Post on 13-May-2023
1 23
Journal of Business Ethics ISSN 0167-4544 J Bus EthicsDOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1475-3
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?Multiple Faces of Temptation, MonetaryIntelligence, and Unethical IntentionsAcross Gender
Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Toto Sutarso
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation? Multiple Facesof Temptation, Monetary Intelligence, and Unethical IntentionsAcross Gender
Thomas Li-Ping Tang • Toto Sutarso
Received: 16 July 2012 / Accepted: 21 August 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract We develop a theoretical model, explore the
relationship between temptation (both reflective and for-
mative) and unethical intentions by treating monetary
intelligence (MI) as a mediator, and examine the direct
(temptation to unethical intentions) and indirect (temptation
to MI to unethical intentions) paths simultaneously based on
multiple-wave panel data collected from 340 part-time
employees and university (business) students. The positive
indirect path suggested that yielding to temptation (e.g., high
cognitive impairment and lack of self-control) led to poor MI
(low stewardship behavior, but high cognitive meaning) that,
in turn, led to high unethical intentions (theft, corruption, and
deception). Our counterintuitive negative direct path
revealed that those who controlled their temptation had high
unethical intentions. Due to the multiple faces of temptation
(the suppression effect), maliciously controlled temptation
(low cognitive impairment and high self control) led to
deviant intentions. Subsequent multi-group analysis across
gender (a moderator) reformulated the mystery of tempta-
tion: a negative direct path for males, but a positive indirect
path for females. For males, the negative direct path gener-
ated a dark impact on unethical intentions; for females, the
positive indirect path did not, but offered great implications
for consumer behavior. Both falling ‘‘and’’ not falling into
temptation led to unethical intentions which varied across
gender. Our counterintuitive, novel, and original theoretical,
empirical, and practical contributions may spark curiosity
and add new vocabulary to the conversation regarding
temptation, money attitudes, consumer psychology, and
business ethics.
Keywords Temptation (impulsive behavior, cognitive
impairment, self-control, social moral value, and getting
rich) � Monetary intelligence (motive, stewardship,
meaning) � Deviant intentions (theft, corruption,
deception) � Reflective versus formative � Gender � Love
of Money � Evil � Money Ethic � Consumer psychology �Theory of free will � Business ethics � Longitudinal
Those who want to get rich are falling into temptation
and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires,
which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For, the
love of money is the root of all evils. (1 Timothy 6:
9–10)
For the past several decades, we have witnessed
numerous cases of corruption, scandals, and unethical
behaviors involving large corporations (Enron, Worldcom)
and individuals (Bernie Madoff) (Ashforth et al. 2008;
Gino et al. 2011). Deviant behaviors have harmful effects
on individuals, organizations, and the large society.
Approximately 5 % of global annual revenues, more than
$2.9 trillion, was lost due to various forms of corruption or
unethical behaviors (Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners 2010). This is a worldwide phenomenon that
deserves researchers’ attention (Fisman and Miguel 2007;
Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; Tang et al. 2011). Due to its
pervasive impact, researchers attempt to identify plausible
reasons behind these unethical and deviant behaviors
(Christian and Ellis 2011).
T. L.-P. Tang (&)
Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones
College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University,
Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
e-mail: Thomas.Tang@mtsu.edu
T. Sutarso
Division of Information Technology, Middle Tennessee State
University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
e-mail: Toto.Sutarso@mtsu.edu
123
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1475-3
Author's personal copy
According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB,
Ajzen 1991), attitudes toward the behavior, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioral control predict behavioral
intention that, in turn, predicts behavior. Researchers have
examined TPB in many fields (Armitage and Conner 2001;
Cordano and Frieze 2000; Manning 2009) and the rela-
tionship between temptation and addictive behaviors, such
as eating (Hofmann et al. 2007, 2010), drinking (Collins
et al. 2000; Maddock et al. 2000), smoking (Hudmon et al.
1997), and gambling (Holub et al. 2005); consumer
behavior (Baumeister et al. 1994, 2008); and more recently,
unethical behaviors (Mead et al. 2009; Restubog et al.
2011; Smith et al. 2005; Tenbrunsel 1998). The contribu-
tion of TPB to our understanding of the temptation to
unethical intentions relationship is not as ubiquitous as
most researchers once thought, however.
The theory of free will (Baumeister et al. 1994, 2008)
suggests that people value self-control, follow rules, and
make intelligent and rational decisions. ‘‘Self-control is the
psychological capacity that enables individuals to enact
behaviors that are consistent with their long-term goals
(e.g., of being an ethical person) and refrain form engaging
in behaviors that are driven by short-term selfish motives’’
(Gino et al. 2011, p. 192). The lack of self-control is
associated with impulsive behavior and cognitive impair-
ment. In our culture, there are ‘‘many rules and standards,
including moral rules to which individuals must conform’’
(Mead et al. 2009, p. 594). Strong ethical standards (the
Ten Commandments and honor code) curb unethical
behavior intentions (Ariely 2008; Tang 2012). Rational
choice is directly related to getting the most bang for the
money (Mickel and Barron 2008) and selecting the best
products (Baumeister et al. 2008). Very little research has
combined the fields of consumer behavior, the psychology
of money (monetary intelligence), and business ethics to
investigate the temptation to unethical intentions
relationships.
Our present study attempts to fill the void. We adopt the
theory of free will (consumer behavior; Baumeister 2002;
Baumeister et al. 1994, 2008) as the foundation of our
major theoretical framework and apply the notion of
temptation (TPB; Ajzen 1991) in the context of unethical
intentions (business ethics; Chen and Tang 2006; Tang and
Chiu 2003). We propose a theoretical measurement model
that (1) getting rich (affective), (2) impulsive behavior
(behavioral), and (3) cognitive impairment (cognitive), i.e.,
the ABC of an attitude, as well as (4) social moral values
(subjective norm) and (5) loss of self-control (perceived
control) are components of temptation that lead to two
consequences—becoming ‘‘selfish’’ and deviating from
important ‘‘goals’’ (Gino et al. 2011, p. 192). We develop a
theoretical structural equation (SEM) model (Fig. 1),
explore the relationship between temptation and deviant
intentions, treat monetary intelligence (MI) (psychology of
money—motives, stewardship, and meaning of money,
Tang 1992; Tang and Chiu 2003; Tang et al. 2012b) as a
mediator and gender as a moderator, and investigate the
direct and indirect paths simultaneously based on multiple-
wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees
who are also university students in a business class.
The reflective temptation construct has five significant
sub-constructs, whereas the formative model offers some
novel insights: High levels of impulsive behavior, cogni-
tive impairment, and lack of self-control and low levels of
social moral values and getting rich define temptation that,
in turn, is related to becoming selfish and overlooking
important goals. We explore two parsimonious SEM
models of temptation (reflective vs. formative): The posi-
tive indirect path (Paths 2 and 3) suggests that falling into
temptation leads to poor MI (low stewardship and high
cognitive meaning of money) that, in turn, entices them to
have high deviant intentions. Our counterintuitive negative
direct path (Path 1) shows that those who do not fall into
temptation have high theft, corruption, and deception
intentions. The overall impact is negative: Maliciously
controlled temptation is significantly related to unethical
intentions. Our subsequent multi-group analyses across
gender reformulated the mystery of temptation—a negative
direct path for males, but a positive indirect path for
females. For males, the overall dark impact of temptation
on unethical intentions is substantial, causing grave con-
cerns; for females, the overall dark impact is trivial, but
offers great implications for consumer behavior. Our
counterintuitive novel findings make significant theoretical,
empirical, and practical contributions (Colquitt and Zapata-
Phelan 2007), spark curiosity, and add new vocabulary to
the conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes,
consumer behavior, and unethical behavior intention in the
literature.
Fig. 1 A theoretical model of temptation, MI, and unethical
intentions
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
Theory and Hypotheses
Temptation: Construct Conceptualization
According to Locke (1969, p. 334), the first question a
scientific investigator must ask is not ‘‘how can I measure
it?’’ but rather, ‘‘what is it?’’ In order to understand the
construct clearly and achieve a solid construct conceptu-
alization, researchers must use specific, accurate, and
explicit terms and define the conceptual construct precisely
in a positive direction without circular or tautological
argument (Edwards and Bagozzi 2000; MacKenzie et al.
2011). We define temptation below.
What is Temptation?
From the Greek word Peirasmos, temptation is the state of
being enticed, allured, or seduced. It carries two mean-
ings—being misled into sin or enticed to do wrong, or
being put to the test. We approach the temptation construct
from the perspectives of consumer behavior and business
Ethics. First, consumers’ desire to perform an act (con-
sumption) leads to instant gratification (Tice et al. 2001),
but causes great regret or guilt later. Second, when temp-
ted, most people are willing to be a little dishonest,
regardless of the risks. People rationalize their dishonesty
easily when cheating is one step removed from cash
(Ariely 2008). It is the weak temptation, as compared to
strong temptation, that has an inhibiting effect on self-
regulation process, forming a bigger threat for long-term
goal attainment (Kroese et al. 2011). People’s temptation to
break the simple, small rules is titillating because it tem-
porally brings a sense of excitement to life and can be
rationalized easily. This is the reason why so many people
are easily enticed to eat chocolate, shop spontaneously, and
do bad, deviant, and unethical things. Resisting temptation,
on the other hand, takes a lot of willpower, clear thinking,
and self-control that may or may not deliver us from evil.
Components of Temptation
A key to understanding the motivational mechanisms of
deviance lies in theories of self-regulation (Christian and
Ellis 2011). Deviant behaviors are volitional, but are dif-
ferent from crimes of passion (due to sudden unexpected
impulses) and impulsive behavior/consumption. Following
TPB, the theory of free will (Baumeister 2002; Baumeister
et al. 1994, 2008), and the ABC model of an attitude
(Bagozzi et al. 1979), we define temptation as a multi-
dimensional individual difference variable with five com-
ponents: (1) getting rich, (2) impulsive behavior, (3) cog-
nitive impairment, (4) social moral values, and (5) lack of
self-control. The entity to which it applies is people. We
discuss these constructs below.
Getting Rich (Affective)
Why do people (e.g., CEO/CFO of Enron and Bernie Mad-
off) fall into temptation and engage in unethical behaviors?
