Cargando…
Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox
A wealth of research documents the critical role of trust for social exchange and cooperative behavior. The ability to inspire trust in others can often be elusive, and distrust can have adverse interpersonal and ethical consequences. Drawing from the literature on social hierarchy and interpersonal...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8630420/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34866718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04991-1 |
_version_ | 1784607370278600704 |
---|---|
author | Raz, Kelly Fragale, Alison R. Levontin, Liat |
author_facet | Raz, Kelly Fragale, Alison R. Levontin, Liat |
author_sort | Raz, Kelly |
collection | PubMed |
description | A wealth of research documents the critical role of trust for social exchange and cooperative behavior. The ability to inspire trust in others can often be elusive, and distrust can have adverse interpersonal and ethical consequences. Drawing from the literature on social hierarchy and interpersonal judgments, the current research explores the predictive role of a structural paradox between high power and low status in identifying the actors most likely to be distrusted and monitored for ethical misconduct. Across four studies and an internal meta-analysis, we found that the structural paradox was associated with distrust-related judgments and behaviors. In Study 1, high power-low status actors were judged as less trustworthy. In Studies 2 and 3, high power-low status actors were sent less money in a trust game, an effect fully mediated by feelings of dislike. Study 4 revealed that high power-low status actors were more likely to be monitored for cheating, an effect partially mediated by trust judgments. These findings contribute to business ethics research by identifying the structural paradox of high power-low status as a salient contextual influence impacting observers’ distrust and monitoring dynamics. Implications for reducing observers’ level of distrust of high power-low status actors are discussed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8630420 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86304202021-11-30 Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox Raz, Kelly Fragale, Alison R. Levontin, Liat J Bus Ethics Original Paper A wealth of research documents the critical role of trust for social exchange and cooperative behavior. The ability to inspire trust in others can often be elusive, and distrust can have adverse interpersonal and ethical consequences. Drawing from the literature on social hierarchy and interpersonal judgments, the current research explores the predictive role of a structural paradox between high power and low status in identifying the actors most likely to be distrusted and monitored for ethical misconduct. Across four studies and an internal meta-analysis, we found that the structural paradox was associated with distrust-related judgments and behaviors. In Study 1, high power-low status actors were judged as less trustworthy. In Studies 2 and 3, high power-low status actors were sent less money in a trust game, an effect fully mediated by feelings of dislike. Study 4 revealed that high power-low status actors were more likely to be monitored for cheating, an effect partially mediated by trust judgments. These findings contribute to business ethics research by identifying the structural paradox of high power-low status as a salient contextual influence impacting observers’ distrust and monitoring dynamics. Implications for reducing observers’ level of distrust of high power-low status actors are discussed. Springer Netherlands 2021-11-30 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC8630420/ /pubmed/34866718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04991-1 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Raz, Kelly Fragale, Alison R. Levontin, Liat Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title | Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title_full | Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title_fullStr | Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title_full_unstemmed | Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title_short | Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox |
title_sort | who do i (dis)trust and monitor for ethical misconduct? status, power, and the structural paradox |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8630420/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34866718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04991-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT razkelly whodoidistrustandmonitorforethicalmisconductstatuspowerandthestructuralparadox AT fragalealisonr whodoidistrustandmonitorforethicalmisconductstatuspowerandthestructuralparadox AT levontinliat whodoidistrustandmonitorforethicalmisconductstatuspowerandthestructuralparadox |