Journal of Business Ethics Vice or Virtue at Work: A Pacific Rim Approach to Religion, Conformity and Lies --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number: Article Type:
Original Article
Full Title:
Vice or Virtue at Work: A Pacific Rim Approach to Religion, Conformity and Lies
Section/Category:
Codes of Ethics - Muel Kaptein
Keywords:
codes of ethics, hierarchy, authority, religion, religiosity, obedience, conformity, lies, honesty
Corresponding Author:
Janet Spitz, PhD College of Saint Rose Albany, NY UNITED STATES
Corresponding Author E-Mail:
[email protected]
Order of Authors:
Janet Spitz, PhD Andre Pekerti Siti Nurwahyu Harahap Ariane Seifert Jenniah Randall
Funding Information:
Abstract:
College of Saint Rose
Dr. Janet Spitz
University of Queensland
Dr. Janet Spitz
Does religion promote honesty, or does religion promote lies? This paper explores religiosity's effect on lying, conformity and tolerance in an international sample of academics, students and staff in major research universities across the Pacific Rim. We find that religiosity does indeed support honesty, but at the same time it promotes conformity and, perhaps driven by that, significantly more intolerance of those holding values somewhat different, than shown by these respondents' non-religious counterparts. This finding supports the complexity of religion's effects on our workplace lives, whether for those practicing a religion or those not.
Suggested Reviewers: Additional Information: Question
Response
Is the manuscript currently submitted anywhere else?
No
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Title Page (containing all authors contact details)
Vice or Virtue at Work: A Pacific Rim Approach to Religion, Conformity and Lies
Janet Spitz, Assoc. Professor of Business, The College of Saint Rose.*
Andre Pekerti, Senior Lecturer in International Management, UQ Business School University of Queensland
Siti Nurwahyu Harahap, Lecturer in Accounting, Faculty of Economics, The University of Indonesia.
Ariane Seifert Graduate Research Assistants, The College of Saint Rose.
Jenniah Randall Undergraduate Research Assistants, The College of Saint Rose.
*Corresponding Author 432 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12203 518 454 2032 /
[email protected]
Blinded Manuscript (excluding authors' names and affiliations)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Click here to view linked References
Vice or Virtue at Work: A Pacific Rim Approach to Religion, Conformity and Lies
Abstract Does religion promote honesty, or does religion promote lies? This paper explores religiosity’s effect on lying, conformity and tolerance in an international sample of academics, students and staff in major research universities across the Pacific Rim. We find that religiosity does indeed support honesty, but at the same time it promotes conformity and, perhaps driven by that, significantly more intolerance of those holding values somewhat different, than shown by these respondents’ non-religious counterparts. This finding supports the complexity of religion’s effects on our workplace lives, whether for those practicing a religion or those not.
Keywords: hierarchy, authority, religion, religiosity, obedience, conformity, lies, honesty.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Introduction According to members of religious groups the effect of religion on workplace behavior is that of moral guidance. Religious persons’ values and beliefs are driven by adherence to a code of ethics, whether intrinsically (Vitell et al., 2005) or by concern with consequences in the expected afterlife (Burkett and White, 1974; Burkett, 1993). Either way, such persons are expected to enact that moral code through daily decisions which place that behavior on an ethical footing, including in their behavior at work. Non-religionists (Christina, 2012), humanists (Edwords, 2015) and others (Weaver and Agle, 2002; Hood et al, 1996; Smith et al, 1975) disagree. This paper explores two aspects of moral behavior, and from two points of view: choosing to tell the truth or choosing to tell lies and the degree to which tolerance and forgiveness is engaged. Whether these choices are influenced by religion is the work of this paper. We do not delve into what a religion really is, as do Louche, Arenas and Van Cranenburgh (2012). Rather, using an original survey data set, we take at face value respondents’ statements of both their self-defined religious identities, and their self-reported religiosity strength. We begin by presenting opposing views of how religion may influence lies; obedience and conformity, and then consider how three Pacific Rim nations may affect these behaviors through country influence. There is evidence to suggest that if religious people are more honest, then the route is through obedience; that is, individual religiosity is found to predict adherence to law and obedience to rules and social norms (Baier and Wright, 2001). In this case, it is possible that the resulting behavior is more driven by commitment to conformity at work, rather than an
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
independent assessment of moral behavior: Welch, Tittle and Grasmick (2006) find social control to be strongly related to Christian religiosity. Religiosity and honesty is perhaps therefore mediated by the relationship between self-reported religiosity and aspects of obedience and conformity. In addition to social control forming a mechanism through which a particular brand of ethics is advanced, there may be a direct religiosity – conformity relation, i.e., religion in many sects rests on fear of eternal damnation if rules of that sect are not followed. When some of those rules produce a discord in followers, at least Christian believers are told “Deny yourself and follow me” (gospel according to Matthew 16:24; The Holy Bible, 1988). Religious persons thus may need to ignore, or at least override their own true feelings, instincts and beliefs, in order to meet an ideal self-construal standard (Moretti and Higgins, 1990), maintain membership in that religious church, gain the approval of the church leader, and thus avoid damnation. By contrast, non-religionists have been found to be more individualistic (Zuckerman, 2009) and evidence-based (Edwords, 2015; Secular Humanist Society of NY, 2015), so that any tendency toward honesty, deceit or tolerance will be more likely driven by personal values choice. We test these relationships among a sample of some 6,000 academics, students and staff in major research universities in three Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Indonesia, and the USA. However, the sample is uneven.1 Survey respondents indicate separately the identity of their religion (including atheist, agnostic, or “none”), and the extent of their religiosity. These factors can then be compared to propensity to lie, to measures of conformity, and to tolerance.
1
Only from one Australian university do we have staff and student data, while academics (n=3000) answered this questionnaire across many universities in Indonesia, Australia and the USA. See data specifications in footnote 2.
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Religious Bases of Honesty, Obedience and Conformity Workplace decision making and ethics have been linked to degree of religiosity as well as to specific religions (Randolph-Seng and Nielsen, 2007; Harris, 2010). This literature argues that the “Ten Commandments” (The Holy Bible, 1988) provide the moral foundation for both individual and group behavior (Ali, Camp and Gibbs, 2000): morality is expected to be lower in non-religious persons, or at least much stronger in those holding religious views. Scholars argue that it is fear of divine authority that drives ethical decisions and choice (Piazza and Landy, 2013), as well as concern with placement in the expected afterlife (Burkett and White, 1974). There is some evidence that religiosity drives perhaps not so much ethics per se, as hierarchical conformity based on irreversible sin and in turn submission and fear (Reed, 2013), although many Religious adherents would likely host more positivist views. Still, many religions hold that humans have a sinful nature, and it is our adherence to church tenets as well as our participation in church ritual that transforms, through the pardon of God’s grace, persons from sinners into saints (Meileander, 2004). There are, however, some types of sins considered so heinous that they cannot be forgiven. These unforgivable sins include turning your back on God, and not forgiving others (Exline, 2008). Another is suicide, across several religions, but not murder (Gearing &Lizardi, 2008) because after murder one can repent and then be forgiven. For Jews, murder is unforgiveable as is heresy – forming a belief or opinion contrary to that accepted in the religion, or being defiant, and separating one’s self from the community (Cohen et al., 2006). Not forgiving others, or being judgmentally intolerant, is certainly not a characteristic confined to one group. Yet it is only within few of the many religious groups – those holding
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
certain religious beliefs – that such lack of forgiveness of the imperfections we all share becomes an unforgivable sin. Forgiveness, however, is not the same thing as transformation into a better person. The pardoning aspect of God’s grace in this view holds considerable power as wielded by agents of religion and church. This power teeters precariously, in that too strict an adherence to Commandment Law will cast out any who commit an infraction or sin; on the other hand, pardons too forgiving support repeated acts defined as sinful by both church and secular law (Couenhoven, 2000). Because of this leeway, the concept of divine pardon can be used to distance or even remove our own responsibility for our acts and sins, potentially encouraging misbehavior (McCarthy, 2007). At the same time the forgiveness process builds dependence on the agent conveying pardons, and thus conformity and obedience to the directives expressed by that person in their hierarchically religious role. Thus it is unclear whether religions require each individual adherent to forgive others and be tolerant of others’ differences, or whether forgiveness is a task placed upon priests and other formal church leaders whose tasks include formally forgiving members of their church. Different religions take different approaches to forgiveness in this sense: while Catholics order forgiveness hierarchically, practicing Jews take on forgiveness individually. Such religionists have a sequence of two High Holy Days 10 days apart, when first the new year is celebrated as Rosh Hashanna as the Day of Judgment, requiring forgiveness and the confession of sins directly to those persons who may have been affronted by one’s behavior; while 10 days later Yom Kippur becomes the Day of Atonement; in the time between, each person makes peace with other persons, as well as with God (Pelaia, 2015).
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Either way, the directive of divine authority as interpreted through Church or Religious agents is both primary and sufficient reason for certain behavioral acts (Glouberman, 2011; Piazza and Landy, 2013). Van Cappellan et al (2011) find that religion’s effect on compliance and conformity is strongest among submissive people. In contrast, others have found religious rule-following and conformity effects without regard to personality type (Piazza, 2012). Stated in another manner, regular religious adherence establishes a degree of hierarchical acceptance and obedience to that authority; and it is through that hierarchy and authority that morality is defined (Van Cappellan et al, 2011). When religion drives commandment-related behavior, this may be entirely subconscious, yet workplace honesty, as well as a strong degree of conformity, may be one practical result (Randolph-Seng and Nielsen, 2007). We will return to conscious vs subconscious thought shortly. Consistent with this, religious participants were found to utilize a more rule-based approach to assessing immorality compared to non-religious persons who focused more on outcomes (Piazza, 2012). Religious persons believe more strongly that subordinates should listen and obey superiors, and display an increased tolerance of brutal and aggressive authority, consistent with respect for those in power (Ali et al., 2000). Those participating in organized religion may also be more group oriented, where the practice of spirituality fulfills a desire for connection (Young &Chen, 2013), consistent with higher levels of loyalty and conformity in the group (Piazza and Landy, 2013). This may make the group more durable where its code of conduct is observed, suggesting that obedience may be more important than faith (Shulman, 2003). This gives rise to an in-group bias, whereby religious people judge more favorably those who share or at least display icons indicating participation in their religion, and judge more harshly those either non-religious or who hold a
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
different religion who commit the same acts (Teo et al., 2014). Members of same-religion supervisors who act unjustly to a co-worker are perceived to behave morally, while similar unjust acts solicit views that the supervisor acted unethically when that supervisor is nonreligious (Zogbhi-Manrique-de-Lara and Suarez-Acosta, 2014), indicating a transference of religious authority to the workplace. In this way, religions such as Christianity appear to function as an implicit signal to activate perceptions that a leader of that faith in a business context is more trustworthy and a better leader (Gunn and White, 1997) because of their spiritual grounding (Young and Chen, 2013). Obedience and conformity is particularly emphasized for the types of rules central to a religion. Among those self-reporting as religious, the conformity and morality effect seems to be contingent on the type of rule or prohibited offense (Stark, Doyle and Kent 1982; Tittle and Welch, 1983). In particular, the Commandment Laws generate the closest following among persons self-reporting to be high in religiosity, compared to a lesser degree of adherence to secular rules or laws (Baier and Wright, 2001; Abrami, 2010; Snell and Overbey, 2008). The importance of these central types of commandment or religious laws is shown in the fact that their perceived influence on followers hold true across religions (Gunther, 2007; Ali et al., 2000). Thus, theft may be discouraged through the eighth of the Ten Commandments with the imperative “Thou Shalt Not Steal” (The Holy Bible, 1988; similar concept in The Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5:38-39) which in turn may affect ethical decisions at work such as avoidance of dishonesty (Kennedy and Lawton, 1998; Van Buren and Greenwood, 2013). Indeed, a dated sample from 1933 finds broad agreement that the prohibition against lies ranked third in overall commandment importance (Simpson, 1933). More recently, Snell and Overby (2008) find lying ranks now 6th in overall commandment importance.
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Honesty (tell no lies) and conformity to social rules or codes are linked within the 10 Commandments rubrics, with bearing false witness (violating Commandment 9) perceived as disruptive to the fabric of society, beyond merely the act of lying itself (Shulman, 2008). This linkage may increase the potency of a single commandment alone. The above discussion leads to the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: Religious persons support telling lies less than similarly situated nonreligious others. Hypothesis 1b: Religious persons display greater support for obedience and conformity, than similarly situated non-religious others. In addition to conformity and obedience, there are conflicting hypotheses about whether religiosity leads to greater tolerance and more forgiveness (Fox and Thomas, 2008) or whether forgiveness, if it exists at all, is limited to members of one’s own religious in-group, with condemnation and derogation of those out-group persons (Johnson et al., 2011). However, religion-directed forgiveness suggests: Hypothesis 1c: Religious persons display more tolerance for persons who do not share their values, than similar individuals who are less religious.
Non-Religious Bases of Ethics: Personal Ethical Codes Secular Humanists, among others, endorse personal ethics codes based on improving the lives of people using real-world evidence, science and reason (Edwords, 2015; Secular Humanist Society of New York, 2015). Rather than be told what the rules are for appropriate behavior, secular humanists embrace the concept that each human person is able to decide for themselves how to live.
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore…Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness. (Secular Humanist Society of NY, 2015).