Enron’s executives were provided with substantial bonuses
in the form of stock options. Given the size of the bonus
payments, the ‘‘temptation’’ to engage in unethical behavior
was, in hindsight, disturbingly obvious (The Daily Record
2003). When tempted, most are willing to be a little dishonest
and to do whatever it takes to become rich. Getting rich is a
highly emotional, affective aspect of people’s money atti-
tudes. Those who want to get rich will take risks and engage
in unethical behaviors (Tang et al. 2008a, 2011).
Impulsive Behavior (Behavioral)
Those who fall into temptation follow their hearts, seek
instant gratification (Tice et al. 2001), and act in an
impulsive and spontaneous way. People suddenly have an
urge to do something, act on that impulse without carefully
or thoroughly considering whether it is consistent with
their long-range goals, ideals, and plans (Baumeister 2002).
Most impulses are resistible, yet sometimes prove irre-
sistible when their self-control has failed (Rook 1987).
Some opportunistic people may capture the moment and
engage in unethical behaviors when opportunities present
themselves in the environment.
Cognitive Impairment (Cognitive)
Comparing three types of theories regarding how people
restrain impulses and override incipient responses—will-
power and strength, cognitive processes, and self-control as a
skill—Baumeister (2002) supported the willpower and
strength model. Sleep deprivation causes workplace devi-
ance due to the depletion of self-regulatory resources
(Christian and Ellis 2011). When crucial self-regulatory
resources have been depleted, people without a ‘‘strong will’’
become weak physically, psychologically, and spiritually,
and experience cognitive impairment. Due to temptation,
people become disoriented and lose their abilities to con-
centrate on important, long-term goals.1 However, execu-
tives in recent scandals strategically planned, cleverly
organized, deceitfully misled, and carefully controlled/exe-
cuted their unethical act (theft, corruption, and deception)
with concerted efforts and executive function. These scan-
dals are not caused by the executives’ lack of ‘‘intelligence’’
1 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit
is willing, but the fresh is weak. (Matthew 26: 41).
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
or ‘‘brains,’’ nor accidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive
impairment, but rather by their self-interests, malicious
intent, and lack of ‘‘wisdom,’’ ‘‘virtue’’ (Feiner 2004, p. 85;
Tang and Liu 2012). We posit that most people engage in
unethical behaviors to fulfill their specific, selfish, and stra-
tegic and intentional purposes which are quite different from
consumers who yield to temptation and buy impulsively at
shopping malls. In other words, compared to CEO/CFO of
Enron and Bernie Madoff, mentally challenged individuals
may not have the intellectual competencies to execute
unethical behaviors.
Lack of Self-Control (Perceived Control)
Self-control is ‘‘the ability to override or change one’s
inner responses, as well as to interrupt undesired behavioral
tendencies (such as impulses) and refrain from acting on
them’’ (Tangney et al. 2004, p. 274). When people lose
track of their behavior, they experience a self-control
breakdown. People in a sad mood eat unhealthy snack
foods more than those without emotional distress. ‘‘When
people are upset, they indulge immediate impulses to make
themselves feel better, which amounts to giving short-term
affect regulation priority over other self-regulatory goals’’
(Tice et al. 2001, p. 53). Acts of self-regulation without rest
or replenishment (Muraven and Baumeister 2000) ‘‘impair
subsequent self-regulatory efforts’’ (Gino et al. 2011,
p. 192). Self-control is the poorest among people who have
performed a prior act of self-control. People who are on a
diet tend to eat more pieces of candy when given the
opportunity in an experiment than those who are not.
Further, both traits self-control and self-control depletion
predicted impulsive cheating behavior on a problem-solv-
ing task (Baumeister et al. 1998; Mead et al. 2009; Mu-
raven et al. 2006; Rosenbaum 1993). People with high self-
control have less aggressive behavior (Latham and Perlow
2006) and lower deviant behaviors (Bordia et al. 2008). In
a ‘‘cold’’ non-visceral state, the presence of temptation
prompts cognition to support self-control, whereas in a
‘‘hot’’ visceral state, temptation prompts the same cognitive
processes to support impulsive behavior (Nordgren and
Chou 2011). Thus, some coldhearted individuals seize the
opportunity to become corrupt and engage in unethical
behaviors for financial gains, but do not do it impulsively
to make themselves feel better (cf. Tice et al. 2001). As
mentioned, people’s decisive unethical behaviors reflect
their strong self-control and executive function. That is,
they do it on purpose. It is not an accident.
Social Moral Values (Subjective Social Norm)
Getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton students to
contemplate their own ethical values by ‘‘recalling the Ten
Commandments or signing an honor code’’ eliminates
cheating completely, while offering ‘‘poker chips’’ to
redeem for cash, a few seconds later, doubles the level of
cheating (Ariely 2008, p. 24; Aquino et al. 2009; Tang 2012).
With a high level of supervisory guidance, a high (or low)
level of behavioral integrity (Simons 2002; Simons et al.
2007) curbs (or incites) deviant behavior (Dineen et al.
2006). People with a high love of money and low perceptions
regarding the authenticity of a supervisor’s personal integrity
and character (ASPIRE) had the highest unethical behavior
intention, whereas those with a high love of money and high
ASPIRE had the lowest (Tang and Liu 2012). Thus, the
supervisor’s authentic personal integrity and character
(ASPIRE) is a moderator and makes a difference. There are
several important implications: Most people’s ethical
intentions and behaviors are influenced by ethical values and
cultures at the individual and organization levels (Kish-
Gephart et al. 2010; Weiss et al. 2010). The Ten Com-
mandments and poker chips signify sacred and secular
values, respectively. Temptations presented positively or
negatively in the social context contribute to individuals’
ethical or unethical intentions. Taken together, we assert that
these five sub-constructs make significant and independent
contributions to our theoretical measurement model of
temptation.
Relationships Between Constructs and Measures
(Reflective vs. Formative)
We discuss the nature of the relationships between the
constructs and measures below. For decades, most
researchers in social sciences have used a reflective model
for attitudinal constructs rather than a formative model
(Edwards and Bagozzi 2000). Recent developments in
measurement theory and application led some researchers
to reconsider constructs, such as job satisfaction, not as a
reflective model, but as a formative model—a composite or
aggregate of the satisfaction with pay, promotion, super-
visor, coworkers, and the work itself (Williams et al. 2003).
Further, some scholars strongly advocated the use of the
formative measurement model and suggested that paths
emanating from a misspecified construct may lead to Type
I errors, whereas paths leading to a misspecified construct
may lead to Type II error (Jarvis et al. 2003; MacKenzie
et al. 2005, 2011). Others expressed concerns regarding its
merits (Edwards 2011). We describe and compare both
reflective and formative models of temptation next.
Reflective Model
We treat the five sub-constructs or factors as an imperfect
reflection of the underlying latent construct—temptation.
The indicators and the first-order latent factors are viewed
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
as manifestations of the overall focal construct; the focal
construct exists separately at a deeper and more embedded
level than its first-order factors and items; and, a change in
the focal construct would be expected to produce a change
in all of its factors and items. The indicators and first-level
sub-constructs are best thought of as reflective of the focal
construct. The direction of the relationship flows from the
latent construct to the indicators. Direct manipulation of a
particular indicator will not have an effect on the latent
variable. It is appropriate when a researcher is interested in
measuring a stable focal construct over time or across sit-
uations, or has several randomly selected parcels of items,
each of which is reflective of a focal construct.
Formative Model
We treat items and the five first-order sub-constructs
(factors) as a ‘‘reflective’’ model and consider the five sub-
constructs as distinguishable perspectives, defining char-
acteristics, or ‘‘formative’’ indicators, of temptation. The
elimination of any single sub-construct will restrict the
overall construct in a significant way. The non-inter-
changeable sub-dimensions (antecedents) formulate the
temptation construct that, in turn, is related to two or more
items or reflective measures that capture the overall con-
struct or various consequences (outcomes). The patterns for
the formation and consequence of temptation depend on
different outcomes involved in the analyses. [Our reflective
and formative models of temptation (with results of the
present study) are presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively,
and Appendix.]
After discussions of the fallacy of formative measures,
Edwards (2011) proposed alternatives to formative mea-
surement. Our model (presented in Fig. 3) actually fits the
description—an alternative to the conventional formative
measurement model that ‘‘avoids’’ the shortcomings of
formative measurement (Edwards 2011). It is a ‘‘model that
replaces formative measures with facet constructs and
multiple reflective measures’’ (see Fig. 6, Edwards 2011,
p. 384). In this case, ‘‘the construct is nothing more than a
label for its dimensions considered collectively’’ (p. 384).
In summary, we establish a temptation measure (as a trait)
and explore the validity in a theoretical SEM model.
Step 1: To achieve model identification, a formative
construct must emit paths to (1) at least two unrelated
latent constructs with reflective indicators, (2) at least two
theoretically appropriate reflective indicators, or (3) one
reflective indicator and one latent construct with reflective
Fig. 2 Results of the
temptation scale—a reflective
model
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
indicators (Jarvis et al. 2003). Step 2: In order to establish
the validity (nomological network of correlations) of the
temptation construct, we adopt two models of temptation
(i.e., reflective vs. an alternative to conventional formative
measurement) in two separate analyses and select two
additional outcome items (Items 18 and 19, Fig. 4) and two
additional constructs—unethical intentions (PUB) (reflec-
tive) and MI (formative)—for two reasons. First, the
temptation construct taps directly and indirectly on both
constructs that are content-valid measures. Second, we
treat MI as a mediator and examine the direct path
(temptation ? unethical intentions) and the indirect path
(temptation ? MI ? unethical intentions) simulta-
neously. Since we treat MI as a formative measurement
model, we also included two additional outcome variables
(Machiavellianism) (Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Tang
2010).
Unethical Behavior Intentions
It is impossible to directly measure managers’ actual cor-
ruption or unethical behaviors because most behaviors are
performed in private, except in formal criminal investiga-
tions of corruption cases, police records (e.g., Fisman and
Miguel 2007), and laboratory experiments (Ariely 2008).
However, people are willing to provide accurate informa-
tion for specific questions in an anonymous survey (Rich-
man et al. 1999; Schoorman and Mayer 2008). The
convergence of the incumbent’s self-report and the cow-
orker’s peer report on counterproductive behavior suggests
that self-reported unethical intention is a reasonable sur-
rogate measure of behavior (De Jonge and Peeters 2009;
Fox et al. 2007; Martin et al. 2007).
