Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Victim Anonymity on Unethical Behavior

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We theorize that victim anonymity is an important factor in ethical decision making, such that actors engage in more self-interested and unethical behaviors toward anonymous victims than they do toward identifiable victims. Three experiments provided empirical support for this argument. In Study 1, participants withheld more life-saving products from anonymous than from identifiable victims. In Study 2, participants allocated a sum of payment more unfairly when interacting with an anonymous than with an identifiable partner. Finally, in Study 3, participants cheated more from an anonymous than from an identifiable person. Anticipated guilt fully mediated these effects in all three studies. Taken together, our research suggests that anonymous victims may be more likely to incur unethical treatment, which could explain many unethical business behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Although the dependent variables in our studies were not normally distributed, various data analysis techniques (data transformations and non-parametric tests) produced identical results. We thus presented results for the t-tests for presentational consistency and parsimony.

References

  • Ariely, D. (2013). The honest truth about dishonesty. New York: Harper Perennial.

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers’ recognition of ethical issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Research, 57, 338–346.  

  • Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R., Stillwell, A., & Heatherton, T. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., Dewall, N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, B. (1980). Heuristic versus systemic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, J., Huang, C., & Lee, H. (2005). The antecedents of music piracy attitudes and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T., Wolf, S., Panter, A., & Insko, C. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 947–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (2012). Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38, 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework: Analyzing models of mental comparison processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 100–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1989). The impracticality of impartiality. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M., & MacKinnon, D. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D., Pinel, E., Wilson, T., Blumberg, S., & Wheatley, T. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Cryder, C., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won’t let you down…or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., Sommerville, R., Nystrom, L., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D., & Sherman, S. (1998). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701–713.

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1994). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. In J. W. Ellington (Trans.), Ethical philosophy (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. (Original work published, 1785)

  • Kay, A., Wheeler, C., Bargh, J., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 696–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J., Harrison, D., & Treviño, L. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, L. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.  

  • Lindsey, L. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation: An examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31, 453–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. (1999). Theory and external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 367–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Z., Liang, D., Yu, K., & Lee, Y. (2012). Most cited business ethics publications: Mapping the intellectual structure of business ethics studies in 2001–2008. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21, 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidences limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American psychologist, 17, 776–783.

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolillo, J., & Vitell, S. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity factors on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805–817.

  • Reynolds, S. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigation of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sah, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). More affected = more neglected: Amplification of bias in advice to the unidentified and many. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. B. Chase Jr. (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis (pp. 127–162). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36, 245–255.

  • Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberate thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2006). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 1022–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351.

  • Treviño, L. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L., Weaver, G., & Reynolds, S. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, T., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Quarterly retail E-commerce sales. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf

  • Velasquez, M., & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T., & Gilbert, D. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yam, K. C., Chen, X. P., & Reynolds, S. (2014). Ego depletion and its paradoxical effect on ethical decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 204–214.

  • Yam, K. C., Reynolds, S., & Hirsh, J. B. (in press). The hungry thief: Physiological deprivation and its effect on unethical conduct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.  

  • Zhong, C., Bohns, V., & Gino, F. (2010). Good lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 311–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Xiao-Ping Chen for her constructive comments in an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

    Kai Chi Yam & Scott J. Reynolds

Authors
  1. Kai Chi Yam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott J. Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Chi Yam.

Appendix: Scenario Used in Study 1

Appendix: Scenario Used in Study 1

Anonymous Victim Condition

River blindness, formally known as onchocerciasis, is a disease labeled by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a public health and socioeconomic problem of considerable magnitude in over 35 developing countries throughout the Third World. Some 85 million people in thousands of tiny settlements throughout Africa and parts of the Middle East and Latin America are currently at risk. The cause: a parasitic worm carried by a tiny black fly that bred along fast-moving rivers. When the flies bit humans—a single person could be bitten thousands of times a day—the larvae of a parasitic worm, Onchocerca volvulus, entered the body.

The World Health Organization estimated that some over 100,000 people are blind because of onchocerciasis, and that more than 10 million people may suffer from it in the next 5 years. Prior to blindness, onchocerciasis can cause symptoms like severe itching and skin infections.

Your pharmaceutical company has recently developed a drug that could cure and prevent onchocerciasis. Because this disease is projected to affect over 10 million people in the near future, release it later will bring a greater profit. As a senior manager of a pharmaceutical company, what would you do?

Identifiable Victim Condition

River blindness, formally known as onchocerciasis, is a disease labeled by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a public health and socioeconomic problem of considerable magnitude in over 35 developing countries throughout the Third World. Some 85 million people in thousands of tiny settlements throughout Africa and parts of the Middle East and Latin America are currently at risk. The cause: a parasitic worm carried by a tiny black fly that bred along fast-moving rivers. When the flies bit humans—a single person could be bitten thousands of times a day—the larvae of a parasitic worm, Onchocerca volvulus, entered the body.

The World Health Organization estimated that some over 100,000 people are blind because of onchocerciasis, and that more than 10 million people may suffer from it in the next 5 years. Prior to blindness, onchocerciasis can cause symptoms like severe itching and skin infections. Jane, a girl living in Africa, is one of the many victims of onchocerciasis.

Your pharmaceutical company has recently developed a drug that could cure and prevent onchocerciasis. Because this disease is projected to affect over 10 million people in the near future, release it later will bring a greater profit. As a senior manager of a pharmaceutical company, what would you do?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yam, K.C., Reynolds, S.J. The Effects of Victim Anonymity on Unethical Behavior. J Bus Ethics 136, 13–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation