IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v109y2009i2p134-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dirty work, clean hands: The moral psychology of indirect agency

Author

Listed:
  • Paharia, Neeru
  • Kassam, Karim S.
  • Greene, Joshua D.
  • Bazerman, Max H.

Abstract

When powerful people cause harm, they often do so indirectly through other people. Are harmful actions carried out through others evaluated less negatively than harmful actions carried out directly? Four experiments examine the moral psychology of indirect agency. Experiments 1A, 1B, and 1C reveal effects of indirect agency under conditions favoring intuitive judgment, but not reflective judgment, using a joint/separate evaluation paradigm. Experiment 2A demonstrates that effects of indirect agency cannot be fully explained by perceived lack of foreknowledge or control on the part of the primary agent. Experiment 2B indicates that reflective moral judgment is sensitive to indirect agency, but only to the extent that indirectness signals reduced foreknowledge and/or control. Experiment 3 indicates that effects of indirect agency result from a failure to automatically consider the potentially dubious motives of agents who cause harm indirectly. Experiment 4 demonstrates an effect of indirect agency on purchase intentions.

Suggested Citation

  • Paharia, Neeru & Kassam, Karim S. & Greene, Joshua D. & Bazerman, Max H., 2009. "Dirty work, clean hands: The moral psychology of indirect agency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 134-141, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:2:p:134-141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(09)00023-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    2. Bazerman, Max H. & Schroth, Holly A. & Shah, Pri Pradhan & Diekmann, Kristina A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E., 1994. "The Inconsistent Role of Comparison Others and Procedural Justice in Reactions to Hypothetical Job Descriptions: Implications for Job Acceptance Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 326-352, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucas C. Coffman, 2017. "Fundraising Intermediaries Inhibit Quality-Driven Charitable Donations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 409-424, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bazerman, Max H. & Bohnet, Iris & Van Geen, Alexandra Vivien, 2012. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint Versus Separate Evaluation," Scholarly Articles 8506867, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.
    5. Church, Bryan K. & Kuang, Xi (Jason) & Liu, Yuebing (Sarah), 2019. "The effects of measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-84.
    6. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    7. Philippe P. F. M. van de Calseyde & Gideon Keren & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2013. "The insured victim effect: When and why compensating harm decreases punishment recommendations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(2), pages 161-173, March.
    8. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    9. Daniel Arce & Mary Gentile, 2015. "Giving Voice to Values as a Leverage Point in Business Ethics Education," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 535-542, October.
    10. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    11. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    12. Francesca Gino & Michael I. Norton & Roberto A. Weber, 2016. "Motivated Bayesians: Feeling Moral While Acting Egoistically," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 189-212, Summer.
    13. Regine Oexl & Zachary Grossman, 2013. "Shifting the blame to a powerless intermediary," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 306-312, September.
    14. Tripat Gill & Eileen Fischer & Amna Kirmani & Pankaj Aggarwal, 2020. "Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality [When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorph," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(2), pages 272-291.
    15. Mikhail Drugov & John Hamman & Danila Serra, 2014. "Intermediaries in corruption: an experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 78-99, March.
    16. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    17. Adam Hill, 2015. "Does Delegation Undermine Accountability? Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Blame Shifting and Control," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 311-339, June.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:161-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Schminke, Marshall & Caldwell, James & Ambrose, Maureen L. & McMahon, Sean R., 2014. "Better than ever? Employee reactions to ethical failures in organizations, and the ethical recovery paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 206-219.
    20. Daniel G. Arce & Laura Razzolini, 2018. "The Indirect Ethics of AIG’s ‘Backdoor Bailout’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 37-51, March.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.
    23. Grossman, Zachary & Oexl, Regine, 2011. "Delegating to a Powerless Intermediary: Does It Reduce Punishment?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt0119d201, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    24. Lucas C. Coffman, 2011. "Intermediation Reduces Punishment (and Reward)," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 77-106, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    2. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    3. Handgraaf, Michel J. J. & van Dijk, Eric & Wilke, Henk A. M. & Vermunt, Riel C., 2003. "The salience of a recipient's alternatives: Inter- and intrapersonal comparison in ultimatum games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 165-177, January.
    4. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    5. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    6. Sezer, Ovul & Zhang, Ting & Gino, Francesca & Bazerman, Max H., 2016. "Overcoming the outcome bias: Making intentions matter," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-26.
    7. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    8. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    9. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    10. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    11. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Carless, Sally A., 2005. "The influence of fit perceptions, equal opportunity policies, and social support network on pre-entry police officer career commitment and intentions to remain," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 341-352.
    13. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    14. Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Dijk, Eric van & Wilke, Henk A.M. & Vermunt, Riel C., 2004. "Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 97-106, September.
    15. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    16. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1464-1484 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    21. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    22. Ch'ng, Kean Siang & Loke, Yiing Jia, 2010. "Inconsistency of fairness evaluation in simulated labot market," MPRA Paper 21527, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:2:p:134-141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.