Among workplace deviance (Bennett and Robinson
2000), counterproductive behavior (Cohen-Charash and
Spector 2001; Spector and Fox 2010), corruption, and
misbehavior, researchers have examined the propensity to
engage in unethical behaviors (PUB) (Tang and Chiu 2003)
that are a subset of organizational deviances performed
against organizations (Robinson and Bennett 2000). The
PUB scale includes theft, corrupt intent, and deception. The
corrupt intent sub-scale involves the misuse of position,
power, or authority for personal or organizational gain
(receiving gifts, money, bribery, and kickbacks); acts
committed against the company (sabotage and theft); and
acts conducted on behalf of the organization (laying off
employees for personal gain) (Ashforth et al. 2008; Rob-
inson and Bennett 2000). These constructs have been tested
Fig. 3 Results of the
temptation scale—a formative
model
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
empirically in China (Du et al. 2007), Hong Kong (Tang
and Chiu 2003), Macedonia (Sardzoska and Tang 2009,
2012), the US (Piffa et al. 2012), and more than 31 geo-
political entities/countries across six continents (Tang et al.
2011) and cited in review articles (e.g., Kish-Gephart et al.
2010) and textbooks (Bateman and Snell 2013).
Temptation to Unethical Behaviors
We focus on the direct path between temptation and
unethical intentions (Path 1). One of the real root causes of
the corporate scandals is ‘‘the overemphasis American
corporations have been forced to give in recent years to
maximizing shareholder value without regard for the effect
of their actions on other stakeholders’’ (Kochan 2002,
p. 139). Profit-based mechanisms create a huge amount of
pressure and opportunity for managers and have serious
flaws. Enron’s executives were provided with substantial
bonuses in the form of stock options—a temptation—that
might have caused executives to deceptively manipulate
accounting procedures by cooking the books and inten-
tionally engage in unethical behaviors (The Daily Record
2003; Kennedy and Lawton 1993). As mentioned, scandals
and unethical behaviors in the US and around the world are
caused by executives’ ‘‘intentional actions’’ and are ‘‘not’’
accidents or honest mistakes. They did it on purpose and
not due to cognitive impairment and/or lack of self-con-
trol, in particular. High love-of-money individuals have
high Machiavellianism and a high risk tolerance (Tang
et al. 2008a, b). Domain-specific temptation explained
40 % of the unique within-individual variance in impulsive
behavior (Tsukayama et al. 2012). On the basis of the
ancient wisdom (those who want to get rich are falling into
temptation and the love of money is the root of all evils)
and empirical research findings, we test Hypothesis 1
below.
Hypothesis 1 Temptation is directly related to unethical
behavior intentions.
Monetary Intelligence (MI)
For the past three decades, researchers have examined
numerous money-related attitudes and measures (Furnham
1984; Furnham and Argyle 1998; Mitchell and Mickel
1999; Srivastava et al. 2001; Yamauchi and Templer
1982). Among them, the money ethic (MES, Tang 1992) or
the love-of-money construct, a subset of MES (Tang and
Chiu 2003; Tang and Chen 2008; Tang et al. 2006, 2011),
has become one of the most cited and systematically used
constructs of money attitude in the literature (Mitchell and
Mickel 1999). It is mildly related to materialism (Belk
1984, 1985, 1988; Kasser 2002), differs from greed
(Cozzolino et al. 2009), is related to a winner-take-all
mentality—the Matthew effect (Merton 1968; Tang 1996),2
and predicts voluntary turnover (Tang et al. 2000) and
unethical behavioral intention in multiple-wave panel
studies (Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Liu 2012). This
construct has been substantiated in empirical studies across
almost three dozen entities around the world (Du et al.
2007; Gbadamosi and Joubert 2005; Lim and Teo 1997;
Nkundabanyanga et al. 2011; Singhapakdi et al. 2012/
forthcoming; Tang et al. 2006, 2008b, 2011, 2012a; Vitell
et al. 2006; Wong 2008) and cited in influential reviews
(Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; Lea and Webley 2006; Mickel
and Barron 2008; Mitchell and Mickel 1999; Zhang 2009)
and in numerous books (Colquitt et al. 2011; Furnham and
Argyle 1998; McShane and Von Glinow 2008; Milkovich
et al. 2010; Rynes and Gerhart 2000).
Based on previous research (Tang 1992, Tang and Chen
2008; Tang and Chiu 2003), MI is defined as a multi-
dimensional individual difference variable that involves
people’s ability to process and appraise monetary motive
(affective), regulate money-related intentions or behaviors
(behavioral), and prioritize its cognitive importance (cog-
nitive) to promote personal growth, happiness, or sub-
jective well-being (Tang et al. 2012b). MI (money smart) is
a grand umbrella construct with three sub-constructs—the
affective motive (rich, motivator, and importance), the
behavioral stewardship of money (make, budget, donate,
and contribute), and the cognitive meaning (happiness,
respect, achievement, and power). Results based on 6,586
managers in 32 geopolitical entities across six continents
showed that low motive, high stewardship, and high
meaning define MI that is related to higher pay satisfaction
than life satisfaction. The formation and consequence of
MI varied across age, gender, and economic development,
providing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cross-cultural
differences—becoming good stewards and focusing on
what we do with our money, actually contribute signifi-
cantly, positively, and consistently to MI and to job and life
satisfaction. When the cognitive meaning of money is (is
not) a prominent makeup of MI, people tend to have higher
(lower) pay satisfaction than life satisfaction. These find-
ings seem to support the ancient wisdom, ‘‘Poverty con-
sists, not in the decrease of one’s possessions, but in the
increase of one’s greed’’ (Plato, 427–347 BC). ‘‘Whoever
loves money never has money enough; whoever loves
wealth is never satisfied with his income’’ (Ecclesiastes, 5:
10). We explore MI as a mediator in the present study.
2 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an
abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be
taken away (Matthew 13: 12).
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
Monetary Intelligence (MI) as a Mediator
Temptation to MI (Path 2)
Materialism (Belk 1984) leads to the dark side of the
American dream (Arndt et al. 2004; Kasser 2002; Kasser
and Ryan 1993; Mick 1996; Tang 2007; Tang et al. 2012a/
forthcoming). Subject to all forms of temptation, materi-
alistic consumers have high financial worries, poor money-
management skills, and a great tendency toward compul-
sive buying and over spending, i.e., low MI/money smart
(Gardarsdottir and Dittmar 2012). After controlling for
income and money-management skills, materialism is
directly related to the amount of debt. Students on five
college campuses reported an average debt of $1,035
(SD = $1,849). Those with greater debt reported greater
stress and decreased financial well-being (Norvilitis et al.
2006). The US saving rates in 2006 dropped to an all time
low at ‘‘-.5 %’’ since the great depression (Associated
Press 2006). Only 14 % of Americans have confidence in
their ability to retire comfortably (Helman et al. 2012).
People lose track of their self-control, become cognitively
impaired, fall into temptation, and spend their money
impulsively (Baumeister 2002). Choices made after losses
are riskier than those after gains (Gehring and Willoughby
2002). Following a vicious cycle, temptation is related to
poor MI (lower stewardship of money and higher value
toward the enjoyment of having money). We test our
Hypothesis 2 as follows:
Hypothesis 2 Temptation is related to MI.
MI to Unethical Intentions (Path 3)
The affective component of money attitude is associated
with deviant behaviors and unethical intentions (Kish-
Gephart et al. 2010; Tang and Chen 2008; Tang et al.
2011). Money is often associated with the psychological
meaning of achievement and recognition, status and
respect, freedom and control, and power (Mitchell and
Mickel 1999; see Colquitt et al. 2011). Considering money
as a sign of their achievement leads to low satisfaction with
pay and life (Fishbach et al. 2003; Srivastava et al. 2001;
Tang 1992, 2007). Pay dissatisfaction causes people to
become corrupt in the name of justice (Greenberg 1993),
equity (Gino and Pierce 2009a, b), revenge (Ashforth and
Anand 2003), or retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger 1997).
Those who do not manage their money carefully (Dew and
Xiao 2011; Mickel et al. 2003) have many foolish and
harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and
destruction.
Hypothesis 3 MI is related to unethical intentions.
It is plausible that our direct path and indirect path may
be operated differently based on our theoretical model.
Suppression occurs when ‘‘the indirect effect’’ has ‘‘the
opposite sign of the direct effect’’ (Shrout and Bolger 2002,
p. 430) which explains why a theoretically interesting
relation is not strong. That is, the direct and indirect effects
of similar magnitudes and opposite signs result in a non-
zero and non-significant overall relationship. We challenge
the assumption that temptation leads to the dark side of
unethical intentions consistently (Hypothesis 1) and argue
that due to our positive indirect effect (suppression effect,
Hypotheses 2 and 3), temptation may not have a strong and
negative relationship with unethical intentions for all par-
ticipants. ‘‘A moderator is a qualitative (e.g., sex, race,
class) or quantitative (e.g., level of reward) variable that
affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between
an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or
criterion variable’’ (Baron and Kenny 1986, p. 1174). We
treat gender as a moderator and test our model using multi-
group analysis (Amos).
Gender
Males have higher concerns for money and career
advancement than ethical values (Beu et al. 2003; Desh-
pande 1997; Hoffman 1998) when compared to females.
Ethics training may have limited effects for females, but no
effect for males (Conroy and Emerson 2004; Ritter 2006;
Traiser and Eighmy 2011). The top business schools not
only fail to improve the moral character of students, but
also actually weaken it (Schneider and Prasso 2002). Stu-
dents who take a single semester of introductory economics
show a significant decline in honesty and increase in self-
interest (Frank et al. 1993). Highly educated executives in
recent scandals received their training at the best business
schools (Merritt 2002). Machiavellianism mediates the
relationship between the love of money and unethical
intentions for business students, but not for psychology
students; for male students, but not for female students; and
for male business students, but not for female business
students (Tang and Chen 2008). Male students are more
unethical than female students.
Hypothesis 4 The dark impact of temptation on unethical
intentions is stronger for males than for females.
Method
Procedure
The first author collected data from 340 students
(male = 221, 65.0 %; female = 119, 35.0 %; return
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
rate = 95 %) who took a management class in the college
of business, accredited by AACSB-International, at a state
university in the southeastern US for 4 years. In a 16-week
semester, students completed eight two-page (on one sheet
of paper) surveys and other activities for course credits,
confidentially with initials and the last four digits of their
social security number in order to match these eight-panel
survey data. Participants completed these surveys at least 1
or 2 weeks apart in the semester. This procedure avoids the
possible impact of fatigue/memory, common method var-
iance (CMV) bias, and enhances the psychological sepa-
ration of predictors and criteria (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The
professor was blind regarding students’ survey results and
debriefed the purposes of this study at the end of the
semester.
