations. After reading each of the scenarios, participants answered the Multidimensional Ethics Scale to measure propensity for unethical behavior. After completing this phase, participants responded to the moral disengagement scale in Study 1 and the empathy scale in Study 2. This research did not find concluding, significant effects of moral intensity on the measures of the propensity for unethical behavior. Employees expressed higher intentions of acting unethically than students, though the effect was small (ε2 Study 1 = .016. ε2 Study 2 = .026). Gender had no significant effect on attitude and subjective norm; but, in behavioral intention, men's scores were significantly higher than women's in Study 1, but not in Study 2. Moral disengagement had a stronger effect than empathy on the propensity for unethical behavior (ε2 moral disengagement: attitude = .225, behavioral intention = .179, subjective norm = .159. ε2 empathy: attitude = .016, behavioral intention = .011, subjective norm = .010). The authors highlight the relevance of contrasting findings from less-developed countries with those from developed countries, commonly found in the literature, and suggest avenues for further research.

show abstract