Cohen Taya R, Panter A T, Turan Nazli, Morse Lily, Kim Yeonjeong
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University.
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014 Nov;107(5):943-63. doi: 10.1037/a0037245. Epub 2014 Aug 18.
Using two 3-month diary studies and a large cross-sectional survey, we identified distinguishing features of adults with low versus high levels of moral character. Adults with high levels of moral character tend to: consider the needs and interests of others and how their actions affect other people (e.g., they have high levels of Honesty-Humility, empathic concern, guilt proneness); regulate their behavior effectively, specifically with reference to behaviors that have positive short-term consequences but negative long-term consequences (e.g., they have high levels of Conscientiousness, self-control, consideration of future consequences); and value being moral (e.g., they have high levels of moral identity-internalization). Cognitive moral development, Emotionality, and social value orientation were found to be relatively undiagnostic of moral character. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that employees with low moral character committed harmful work behaviors more frequently and helpful work behaviors less frequently than did employees with high moral character, according to their own admissions and coworkers' observations. Study 3 revealed that adults with low moral character committed more delinquent behavior and had more lenient attitudes toward unethical negotiation tactics than did adults with high moral character. By showing that individual differences have consistent, meaningful effects on employees' behaviors, after controlling for demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, income) and basic attributes of the work setting (e.g., enforcement of an ethics code), our results contest situationist perspectives that deemphasize the importance of personality. Moral people can be identified by self-reports in surveys, and these self-reports predict consequential behaviors months after the initial assessment.
通过两项为期3个月的日记研究和一项大型横断面调查,我们确定了道德品质水平低与高的成年人的显著特征。道德品质高的成年人往往会:考虑他人的需求和利益以及自己的行为如何影响他人(例如,他们具有较高的诚实谦逊、共情关注、内疚倾向水平);有效调节自己的行为,特别是对于那些具有积极短期后果但消极长期后果的行为(例如,他们具有较高的尽责性、自我控制、对未来后果的考虑水平);重视道德(例如,他们具有较高的道德认同内化水平)。研究发现,认知道德发展、情绪性和社会价值取向对道德品质的诊断作用相对较小。研究1和研究2表明,根据他们自己的供述和同事的观察,道德品质低的员工比道德品质高的员工更频繁地做出有害工作行为,而做出有益工作行为的频率更低。研究3表明,道德品质低的成年人比道德品质高的成年人有更多的违法行为,并且对不道德谈判策略的态度更宽容。通过表明个体差异在控制人口统计学变量(如性别、年龄、收入)和工作环境的基本属性(如道德准则的执行情况)后,对员工行为具有一致、有意义的影响,我们的研究结果对那些不强调个性重要性的情境主义观点提出了质疑。道德的人可以通过调查中的自我报告来识别,并且这些自我报告能够在初次评估数月后预测相应的行为。