Measures
We adopted our 15-item, 5-factor temptation scale; the
30-item, 10-factor MI scale (MI, Tang 1992; Tang et al.
2012b); 4-item Machiavellianism (Mach IV, 4 items, two
items from tactics and two items from views of human
nature, Christie and Geis 1970; Tang and Chen 2008); and
three sub-constructs (theft, corruption, and deception) of
the 15-item, 5-factor propensity to engage in unethical
behavior scale (PUB) (Chen and Tang 2006; Tang and
Chiu 2003) (see Appendix). We used a 5-point Likert scale
with strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree
(4), and strongly agree (5) as anchors for temptation, MI,
and Machiavellianism measures. For the PUB scale, we
used a different set of anchors: very low probability (1),
low probability (2), average (3), high probability (4), and
very high probability (5) and provided the following
instructions: If you were given the opportunity in your
work environment, what is the probability that you may
engage in the following activities. It is a measure of self-
prediction. We also collected demographic variables (e.g.,
gender, age, years of education, current job tenure, and
income) and many other filler items. We used (SPSS/
Amos) and the following criteria for configural invariance
(passing 5 out of 6 criteria): (1) Chi-square and degrees of
freedom (v2/df), (2) incremental fit index (IFI [ .90), (3)
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI [ .90), (4) comparative fit index
(CFI [ .90), (5) standardized root mean square residual
(SRMSR \ .10), and (6) root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA \ .10) (Vandenberg and Lance
2000). We achieve metric invariance when the differences
between unconstrained and constrained multi-group con-
firmatory factor analyses (MGCFAs) are not significant
(DCFI, DRMSEA B .01, Cheung and Rensvold 2002). All
measures in the present study were collected at least
1 week apart, for some more than 2 months apart.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s a, and corre-
lations of demographic variables, temptation, five sub-
components of temptation, MI, and unethical intentions for
the whole sample are presented in Table 1. All five sub-
constructs of temptation were significantly correlated.
Cronbach’s a and composite reliability for temptation were
.81 and .81, respectively (Table 1).3 Age was significantly
correlated with years of education, job experience, and
income. Income was also associated with levels of educa-
tion and job experience. MI was related to the sub-con-
struct of social moral values. Unethical intentions were
related to gender (male), low temptation, low cognitive
impairment, and strong self-control.
The Temptation Scale (Reflective vs. Formative)
For our 15-item, 5-factor temptation scale, we selected two
additional items to achieve model identification for our
formative model (Jarvis et al. 2003). These items depicted
not only two consequences of temptation—becoming
‘‘selfish’’ (Item 16, see Appendix) and deviating from
important ‘‘goals’’ (Item 17) (Gino et al. 2011)—but also
the overall notion of temptation. The direction of the
relationship flows from temptation to sub-constructs for our
reflective model, but from sub-constructs to temptation for
the formative model.
Our formative model (Fig. 3: v2 = 190.73, df = 104,
p \ .001, v2/df = 1.83, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95,
SRMSR = .04, RMSEA = .06) was better than the reflec-
tive model (Fig. 2: v2 = 237.82, df = 114, p \ .001, v2/
df = 2.09, IFI = .92, TLI = .91, CFI = .92, SRMSR =
.05, RMSEA = .06). The differences between the two were
significant (i.e., Dv2 = 47.09, Ddf = 10, p \ .001; DCFI =
.0249[ .010). For our reflective model, the descending order
of regression weights (factor loadings) for the five sub-con-
structs were as follows (Fig. 2): impulsive behavior (.86),
cognitive impairment (.83), self-control (.82), social moral
value (.48), and getting rich (.31), respectively. For the for-
mative model, the paths were .49, .32, .32, -.23, and -.16,
respectively. In both models, all regression weights and paths
were significant. For the formative model, the highest corre-
lation among the five sub-constructs was between impulsive
behavior and cognitive impairment (.74) which was smaller
than .80 (Kim 2011). These five non-interchangeable sub-
constructs are relatively independent and make significant and
3 We do not discuss students’ second 48-item temptation scale,
completed about 10–12 weeks apart (Cronbach’s a = .85), in this
paper.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
Ta
ble
1M
ean
,st
and
ard
dev
iati
on
,C
ron
bac
h’s
a,co
mp
osi
tere
liab
ilit
y,
and
corr
elat
ion
so
fv
aria
ble
s
Var
iab
leM
SD
12
34
56
78
91
01
11
21
3
1.
Ag
e2
3.6
45
.63
2.
Sex
(%m
ale)
.65
.48
-.0
4
3.
edu
cati
on
(yr.
)1
5.3
31
.39
.40
**
-.0
4
4.
Job
(yr.
)3
.31
8.2
1.4
4*
*.0
3.0
6
5.
Inco
me
($)
23
,67
8.1
95
2,3
29
.77
.28
**
.05
.20
**
.17
*
6.
Tem
pta
tio
n3
.53
.56
-.0
4-
.02
-.0
2.0
1-
.08
7.
T-S
po
nta
neo
us
3.6
7.7
1-
.03
-.0
7.0
1.0
1-
.09
.70
**
8.
T-I
mp
aire
d3
.10
.95
-.0
5-
.00
-.0
6-
.00
.10
.79
**
.46
**
9.
T-C
on
tro
l3
.52
.86
-.0
5-
.06
-.0
5-
.01
-.0
7.7
6*
*.4
5*
*.5
4*
*
10
.T
-Mo
ral
3.7
5.7
1-
.07
.03
-.0
0-
.01
.08
.55
**
.26
**
.30
**
.29
**
11
.T
-Ric
h3
.61
.89
.03
.02
.05
.03
-.0
6.5
9*
*.2
7*
*.2
8*
*.2
5*
*.1
2*
12
.M
I3
.62
.55
-.1
4-
.00
-.0
8.0
0-
.04
.08
-.0
1.0
4.0
8.1
7*
*.0
2
13
.U
net
hic
al1
.41
.54
.05
.19
**
-.0
8-
.04
.04
-.1
3*
-.0
4-
.14
*-
.13
*-
.06
-.0
6.0
4
Cro
nb
ach
’sa
.81
.51
.75
.75
.44
.71
.90
.87
Co
mp
osi
tere
liab
ilit
y.8
1a
N=
34
0.
Gen
der
:m
ale
=1
,fe
mal
e=
0.
MI
=m
on
etar
yin
tell
igen
ce
*p
\.0
5,
**
p\
.01
aC
om
po
site
reli
abil
ity
for
tem
pta
tio
n(f
orm
ativ
em
od
el,
Fig
.3
,b
ased
on
resu
lts
of
refl
ecti
ve
mo
del
,F
ig.
2)
=[(
sum
of
stan
dar
diz
edlo
adin
g)2
/{(s
um
of
stan
dar
diz
edlo
adin
g)2
?su
mo
f
ind
icat
or
mea
sure
men
ter
ror}
].[I
nd
icat
or
mea
sure
men
ter
ror
=1
-(s
tan
dar
diz
edlo
adin
g)2
]
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
different contributions to the temptation construct. High cor-
relations among the sub-constructs provide high reliability for
the overall reflective temptation construct, whereas low cor-
relations among the sub-constructs reveal independent con-
tributions to the same overall formative construct (Edwards
2011).
Measurement Invariance
We examined measurement invariance of our temptation
scale across gender using our reflective model (Fig. 3).
First, regarding configural (factor structure) invariance, the
fit between our measurement model and our data for the
male sample (v2 = 156.21, df = 104, p \ .0007, v2/df =
1.50, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, SRMSR = .05,
RMSEA = .05) was slightly better than that for the female
sample (v2 = 160.39, df = 104, p \ .0003, v2/df = 1.54,
IFI = .92, TLI = .89, CFI = .91, SRMSR = .07, RMSEA =
.07), due to the different sample size (males = 221 vs.
females = 119). Second, we checked metric (factor loading)
invariance using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis
(MGCFA) across gender. There was a good fit for the
unconstrained model (v2 = 316.79, df = 208, p \ .0000,
v2/df = 1.52, IFI = .94, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, SRMSR =
.05, RMSEA = .04). In our constrained MGCFA, we set all
the paths from items to the first-order latent constructs to be
equal for males and females (v2 = 330.20, df = 218, p \.0000, v2/df = 1.51, IFI = .93, TLI = .92, CFI = .93,
SRMSR = .05, RMSEA = .04). The differences between
unconstrained and constrained MGCFAs were not signifi-
cant (DCFI = DRMSEA = .00 B .01). We achieved confi-
gural and metric invariance across gender for the temptation
scale which gave us confidence to test our theoretical SEM
across gender.
Common Method Variance (CMV)
Due to our longitudinal data, CMV should not be a concern
(Podsakoff et al. 2003; Spector 2006). Following sugges-
tions in the literature, we adopted Harman’s single-factor
test and examined the unrotated factor solution involving
54 items and all three variables of interest in an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and identified 15 factors, with
eigenvalue greater than one. We listed the scale and
amount of variance explained (total = 70.29 %) below: MI
(16.87 %), PUB (9.72 %), temptation-lack of self-control
(7.31 %), MI (5.23 %), temptation-cognitive impairment
(4.93 %), temptation-impulsive behavior (3.63 %), MI
(3.24 %), temptation-getting rich (3.07 %), temptation-
social moral values (2.84 %), and constructs with cross-
loadings (2.61, 2.45, 2.33, 2.09, 2.03, and 1.95 %). No
single factor accounted for the majority of the covariance
in the independent and criterion variables. CMV was not a
concern in this research.
Our Theoretical Model
RMSEA tends to over reject a true model due to ‘‘small
sample size’’ and ‘‘model complexity’’ (Tang et al. 2006,
p. 446). To maintain a large sample size to item ratio and
reduce model complexity for the whole sample and sub-
sequent multiple-group analyses across subgroups of gen-
der using our SEM model, we established a parsimonious
model using ‘‘15’’ parcels/items—5 parcels for temptation
with 2 outcome items, 3 parcels for MI with 2 outcome
parcels, and 3 parcels for unethical intentions—instead of
‘‘60.’’ The sample size to item ratio was 23 (340/15 =
22.67). We adopted two different items—Items 18 (plunge
men into ruin and destruction) and 19 (corrupt our moral
beliefs or ethical standards) (Appendix)—for the tempta-
tion construct (reflective vs. formative), appropriate in the
business ethics context. We treated MI (Tang et al. 2012b)
as a formative measurement with three sub-constructs—
affective motive, behavioral stewardship, and cognitive
meaning—and two additional outcome parcels (two items
each) for the Machiavellianism construct, also appropriate
in the business ethics context (Tang and Tang 2010). The
reflective unethical intentions construct had three sub-
constructs: theft, corrupt intent, and deception (Chen and
Tang 2006).