Some of the ethics or morals which flow from the above view are that Politically, Secular Humanists’ defiance of religious and secular authority has contributed to democracy, human rights, and the protection of the environment. It has also led to a general rejection of intellectual difference based on sex. In this life approach based on science and reason, there is little room for lies. Beyond Secular Humanism and so utilizing a wider non-religious view, moral behavior may be driven by factors other than religion, both for those who claim no religion, and for religionists as well. Hume (1888) suggests we must look more broadly at the context of behavior to understanding the motivating factor for behavioral acts. He asks - At what point does an idea of an object, become the object itself? More to the point of this paper would be, when does a set of interlinked but temporary ideas give full basis to the permanent reality these ideas represent? Hume (1888) argues that the crossover lies in resemblance, and in time. Zogbhi-Manrique-deLara and Suarez-Acosta (2014) suggest that when a situation or experience or idea resembles one’s imagined state of the permanent reality, then although the experience or idea may be
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
transient, its perceived similarity to the permanent reality lurking near that idea in the mind, is sufficient to evoke the latter. What, then, is permanent reality? Which segments are transient? And whether stable or flitting, can any transient or intransient situation, somehow beyond its own characteristic, be somehow loaded with virtue or vice? A person’s self-perceived identity as virtuous or sinful may constitute a more permanent reality, while one’s behavior in a situational moment is transient. Hume (1888; 1967 reprint) argues that it is by means of our ideas and impressions that we distinguish between vice and virtue, and by which we pronounce as blamable or praiseworthy an action or a person – ourselves or another. This is not a subconscious happenstance in Hume’s view, but an entirely conscious choice. Such choices can be internally inconsistent. One psychological mechanism to support lies while maintaining an image of oneself as honest is to use malleable categories that permit limited dishonesty but maintain a positive self-concept (Mazar et al., 2008). Such underlying psychological motivations can flex to vary with one’s environment (Gneezy, 2005). Bribes for example, are common in particular regions of the world including Indonesia, which ranks 107 of 175 nations with a score of 34/100 (0 highly corrupt, 100 very clean) on the World Corruption Index (Transparency International, 2015), and where such practices are very widespread. As we will discuss later in country comparisons, Australia and the USA have a lower tolerance for and practice of bribes. Similarly, Mann et al. (2014) find stronger participation in lying when socially connected people lie within their group; this contagion effect was confirmed by Gino, Shahar and Ariely (2009) when the unethical person who lied first was of a similar in-group thus establishing a social norm.
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Motivations to support honesty or lies may also be non-religiously intrinsic. Atheists as a group sharing non-religious beliefs, on principle rely on science and facts, accepting things as they plainly and measurably exist (Christina, 2012), so it may be that they consequently also do not pretend themselves to be other than what they measurably are, based on their own assessment of self or on other more objective measures. Religious reasoning, based on revelations of religious authority, may more flexibly obey the directives of that authority in its contextual identified environment (Yagil and Rattner, 2002). Without the hierarchical imperative structured into formal religion, atheists may be less likely to support conformity and obedience at work, a stance driven by fact-seeking as well (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2011; Zuckerman, 2009). Secular humanists also do not claim to hold a single full understanding which everyone must accept, and so are less likely to support required conformity. Finally, those self-identifying as “nonreligious” or who state their religion as “none” regardless of their position on lies are more likely to reject the general concept of conformity as they have already rejected their own conformity and obedience to religion. This leads to the following contradictory Hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a: Atheists and non-religionists are more honest (support lies less) than similarly situated religious others. Hypothesis 2b: Atheists and non-religionists support conformity and obedience less than similarly situated religious others, and Hypothesis 2c: Atheists and non-religionists display more tolerance for persons who do not share their values than do otherwise similar but religious others
Instrumentalism: Lies, Obedience, and Conformity A third logic derives from Oliver Williamson’s (1993) argument that individuals do not merely
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
seek self-interest, they opportunistically seek “self-interest with guile” (Williamson, p. 97, 1993). Actions in this view do not derive their merit from falsehood or truth; they derive merit from the perceived relations of ideas, as in Hume (1888), to a permanent invariant existence and matter of fact. The action of a person is virtuous or vicious because its view causes a pleasure or uneasiness of a particular kind. This could be uneasiness stemming from fearing consequence in a permanent afterlife as already discussed, but also could be a desire to surround oneself with the worldly evidence of divine approval, as Weber (1930) suggests. The Protestant Ethic (Weber, 1930) describes extrinsically driven evidence of a correct religious life. According to this view, those who are blessed because of their religious devotion, receive that blessing not only in the afterlife but in this world as well. This drives members of that sect to great material attainment, on the logic that this shows that person to be religiously on track for heaven; thus hard work is spiritually driven so that the fruits of that effort become evidence of being recognized by God (Benefiel et al., 2014). The spiritual confirmation of display of such acquired worldly goods may outweigh inconsistencies in the mechanism of their acquisition. If worldly possessions give evidence of divine approval and thus pleasure to those driven by extrinsic motivation (Lepper et al., 1973), instrumentalism may drive conformity as well: a more subtle religious uneasiness may stem from a sense that something in the story of religion is not quite right, an internal failure of logic or coherence; this in turn may lead to a reluctance by religious practitioners to question too closely as further inconsistencies may be revealed, an uneasy reluctance which contributes another factor toward obedience and conformity (Van Cappellan et al, 2011).
