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