Reflective Model
Our parsimonious theoretical model with a reflective
temptation construct (v2 = 160.12, df = 85, p \ .000, v2/
df = 1.88, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, SRMSR =
.06, RMSEA = .05) is presented in Fig. 4. Our counterin-
tuitive, significant, negative direct path revealed that
temptation was significantly related to unethical intentions
(Path 1 = -.20, p \ .003), supporting Hypothesis 1. Our
significant, positive indirect path suggested that a high
level of temptation was related to poor MI (Path 2 = .15,
p \ .05) that, in turn, was related to high unethical inten-
tions (Path 3 = .28, p \ .001). Hypotheses 2 and 3 were
supported. Due to multiple faces of temptation and the
suppression effect, the overall impact from temptation to
unethical intentions was negative: The standardized total
impact (-.158) was the sum of the direct impact (-.200)
and the indirect impact (.0428 = .154 * .278). Carefully
controlled malicious temptation was related to deviant
intentions. Overall, temptation creates a dark impact on
unethical intentions for participants in the whole sample.
The factor loadings of all five sub-constructs of temptation
were as follows: cognitive impairment (.79), lack of self-
control (.73), impulsive behavior (.67), social moral values
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
(.37), and getting rich (.35). Stewardship behavior (-.15)
and the cognitive meaning of money (.34) contributed to
MI. Regarding unethical intentions, corrupt intent (.88)
seemed to be more prevalent than deception (.77) and theft
(.63).
Males
Multi-group analysis across gender revealed some inter-
esting and profound results (v2 = 239.06, df = 170,
p \ .0004, v2/df = 1.41, IFI = .95, TLI = .94, CFI = .94,
SRMSR = .06, RMSEA = .03). For males, the direct path
was significant and negative (-.20, p \ .05) (see Fig. 5),
supporting Hypothesis 1. For the indirect path, temptation
was not significantly related to MI (.02, n.s.) that, in turn,
was significantly associated with unethical intentions (.22,
p \ .05), supporting Hypothesis 3, but not Hypothesis 2.
MI was not a mediator. The overall indirect impact from
temptation to unethical intentions was inconsequentially
small (.004 = .02 * .22). Both MI and temptation con-
tributed significantly to unethical intentions. The stan-
dardized total impact from temptation to unethical
intention was negative [total impact (-.197) = direct
impact (-.201) ? indirect impact (.004)]. Corrupt intent
(.95) had the strongest factor loading, followed by decep-
tion (.76) and theft (.64). For males, temptation has a strong
dark impact on unethical intentions. The meaning of
money contributed significantly (.47, p \ .001), while
stewardship behavior contributed marginally (-.16,
p = .054) to MI.
Females
The negative direct path was non-significant (-.172, n.s.),
but the positive indirect path was significant (temptation ?MI = .341, p \ .01; MI ? unethical intentions = .480,
p \ .05) (Fig. 6). MI was a mediator. Results supported
Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis 1. The indirect
impact from temptation to unethical intentions was sub-
stantial (.164 = .341 * .480). The overall standardized total
impact from temptation to unethical intention was negative,
but trivial [total impact (-.007) = direct impact (-.171) ?
indirect impact (.164)]. Deception (.91) had the strongest
factor loading, followed by corrupt intent (.51) and theft
(.39). For females, temptation has a weak dark impact on
unethical intentions.
Fig. 4 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (reflective), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the whole sample)
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
MANOVA Results
We checked the mean differences next. Our multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) of demographic variables
(age, education, job experience, and income) across gender
was not significant (F (4, 199) = .73, p [ .05, Wilks’
lambda = .986, partial eta squared = .014, power = .233).
MANOVA results regarding major variables across gender
were significant (F (11, 321) = 2.40, p = .007, Wilks’
lambda = .924, partial eta squared = .076, power = .954).
Males had lower stewardship behavior (3.47 vs. 3.67), but
higher theft (1.40 vs. 1.22), corruption (1.54 vs. 1.32), and
deception (1.52 vs. 1.26) than females.
Formative Model
Results of our SEM model with formative temptation
(v2 = 106.48, df = 74, p \ .0080, v2/df = 1.44, IFI =
.98, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, SRMSR = .05, RMSEA = .04)
are presented in Fig. 7. Comparing Figs. 4 and 7, our for-
mative model was superior to the reflective model
(Dv2 = 53.64, Ddf = 11, DCFI = .03, DRMSEA = .01).
The negative direct path revealed that temptation (low
cognitive impairment and high self-control) was signifi-
cantly related to unethical intentions (-.22, p \ .001),
supporting Hypothesis 1. Our significant, positive indirect
path suggested that a high level of temptation (high cog-
nitive impairment and lack of self-control) was related to
poor MI (low stewardship, but high cognitive meaning of
money) (.16, p \ .05) that, in turn, was related to high
unethical intentions (.28, p \ .001) (Hypotheses 2 and 3).
The overall impact from temptation to unethical intentions
(-.170) was the sum of the direct impact (-.215) and the
indirect impact (.045 = .16 * .28). Carefully controlled
malicious temptation—low cognitive impairment and high
self-control—was related to deviant intentions. Overall,
temptation creates a dark impact on unethical intentions for
participants in the whole sample. Among five sub-con-
structs, cognitive impairment (.59) and self-control (.40)
contributed significantly and positively to temptation.
Stewardship behavior (-.15) and cognitive meaning of
money (.34) contributed significantly to MI. Regarding
unethical intentions, corrupt intent (.89) seemed to be more
prevalent than deception (.77) and theft (.63).
Fig. 5 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (reflective), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the male sample)
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
Males
Figure 8 (v2 = 181.77, df = 148, p \ .0308, v2/df = 1.23,
IFI = .98, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, SRMSR = .05, RMSEA =
.03) shows that the direct path was negative (-.22, p \ .01)
(Hypothesis 1). For the indirect path, temptation was not
significantly related to MI (.02) that, in turn, was signifi-
cantly associated with unethical intentions (.22, p \ .01),
supporting Hypothesis 3, but not Hypothesis 2. MI was not a
mediator. The overall indirect impact from temptation to
unethical intentions was inconsequentially small (.004 =
.02 * .22). Both MI and temptation contributed significantly
to unethical intentions. The total impact from temptation to
unethical intention was negative [total (-.215) = direct
(-.219) ? indirect (.004)]. Corrupt intent (.95) had the
strongest factor loading, followed by deception (.76) and
theft (.64). For males, temptation has a strong dark impact
on unethical intentions. That is, our results also support the
notion that cold-hearted executives in recent scandals stra-
tegically planned, cleverly organized, deceitfully misled,
and carefully executed their unethical behaviors (theft, cor-
ruption, and deception) with concerted efforts and executive
function. These unethical acts are not caused by cognitive
impairment or lack of self control nor by accidents or honest
mistakes. From a different perspective, individuals without
the proper training at elite business schools and intellectual
competencies probably do not have the mental capacities to
execute these unethical behaviors.
Females
The negative direct path was non-significant (-.171). For
the positive indirect path, temptation was related to MI
(.34, p \ .01) that, in turn, was associated with unethical
intentions (.48, p \ .01) (Fig. 9). Results supported
Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but not Hypothesis 1. The indirect
impact from temptation to unethical intentions was sub-
stantial (.166 = .345 * .480). The overall total impact
from temptation to unethical intention was negative, but
trivial [total (-.005) = direct (-.171) ? indirect (.166)].
Deception (.90) had the strongest factor loading, followed
by corrupt intent (.52) and theft (.40). For females, temp-
tation has a weak dark impact on unethical intentions. We
will not repeat the same MANOVA results here.
Fig. 6 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (reflective), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the female sample)
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
Discussion
In this study, we investigate temptation from the perspec-
tives of consumer behavior, the psychology of money, and
business ethics. We explore the relationship between
temptation and unethical behavior, treat MI as a mediator,
and examine the direct and the indirect paths simulta-
neously using the whole sample and across gender based
on multi-panel data collected from 340 part-time employ-
ees who are also university students in a business class.
This study reveals several novel and counterintuitive
insights. We briefly present our theoretical, empirical, and
practical contributions below.
Theoretical Contributions
First, we carefully define the temptation construct using
reflective and formative theoretical models and present
solid empirical support for this individual difference vari-
able. We adopt an alternative model with facet constructs
and multiple reflective measures (see Fig. 6, Edwards
2011) that ‘‘avoids’’ the shortcomings of formative mea-
surement. Our temptation construct is a label for its
dimensions, considered collectively. The reflective temp-
tation model has five strong factor loadings for its sub-
constructs and a high Cronbach’s a (.81). For the formative
model, the correlations among five constructs are all below
.80, suggesting that all sub-constructs make significant and
separate contributions to the overall temptation construct.
Three constructs contribute positively, while two con-
structs contribute negatively to temptation. It has a good
composite reliability (.81) (Table 1).
Second, we develop a theoretical model, solve a part of
the mystery, and identify multiple faces of temptation—a
negative direct path as well as a positive indirect path for
the whole sample. Both the reflective and formative
models provide similar results and a strong validity for
the temptation construct. Specifically, our formative
model identifies specific sub-constructs that make signif-
icant contributions to temptation and our SEM model: For
the positive indirect path, people fall into temptation—
lack of self-control and cognitive impairment—and dis-
play poor MI (poor stewardship behavior, but high
meaning) that, in turn, entices them to have high unethical
intentions. For the negative direct path, temptation—
strong self-control and low cognitive impairment—is
Fig. 7 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (formative), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the whole sample)
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
related to unethical intentions. That is, our results also
support the notion that cold-hearted executives in recent
scandals strategically planned, cleverly organized,
deceitfully misled, and carefully executed their unethical
behaviors (theft, corruption, and deception) with con-
certed efforts and executive function. These unethical acts
are not caused by cognitive impairment or lack of self
control nor by accidents or honest mistakes. From a dif-
ferent perspective, individuals without the proper training
at elite business schools and intellectual competencies
probably do not have the mental capacities to execute
these unethical behaviors.
Temptation prompts cognition to support self-control in
a ‘‘cold’’ non-visceral state, but prompts the same cognitive
processes to support impulsive behavior in a ‘‘hot’’ visceral
state (Nordgren and Chou 2011). Both ‘‘cold’’ and ‘‘hot’’
states reflect our direct and indirect paths of our theoretical
model, respectively. Since the indirect path is positive,
whereas the direct path is negative, a suppression effect
exists (Shrout and Bolder 2001). Because the overall
impact is negative and substantial, controlled temptation
leads to unethical intentions.
Third, our multi-group analysis across gender reveals the
following profound findings based on both reflective and
formative models: a negative direct path for males and a
positive indirect path for females. For males, their negative
direct path creates a strong overall dark impact on unethical
intentions due to (1) a powerful negative path and (2) a
limited positive suppression effect. On the other hand, for
females, their positive indirect path creates a negligible
overall dark impact on unethical intentions because the
strong positive suppression effect eliminates almost all the
negative direct effect. Males display the ‘‘cold’’ state,
whereas the females pay attention to the ‘‘hot’’ state. For
males, their unethical intentions are dominated by ‘‘corrup-
tion,’’ whereas for females, by ‘‘deception.’’ The multiple
faces of temptation reveal the following specifically: There is
an important implication regarding business ethics for men
and consumer behavior for women. Overall, males are more
unethical than females among business students.
For our formative SEM model, only two sub-con-
structs—cognitive impairment and lack of self-control—
contribute significantly to temptation. Low stewardship
behavior and high cognitive meaning formulate the MI
Fig. 8 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (formative), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the male sample)
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
construct that is related to high unethical intentions.
Stewardship of money makes significant contributions
toward and formulates MI. The formation and consequence
of a formative construct depend on the context of the study
and offer additional information and insights when com-
pared to a reflective model. Cognitive and control com-
ponents of temptation (TPB, Ajzen 1991) help us
understand this construct. Our findings provide important
theoretical implications for researchers interested in
studying consumer behavior (Baumeister 2002; Baumeister
et al. 2008), the psychology of money (Milkovich et al.
2010), and deviant behavior (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010).
Empirical Contributions
Our very well developed theoretical constructs match with
systematically applied and highly cited measures in the
literature and a sample of business students with proper
work experiences. We cannot provide counterintuitive,
interesting, and novel discoveries without collecting data
from a good sample. We demonstrate temptation’s strong
reliability (Cronbach’s a and composite reliability), valid-
ity, and rigorous measurement invariance results across
genders. Results enhance the generalizability of our find-
ings and provide confidence to future researchers in con-
ducting cross-cultural research in under-researched areas of
the world.
Practical and Actionable Implications
Very little research has combined the fields of consumer
behavior, the psychology of money (MI), and business ethics
to investigate the temptation to unethical intentions relation-
ships. When constructs—that do not normally come near one
another—collide, the ultimate novelty of the solution will be
greater (Amabile 1998; Tang 2010). We apply multiple lenses
and provide a new, cross-disciplinary perspective by infusing
the theory of free will—constructs traditionally dominated by
scholars in the economic psychology and consumer behav-
ior—into the business ethics domain.
We clearly demonstrate the complexity of identifying
both positive and negative paths for the whole sample and
across gender using a very simple, yet elegant and sophisti-
cated theoretical model. We apply the carefully developed
theory with solid psychometric properties to assess intra-
personal and interpersonal and future cross-cultural
Fig. 9 Results of our
theoretical model involving
temptation (formative), MI,
and unethical behavior
intentions (the female sample)
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
differences in temptation. Future researchers may develop
training programs to help people assess and understand
(cognitive and control aspects) temptation, money smart,
unethical intentions, and other new constructs, propose
possible changes to improve actionable behaviors, and
enhance satisfaction in different aspects of their lives.
The self-control and cognitive thinking aspects of our
temptation construct serve as a double-edged sword because
strong self-control and cognitive ability are associated with
unethical intentions, but a lack of self-control and cognitive
impairment is related to poor MI. First, acts of self-regulation
without rest or replenishment (Muraven and Baumeister
2000) impair subsequent self-regulatory efforts (Baumeister
2002; Gino et al. 2011). Self-control is the poorest among
people who have performed a prior act of self-control.4 Sleep
deprivation causes workplace deviance due to the depletion
of self-regulatory resources (Christian and Ellis 2011). When
crucial resources have been depleted, they are more likely to
yield to temptation and act impulsively. People without a
‘‘strong will’’ become weak physically, psychologically, and
spiritually. Second, recent scandals are not caused by exec-
utives’ lack of ‘‘intelligence’’ or ‘‘brains,’’ nor are they
accidents, honest mistakes, or cognitive impairment, but are
rather caused by their lack of ‘‘wisdom,’’ ‘‘virtue’’ (Feiner
2004, p. 85; Tang and Liu 2012) and by malicious intent.
Most coldhearted executives and individuals with self con-
trol (will do) and executive function (can do) seize the
opportunity to engage in unethical behaviors for financial
gains. Alternatively, mentally challenged individuals prob-
ably cannot execute unethical intentions properly.
Since unethical intention is a small part of evil, our
results help us understand the deeper meaning of The Lord’s
Prayer (also called the Pater Noster or Our Father), a central
prayer in Christianity: ‘‘And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil’’ (Matthew 6:13). In the process of
performing miracles, Jesus said, ‘‘Take away the stone’’
(John 11: 39). In order to heal a deaf man who had a speech
impediment; ‘‘He took him off by himself away from the
crowd’’ (Mark 7: 33). These lead to one actionable impli-
cation for all of us. In order to deliver us from evil, we must
remove all barriers of a secular environment polluted with
materialism and selfish desires to a sacred milieu—to love
one another (Sappenfield 2012). Religion may be one of the
last resorts for teaching business ethics and promoting
ethical decision making (Chen and Tang 2012). It is
‘‘natural’’ to tell the truth and ‘‘unnatural’’ to tell a lie
(Heney 2012). Educators, managers, and average citizens
may simply adopt the following four ways to start this grand
challenge by (1) praying a little more to develop a deep
conversation with our God—eight minutes in the morning
and eight minutes in the evening, per day, (2) studying the
faith and reading the Bible more—five pages a day, (3)
giving a little more of ourselves and donating generously—
one or two percent more than before to the church or
charity, and (4) sharing the truth a little more and becoming
an evangelist—to one more person a day than before
(Sappenfield 2012). The first two deal with ‘‘love your
God’’ and the latter two ‘‘love your neighbor’’. This is to
‘‘love one another’’ or ‘‘love your enemies’’ (Chen and Tang
2012). Reciting the Ten Commandments and/or starting a
new day with a prayer in the morning or in a business
meeting may have the potential to set an ethical tenor for the
event/day, enhance corporate ethical cultures, and reduce
managers’ unethical behavior intentions in organizations. A
sea change of the ethical social norm in schools, organiza-
tions, and society, or ethical community-building, is needed
to fight against unethical behaviors.
The positive indirect path exists for females, but not for
males.5 Here are some possible implications for consumers.
Americans are on a diet. The prevalence of dieting varied by
gender and race (the highest: white women, 21 % vs. the
lowest: Hispanic men, 8 %). About 71 % of all dieters
reported that they were dieting to improve health, and 50 %
reported that they were dieting to lose weight (Paeratakul
et al. 2002). Females are more likely to fall into temptation
than males because those who want to control themselves
(e.g., on diet) may deplete self-regulatory resources quickly,
spend their money spontaneously when given an opportu-
nity, engage in poor stewardship of money, and enjoy the
moment (Baumeister et al. 1994, 2008; Tice et al. 2001).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that males tend to exercise
strong control, go directly to the store, and buy exactly what
they want to buy quickly, whereas females are more likely to
fall into temptation, lose their control, get distracted by
advertisements and items on sale, make unnecessary pur-
chases, and buy items that are not originally intended.
Consumers’ purchasing behaviors are directly associated
with their personal values (materialism and the love of
money), financial responsibilities, demographic variables,
previous acts of control, and various temptations in the
social environment (Gardarsdottir and Dittmar 2012). Due
to temptation, people become disoriented and lose
their abilities to concentrate on important, long-term goals.4 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the
Lord God had made. The serpent asked the woman, ‘‘Did God really
tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?’’ The woman
answered the serpent: ‘‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the
garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden
that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’’’ But
the serpent said to the woman: ‘‘You certainly will not die!’’ (Genesis
3: 1–4)
5 The man relied, ‘‘The woman who you put here with me—she gave
me fruit from the tree, and so I ate it.’’ The Lord God then asked the
woman, ‘‘Why did you do such a thing?’’ The woman answered, ‘‘The
serpent tricked me into it, so I ate it.’’ (Genesis 3: 12–13).
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
Cognitive impairment causes impulsive behaviors as a
consequence. At the end of the day, hungry and exhausted
consumers, for example, may buy many goods/products for
instant gratification rather than their long-term goals. With
strong and sufficient financial resources, consumers may
enjoy their consumptions. Without it, they may be deep in
debt. Researchers and practitioners must simplify options
and choices for products and services; reduce complexity,
overload, stress, and fatigue (sleep deprivation); avoid the
depletion of self-regulatory resources; and provide positive
temptation (moral values) to enhance proper consumption
and ethical decision making in organizations.
Limitations
Our reflective (Fig. 2) and formative (Fig. 3) models of
temptation show strong relationships between the five sub-
constructs and the overall temptation construct. Further, we
have provided good Cronbach’s a and composite reliability
for the temptation construct. However, two sub-constructs
of temptation have weak reliability measures. Thus, future
researchers may want to enhance these sub-constructs.
Further, we collected data with a reasonable sample size
from one institution in the southeastern US. Scholars may
want to test our theoretical models in other institutions,
cultures, and countries to enhance the generalizability of
the constructs examined in the present study.
