IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v177y2023ics0749597823000274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benevolent friends and high integrity leaders: How preferences for benevolence and integrity change across relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Moore, Alexander K.
  • Lewis, Joshua
  • Levine, Emma E.
  • Schweitzer, Maurice E.

Abstract

Individuals value benevolence and integrity in their partners. However, in many workplace dilemmas benevolence and integrity conflict. Across 5 experiments (and 8 supplemental studies), we demonstrate that the relative importance individuals attach to having partners that prioritize either benevolence or integrity systematically shifts across relationships. We introduce the Size-Closeness-Hierarchy (SCH) Model, a theoretical framework to characterize preferences individuals have for benevolent versus high-integrity partners across workplace relationships that vary in group size, emotional closeness, and hierarchy. According to our model, as relationships involve more people, become more emotionally distant, and become more hierarchical (relational features common in leaders), individuals become more likely to prefer high-integrity partners. However, as relationships involve fewer people, become more emotionally close, and become more equal (relational features common in friends), individuals become more likely prefer benevolent partners. Our findings advance our understanding of the interplay between moral values, leadership, and interpersonal perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Moore, Alexander K. & Lewis, Joshua & Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2023. "Benevolent friends and high integrity leaders: How preferences for benevolence and integrity change across relationships," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:177:y:2023:i:c:s0749597823000274
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000274
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104252?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Jean Hindriks & Romans Pancs, 2002. "Free Riding on Altruism and Group Size," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(3), pages 335-346, July.
    2. repec:bla:jpbect:v:4:y:2002:i:3:p:335-46 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    5. Mannix, Elizabeth A. & Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1995. "Equity, Equality, or Need? The Effects of Organizational Culture on the Allocation of Benefits and Burdens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 276-286, September.
    6. Pearce, Jone L., 2015. "Cronyism and Nepotism Are Bad for Everyone: The Research Evidence," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 41-44, March.
    7. Qinxuan Gu & Thomas Tang & Wan Jiang, 2015. "Does Moral Leadership Enhance Employee Creativity? Employee Identification with Leader and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) in the Chinese Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 513-529, February.
    8. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    9. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    10. Giovanni Gavetti, 2005. "Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 599-617, December.
    11. Garcia, Stephen M. & Song, Hyunjin & Tesser, Abraham, 2010. "Tainted recommendations: The social comparison bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 97-101, November.
    12. Eric Luis Uhlmann & Luke Lei Zhu & David Tannenbaum, 2013. "When it takes a bad person to do the right thing," Post-Print hal-00772064, HAL.
    13. Yanping Tu & Alex Shaw & Ayelet Fishbach, 2016. "The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 669-687.
    14. Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Feng Zhu, 2011. "Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1601-1615, June.
    15. Peter DeScioli & Robert Kurzban, 2009. "The Alliance Hypothesis for Human Friendship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-8, June.
    16. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:639-661 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Maurice E. Schweitzer & Teck-Hua Ho & Xing Zhang, 2018. "How Monitoring Influences Trust: A Tale of Two Faces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 253-270, January.
    2. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    3. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Building trust by tearing others down: When accusing others of unethical behavior engenders trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 111-128.
    4. Renaud Foucart & Jonathan H. W. Tan, 2024. "A test of loyalty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 109-137, August.
    5. Horak, Sven, 2013. "Cross-cultural experimental economics and indigenous management research: Issues and contributions," Working Papers on East Asian Studies 92/2013, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies IN-EAST.
    6. Lei, Vivian & Masclet, David & Vesely, Filip, 2014. "Competition vs. communication: An experimental study on restoring trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 94-107.
    7. Benjamin Ho, 2012. "Apologies as Signals: With Evidence from a Trust Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 141-158, January.
    8. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    9. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    10. Kang, Polly & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Emotional Deception in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. Falk, Armin & Zehnder, Christian & Meier, Stephan, 2010. "Did We Overestimate the Role of Social Preferences? The Case of Self-Selected Student Samples," CEPR Discussion Papers 8019, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Birkeland, Sigbjørn & Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2011. "Immoral criminals? An experimental study of social preferences among prisoners," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 15/2011, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    13. Kevin M Kniffin & Brian Wansink, 2012. "It’s Not Just Lunch: Extra-Pair Commensality Can Trigger Sexual Jealousy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-4, July.
    14. Chen, Josie I. & Foster, Andrew & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Identity, trust and altruism: An experiment on preferences and microfinance lending," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    16. Fabbri, Marco, 2021. "Property rights and prosocial behavior: Evidence from a land tenure reform implemented as randomized control-trial," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 552-566.
    17. Isabel Thielmann & Daniel W. Heck & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2016. "Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 527-536, September.
    18. Pfaff, Alexander & Vélez, Maria Alejandra, 2012. "Efficiency and equity in negotiated resource transfers: Contributions and limitations of trust with limited contracts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 55-63.
    19. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    20. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.

    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:177:y:2023:i:c:s0749597823000274. 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.