The Effects of Victim Anonymity on Unethical Behavior

Abstract

We theorize that victim anonymity is an important factor in ethical decision making, such that actors engage in more self-interested and unethical behaviors toward anonymous victims than they do toward identifiable victims. Three experiments provided empirical support for this argument. In Study 1, participants withheld more life-saving products from anonymous than from identifiable victims. In Study 2, participants allocated a sum of payment more unfairly when interacting with an anonymous than with an identifiable partner. Finally, in Study 3, participants cheated more from an anonymous than from an identifiable person. Anticipated guilt fully mediated these effects in all three studies. Taken together, our research suggests that anonymous victims may be more likely to incur unethical treatment, which could explain many unethical business behaviors.

What Causes Unethical Behavior? A Meta‐Analysis to Set an Agenda for Public Administration Research

“…The willingness to help the victim will be greater when the victim is identified rather than nonidentified because in the former condition, people are more likely to adopt the perspective of the identified person (affect‐based mechanism) and/or overestimate the relevance of a singular victim (cognitive‐based mechanism) (Kogut and Ritov ; Small and Loewenstein ). Thus, when the victim of the wrongdoing is identified, individuals are likely to judge the unethicality of others more severely and/or refrain from engaging in unethical conduct that might harm the victim (Gino, Shu, and Bazerman ; Yam and Reynolds ).…”

“…The third type consisted of experiments contrasting unethical behavior of participants willing to benefit others with the levels of unethicality of subjects acting just in their own interest (e.g., Rigdon and D'Esterre ). The fourth group of experiments compared the effects of being exposed to an identified victim as opposed to an unidentified victim on individuals’ unethicality (e.g., Yam and Reynolds ).…”

Intuitive Honesty Versus Dishonesty: Meta-Analytic Evidence

“…Previous theories have stressed the importance of the social element of unethical behavior, outlining that abstract victims and cobeneficiaries of unethical behavior alleviate guilt (Köbis, van Prooijen, Righetti, & Van Lange, 2016). Empirical support stems from studies indicating that people tend to lie when lying benefits in-group members (Cohen, Gunia, Kim-Jun, & Murnighan, 2009; Weisel & Shalvi, 2015; Wiltermuth, 2011) yet are reluctant to do so when lying harms concrete others (Pitesa, Thau, & Pillutla, 2013 Yam & Reynolds, 2016). Furthermore, a substantial body of work on the social heuristics hypothesis (Bear & Rand, 2016; Rand, Greene, & Nowak, 2012) suggests that intuition favors cooperation over interpersonal selfishness in economic games (for a meta-analysis, see Rand, 2016).…”

Moral emotions: A review and research agenda for management scholarship

“…Other research suggests that guilt is conditional. In response to one's own transgressions, people experience guilt when they know the victim (Yam & Reynolds, ), the unethical act is deemed a moral violation (Umphress & Bingham, ), they had control over the event, or they created harm for another person (Bohns & Flynn, ). Furthermore, when people receive feedback that suggests that their behavior violates moral norms, they experience heightened guilt (Ilies, Peng, Savani, & Dimotakis, ).…”