Conclusion
We investigate the relationship between temptation and
unethical intentions, treat MI as a mediator, and examine the
direct and indirect paths simultaneously based on multiple-
wave panel data collected from 340 part-time employees and
university (business) students. The positive indirect path
suggests that yielding to temptation—high cognitive
impairment and lack of self-control—is related to poor MI
(low stewardship behavior, but high cognitive meaning) that,
in turn, is related to high unethical intentions. Our counter-
intuitive negative direct path reveals that controlling temp-
tation (low cognitive impairment and high self-control) is
significantly related to unethical intentions (theft, corrup-
tion, and deception). Due to the multiple faces of tempta-
tion—falling and not falling into temptation—the overall
impact of temptation on unethical intentions is substantially
dark. It implies that maliciously controlled temptation is
related to deviant intentions. Subsequent multi-group anal-
ysis across gender reformulates the mystery of temptation:
For males, the overall dark impact of temptation on unethical
intentions is substantial and significant due to a negative
direct path. For females, a significant positive indirect path
shows a negligible overall dark impact on unethical inten-
tions. Females do not have a maliciously controlled temp-
tation to directly engage in unethical behaviors, but are likely
to succumb to temptation, become less money smart, and
have high unethical intentions. Overall, males are more
unethical than their female counterparts. Both falling ‘‘and’’
not falling into temptation lead to unethical intentions;
temptation’s impact, however, varies across gender. Our
findings offer great implications for researchers in consumer
behavior and business ethics. Our counterintuitive, novel,
and original theoretical, empirical, and practical contribu-
tions may spark curiosity and add new vocabulary to the
conversation regarding temptation, money attitudes, con-
sumer psychology, and business ethics.
Acknowledgments The first author would like to thank Dean E.
James Burton, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, at Middle
Tennessee State University for providing a Summer Research Grant
in 2012, Editor-in-Chief Alex Michalos and an anonymous reviewer
for their suggestions, Late Fr. Wiatt A. Funk, Fr. Mark Sappenfield
(St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church), and Fr. Dave Heney (St. Paschal
Baylon Catholic Church, Thousand Oaks, CA) for their inspiration,
and Jingqiu Chen, Albert Ming-Dar Wu, and John Lipinski for their
comments, encouragement, and insight.
Appendix
The temptation scale
Antecedents of temptation
Factor 1: Impulsive/spontaneous behavior
1. Temptations provoke us to think and act irrationally.
2. Temptations motivate us to behave spontaneously and
impulsively.
3. Temptations persuade us to follow our feelings and hearts at
the moment and take action right away.
Factor 2: Cognitive impairment
4. Temptations corrupt us and cause us to make inappropriate
decisions.
5. Temptations control our thoughts and behaviors and prevent
us from concentrating on anything else.
6. Temptations make us feel weak physically, psychologically,
and spiritually.
Factor 3: Lack of self-control
7. Temptations prevent us from thinking clearly about goals,
ideals, and plans.
8. Temptations weaken the control of our emotions, desires,
urges, or itch.
9. Temptations cause us to lose track of our own behaviors.
Factor 4: Social moral values
10. Temptations persuade our role models (stars/CEOs) with
status and power to ‘‘cave in’’ to them.
11. Temptations are easier to accept when our friends and peers
are doing them.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard BusinessReview, 76(5), 76–87.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W.
(2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The
interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123–141.
12. Temptations presented positively (the Ten Commandments,
honor code) reduce cheating and lying.
Factor 5: Getting rich
13. Temptations are more prominent to those who want to get
rich.
14. Temptations are more salient (important) to those who have
a high love-of-money orientation.
15. Temptations are more powerful to those who want to take
risks.
Consequences of temptation—A (reflective vs. formative)
16. Temptations provoke us to become selfish and ignore others’
needs, rights, and concerns.
17. Temptations stimulate us to get carried away and overlook
(ignore) all other important matters.
Consequences of temptation—B (SEM model)
18. Temptations lead us to foolish and harmful desires that
plunge men into ruin and destruction.
19. Temptations corrupt our moral beliefs or ethical standards.
Monetary intelligence
Affective motive of money
Rich
1. I want to be rich.
2. It would be nice to be rich.
3. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good.
Motivator
4. Money reinforces me to work harder.
5. I am motivated to work hard for money.
6. I am highly motivated by money.
Importance
7. Money is valuable.
8. Money is important.
9. Money is good.
The behavioral stewardship of money
Make money
10. I find smarter and better ways of making money.
11. I look for new and legal ways to make money.
12. I am proud of my ability to make money.
Budget money
13. I budget my money very well.
14. I use my money very carefully.
15. I am proud of my ability to save money.
Donate money to charity
16. I give generously to charitable organizations.
17. I believe in charitable giving.
18. I give money to the church (religious organization(s)).
Cognitive meaning of money
Respect
19. Money makes people respect me in the community.
20. Money helps me gain respect.
21. Money allows me to express myself.
Achievement
22. Money represents my achievement.
23. Money is a symbol of my success.
24. Money reflects my accomplishments.
Power
25. Money is power.
26. Money gives one considerable power.
27. Money controls and manipulates your behavior when you
are paid.
Contribute—the Matthew effect
28. More money should be paid to people with higher quality
of performance.
29. More money should be paid to people with more talent.
30. More money should be paid to people with higher merit
(performance).
Machiavellianism
1. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to
hear.
2. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
3. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is
useful to do so.
4. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it
will come out when they are given a chance.
Unethical behavior intentions (PUB)
Theft
1. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking.
2. Take merchandise and/or cash home.
3. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the
customers).
Corrupt Intent
4. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting
records.
5. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to
one’s position and power.
6. Lay off employees to save the company money and increase
one’s personal bonus.
Deception
7. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher
bonus.
8. Give customers ‘‘discounts’’ first and then secretively charge
them more money later (bait and switch).
9. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know
about their benefits.
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
Ariely, D. (2008). How honest people cheat. Harvard BusinessReview, 86(2), 24.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge
to splurge: A terror management account of materialism and
consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3),
198–212.
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., & Trevino, L. K.
(2008). Introduction to special topic forum: Re-viewing organi-
zational corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33,
670–684.
Associated Press. (2006). U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since
1933: Consumers depleting savings to buy cars, other big-ticket
items. Accessed January 30, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.
msn.com/id/11098797/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-
savings-rate-hits-lowest-level/.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2010). Report to thenations: On occupational fraud and abuse. 2010 Global fraudstudy. Accessed July 4, 2012, from http://www.acfe.com/
rttn.aspx.
Bagozzi, R. P., Tybout, A. M., Craig, C. S., & Sternthal, B. (1979).
The contrast validity of the tripartite classification of attitudes.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 88–95.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2013). Management: Leading &collaborating in the competitive world (10th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure,
impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal ofConsumer Research, 28(4), 670–676.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.
(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losingcontrol: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Sparks, E. A., Stillman, T. F., & Vohs, K. D.
(2008). Free will in consumer behavior: Self-control, ego
depletion, and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(1),
4–13.
Belk, R. W. (1984). 3 scales to measure constructs related to
materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures
of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 291–297.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the
material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3): 265–280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal ofConsumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349–360.
Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-
making: A multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: AEuropean Review, 12(1), 1–3.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When
employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms
between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 104–1117.
Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity
to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across
major among university students. Journal of Business Ethics,69(1), 77–93.
Chen, Y. J., & Tang, T. L. P. (2012). The bright and dark sides of
religiosity among university students: Do gender, college major,
and income matter? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:
10.1007/s10551-012-1407-2.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural EquationModeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of
sleep deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-regulatory
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 913–934.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New
York: Academic Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in
organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Collins, R. L., Koutsky, J. R., & Izzo, C. V. (2000). Temptation,
restriction, and the regulation of alcohol intake: Validity and
utility of the temptation and restraint inventory. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, 61(5), 766–773.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2011). Organizationalbehavior: Improving performance and commitment in theworkplace. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory
building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academyof Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1281–1303.
Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and
religion: Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among
students. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 383–396.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of
US environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 627–641.
Cozzolino, P. J., Sheldon, K. M., Schachtman, T. R., & Meyers, L. S.
(2009). Limited time perspective, values, and greed: Imagining a
limited future reduces avarice in extrinsic people. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 43, 399–408.
De Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports
and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior: A
cross-sectional multi-source survey among health care workers.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 699–707.
Deshpande, S. P. (1997). Manager’s perception of proper ethical
conduct: The effect of sex, age, and level of education. Journalof Business Ethics, 16(1), 79–85.
Dew, J., & Xiao, J. J. (2011). The financial management behavior
scale: Development and validation. Journal of Financial Coun-seling and Planning, 22(1), 43–59.
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory
guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee
citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 622–635.
Du, L. Z., Tang, T. L. P., & Yang, D. T. (2007). Money profile and
unethical behavior: A study of full-time employees and univer-
sity students in China (Chap. 7). In L. A. Parrish (Ed.). Businessethics in focus (pp. 135–148). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement.
Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction
of relationships between constructs and measures. PsychologicalMethods, 5(2), 155–174.
Feiner, M. (2004). The Feiner points of leadership. New York:
Warner Business Books.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading
us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding
goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(2), 296–309.
Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal
enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journalof Political Economy, 115(6), 1020–1048.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your
coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and
peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. InternationalJournal of Stress Management, 14, 41–60.
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying
economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspec-tives, 7(2), 159–171.
Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money
usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 501–509.
Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money.
London: Routledge.
Gardarsdottir, R. B., & Dittmar, H. (2012). The relationship of
materialism to debt and financial well-being: The case of
Iceland’s perceived prosperity. Journal of Economic Psychology,33(3), 471–481.
Gbadamosi, G., & Joubert, P. (2005). Money ethic, moral conduct and
work related attitudes: Field study from the public sector in
Swaziland. Journal of Management Development, 24, 754–763.
Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal
cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses.
Science, 295(5563), 2279–2282.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009a). The abundance effect: Unethical
behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 109, 142–155.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009b). Dishonesty in the name of equity.
Psychological Science, 20(9), 1153–1160.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable
to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes
unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 115(2), 191–203.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational
and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment
inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 54, 81–103.
Helman, R., Copeland, C., & VanDerhei, J. (2012). The 2012
Retirement Confidence Survey: Job insecurity, debt weigh on
retirement confidence, savings. EBRI Issue Brief/EmployeeBenefit Research Institute, 369(5–32), 1.
Heney, D. (2012, April 16). Pastor of St. Paschal Baylon Catholic
Church, Thousand Oaks, CA. Personal communication.
Hoffman, J. J. (1998). Are women really more ethical than men?
Maybe it depends on the situation. Journal of Managerial Issues,10(1), 60–73.
Hofmann, W., Deutsch, R., Lancaster, K., & Banaji, M. R. (2010).
Cooling the heat of temptation: Mental self-control and the
automatic evaluation of tempting stimuli. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 40(1), 17–25.
Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us
not into temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietary restraints, and
self-regulatory resources as determinants of eating behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 497–504.
Holub, A., Hodgins, D. C., & Peden, N. E. (2005). Development of
the temptations for gambling questionnaire: A measure of
temptation in recently quit gamblers. Addiction Research &Theory, 13(2), 179–191.
Hudmon, K. S., Prokhorov, A. V., Koehly, L. M., DiClemente, D. C.,
& Gritz, E. R. (1997). Psychometric properties of the decisional
balance scale and the temptations to try smoking inventory in
adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse,6(3), 1–18.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical
review of construct indicators and measurement model misspe-
cification in marketing and consumer research. Journal ofConsumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.
Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American-
dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422.
Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1993). Ethics and service marketing.
Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 785–795.
Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service
motivation: Reflective versus formative specification. Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 521–546.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad
apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about
sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 1–31.
Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in
corporations: Root causes, victims, and strategies for reform.
Academy of Management Executive, 17, 139–141.
Kroese, F. M., Evers, C., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2011). Tricky treats:
Paradoxical effects of temptation strength on self-regulation pro-
cesses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 281–2898.
Latham, L. L., & Perlow, R. (2006). The relationship of client-
directed aggressive and nonclient-directed aggressive work
behavior with self-control. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 26(12), 1027–1041.
Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug:
The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 29(2), 161–209.
Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (1997). Sex, money and financial
hardship: An empirical study of attitudes towards money among
undergraduates in Singapore. Journal of Economic Psychology,18, 369–386.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The
problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral
and organizational research and some recommended solutions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011).
Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and
behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques.
MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.
Maddock, J. E., Laforge, R. G., & Rossi, J. S. (2000). Short form of a
situational temptation scale for heavy, episodic drinking. Journalof Substance Abuse, 11(3), 281–288.
Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in
the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 48, 649–705.
Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P.
(2007). Decide to bribe: A cross-level analysis of firm and home
country influences on bribery activity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1401–1422.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizationalbehavior (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely,
D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource
depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 45(3), 594–597.
Merritt, J. (2002, October 21). The best B-schools. Business Week,
pp. 85–100.
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and
communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159,
56–63.
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by
socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journalof Consumer Research, 23(2), 106–119.
Mickel, A. E., & Barron, L. A. (2008). Getting ‘‘More bang for the
buck’’: Symbolic value of monetary rewards in organizations.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 329–338.
Mickel, A. E., Mitchell, T. R., Dakin, S., & Gray, S. (2003). The
importance of money as an individual difference attribute. In S.
W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emergingperspectives on values in organizations (pp. 123–150). Green-
wich, CT: Information Age.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2010). Compen-sation (10th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, T. R., & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An
individual difference perspective. Academy of ManagementReview, 24(3), 568–578.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and
depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a
muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.
Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G., & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self-control
depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quanti-tative Criminology, 22, 263–277.
Nkundabanyanga, S. K., Omagor, C., Mpamizo, B., & Ntayi, J. M.
(2011). The love of money, pressure to perform and unethical
marketing behavior in the cosmetic industry in Uganda. Inter-national Journal of Marketing Studies, 3(4), 40–49.
Nordgren, L. F., & Chou, E. Y. (2011). The push and pull of
temptation: The bidirectional influence of temptation on self-
control. Psychological Science, 22(1), 1386–1390.
Norvilitis, J. M., Merwin, M. M., Osberg, T. M., Roehling, P. V., Young,
P., & Kamas, M. M. (2006). Personality factors, money attitudes,
financial knowledge, and credit-card debt in college students.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1395–1413.
Paeratakul, S., York-Crowe, E. E., Williamson, D. A., Ryan, D. H., &
Bray, G. A. (2002). Americans on diet: Results from the
1994–1996 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(9), 1247–1251.
Piffa, P. K., Stancatoa, D. M., Coteb, S., Mendoza-Dentona, R., &
Keltnera, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased
unethical behavior. Proceedings of National Academy of Scienceof the United States of America, 109(11), 4086–4091.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Toledano, L. S., Amarnani, R.
K., Tolentino, L. R., & Tang, R. L. (2011). Yielding to (cyber)-
temptation: Exploring the buffering role of self-control in the
relationship between organizational justice and cyberloafing
behavior in the workplace. Journal of Research in Personality,45(2), 247–251.
Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A
meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-
administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775.
Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the
ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 68(2), 153–164.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
349–360.
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 14(September), 189–199.
Rosenbaum, M. (1993). The 3 functions of self-control behavior:
Redressive, reformative and experiential. Work and Stress, 7(1),
33–46.
Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (Eds.). (2000). Compensation inorganizations: Current research and practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sappenfield, M. (2012). Pastor of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church.
Murfreesboro, TN. Homily on June 17 and September 9, 2012.
Sardzoska, E., & Tang, T. L. P. (2009). Testing a model of behavioral
intentions in the Republic of Macedonia: Differences between
the private and the public sectors. Journal of Business Ethics,87(4), 495–517.
Sardzoska, E., & Tang, T. L. P. (2012). Work-related behavioral
intentions in Macedonia: Coping strategies, work environment,
love of money, job satisfaction, and demographic variables.
Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 373–391.
Schneider, M., & Prasso, S. (2002, April 1). How an MBA can bend
your mind. Business Week, p. 12.
Schoorman, F. D., & Mayer, R. C. (2008). The value of common
perspectives in self-reported appraisals: You get what you ask
for. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 148–159.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment
between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus.
Organization Science, 13, 18–35.
Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & Parks, J. M. (2007). Racial
differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal
consequences, in-group effects, and ‘‘trickle down’’ among black
and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
650–665.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Lee, D. J., Nisius, A. M., & Yu, G. B.
(2012/forthcoming). The influence of love of money and
religiosity on ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal ofBusiness Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1334-2.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace:
The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Smith, T. R., Rizzo, E., & Empie, K. M. (2005). Yielding to deviant
temptation: A quasi-experimental examination of the inhibiting
power of intrinsic religious motivation. Deviant Behavior, 26(5),
463–481.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or
urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior
and organizational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms
of active behavior? Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 59(1), 21–39.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and
subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the motives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959–971.
Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 13, 197–202.
Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of rater’s sex,
money ethic, and job incumbent’s sex: A test of the Matthew
Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 127–144.
Tang, T. L. P. (2007). Income and quality of life: Does the love of
money make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4),
375–393.
Tang, T. L. P. (2010). From increasing gas efficiency to enhancing
creativity: It pays to go green. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2),
149–155.
Tang, T. L. P. (2012). Detecting honest people’s lies in handwriting:
The power of the Ten Commandants and internalized ethical
values. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 389–400.
Falling or Not Falling into Temptation?
123
Author's personal copy
Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The
love of money, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across
college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1–26.
Tang, T. L. P., Chen, Y. J., & Sutarso, T. (2008a). Bad apples in bad
(business) barrels: The love of money, Machiavellianism, risk
tolerance, and unethical behavior. Management Decision, 46(2),
243–263.
Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay
satisfaction, commitment, and unethical behavior: Is the love of
money the root of evil for Hong Kong managers? Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 46, 13–30.
Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude
toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53(2),
213–245.
Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical
behavior intention: Does an authentic supervisor’s personal
integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference? Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 107(3), 295–312.
Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Quintanilla Pardo, I., & Tang, T.
L. N. (2012a). Materialism and the bright and dark sides of the
financial dream in Spain: The positive role of money attitudes—
The Matthew effect. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A.
S., Ansari, M. A., Arias-Galicai, F., Borg, M. G., Canova, L.,
Charles-Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Codoban, I., Du,
L. Z., Garber, I., Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Jen, C. K.,
Kazem, A. M., Kim, K., Lim, V. K. G., Luna-Arocas, R.,
Malovics, E., Manganelli, A. M., Moreira, A., Nnedum, A.
U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., Pereira, F. C., Pholsward,
R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardzoska, E., Stembridge, A. F.,
Tang, T. L. N., Teo, T. S. H., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M.,
Urbain, C., & Vlerick, P. (2006). The love of money and pay
level satisfaction: Measurement and functional equivalence in 29
geographical entities around the world. Management andOrganization Review, 2, 423–452.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Garber, I., Vlerick, P.,
Arias-Galicai, F., et al. (2012b). Monetary intelligence: Moneyattitudes, pay satisfaction, and life satisfaction in 32 cultures.
Unpublished manuscript.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T.
S. H., Arias-Galicai, F., et al. (2011). The love of money is the
root of all evil: Pay satisfaction and CPI as moderators. In L.
A. Toombs (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the 2011 annualmeeting of the Academy of Management.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A.
H. S., & Wagner, S. L. (2008b). To help or not to help? The
Good Samaritan effect and the love of money on helping
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 865–887.
Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. (2010). Finding the lost sheep: A
panel study of business students’ intrinsic religiosity, Machia-
vellianism, and unethical behavior intention in a public institu-
tion. Ethics and Behavior, 20(5), 352–379.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades,
and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–735.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of
misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives
and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3),
330–339.
The Daily Record. (2003, April 5). Commentary: Education, ethics,
and sentences for Enronizing financial reports, Baltimore, MD,
p. 1.
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional
distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you
feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(1), 53–67.
Traiser, S., & Eighmy, M. A. (2011). Moral development and
narcissism of private and public university business students.
Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 325–334.
Tsukayama, E., Duckworth, A. L., & Kim, B. (2012). Resisting
everything except temptation: Evidence and an explanation for
domain-specific impulsivity. European Journal of Personality,26(2), 318–334.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of
the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices,
and recommendations for organizational research. Organiza-tional Research Methods, 3, 4–69.
Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2006). The role of money
and religiosity in determining consumers’ ethical beliefs.
Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 117–124.
Weiss, M. R., Kipp, L. E., & Goodman, D. (2010). Unsportsmanlike
aggression in youth hockey: Attitudes, perceived social approval,
situational temptation, and role models. Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology, 32, S228–S229.
Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent
advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and
management research. Journal of Management, 29(5), 903–936.
Wong, H. M. (2008). Religiousness, love of money, and ethical
attitudes of Malaysian evangelical Christians in business.
Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 169–191.
Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. I. (1982). The development of a
money attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46,
522–528.
Zhang, L. Q. (2009). An exchange theory of money and self-esteem in
decision making. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 66–76.
T. L.-P. Tang, T. Sutarso
123
Author's personal copy