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
The pardon aspect of religion may work to promote misbehavior in Self-Interest Theory too (Trevino and Youngblood, 1990). When opportunistic conditions arise, unethical behavior can be expected to result (DePaulo et al., 2004), encouraged by expectation of routine pardons (Couenhoven, 2000). These instrumentalist factors suggest that religionists will be less honest after all, as opportunity for gain presents. That is, use of religious practices to attain extrinsic advantage may lead to more deception (Lowery and Beadles, 2009), while those with deeply internalized religious beliefs will carry behavior consistent with those religious laws out into their lives (Perrin, 2000). As such, the conflicting predictions of intrinsic vs extrinsic religious motivations, would suggest a greater variability and range in support for lies among those practicing religion. In particular, intrinsically motivated believers would lie the least, with extrinsically motivated religious adherents lying the most. Other findings support this notion of wider variance. While Ning and Crossman (2007) found an overall effect of Mormon religion on lies – members of this church lie less – they also found acceptance of lying within that group to be influenced by perceived size of lie and by target. For example, large lies were less acceptable, while pro-social lies and lies told to a stranger were more acceptable; also acceptable among religious people were lies told for the sake of peace (Ali et al., 2000). Religionists therefore may internalize the consequences of disobeying God’s Rules, an internal imperative to do the right thing, causing them to practice good behavior to avoid eternal punishment (Gunn and White, 1997) or, religious behavior may be more extrinsic, manipulative and opportunistic, relying on pardons to escape consequences of that instrumentalist behavior. Therefore, to the extent that internalizing religious beliefs may promote being more forgiving of others’ negative behavior (Fox and Thomas, 2008), those high in religiosity could
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
display more tolerance for diversity, and therefore less conformity, than non-religious others. To the extent that external religious drivers cause an in-group, out-group bandwagon effect, then exclusion, shunning and intolerance may more likely result. The above discussion leads to the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3a: Those more religious will display a wider variation in support for honesty. Hypothesis 3b: Those more religious will display a wider variation in support for obedience at work, Hypothesis 3c: Those more religious will display a wider variation in their degree of tolerance or intolerance, of those whose values differ from their own. The addition of time to this last logic supports this sequence of religious identity further. Hume (1888) suggests that people are always much inclined to prefer present interest and advantage to remote apprehension of an evil that lies at a distance. However, when the idea of that distant but invariant situation is raised to a level of consciousness that puts it in the forefront of our minds, we may be more inclined to prefer present disadvantage to avoid that heightened perception of the permanent state of evil, which that idea so strongly is made to resemble, as the display of religious icons or language may do. Considerable support for this heightened consciousness of religious consequences has been found. Religious priming activates this concern, increasing submission and facilitating compliance to authority which otherwise would be less likely to be followed, such as engaging in acts of revenge (Van Cappellan et al, 2011). Randolph-Seng and Nielsen (2007) also find that religious representations as words resulted in those participants so exposed to cheat less, and – interestingly – this did not vary with religiosity.
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Together, then, we have a continuum of predicted workplace behavior effects: either religion causes people to be more honest at work from fear of eternal damnation or from internalized religious laws, with atheists and non-religionists at the other end; or those whose lives are lived entirely in the measurable here and now (atheists) will be more honest at work, since their own assessment of self-dignity takes pre-eminence. Finally, to the extent that some employ religion opportunistically, a wider variation in support for lying behavior and in tolerance should be observed from those self-reporting higher levels of religiosity.
Country Differences Across the Pacific Rim In addition to differing predictions about the extent to which religiosity would drive conformity in the workplace in general, and honesty vs lying in the workplace in particular, nation effects are likely to be seen. Hofstede (2001) suggests that National Culture is a significant factor likely to influence both conformity and tendency to lie at work. The cultural environment of a country includes pressures those employed in work organizations face to be seen in a certain way, which lends those organizations a degree of legitimacy within their context (Massey, 2001). Strategically, nations or organizations can manipulate symbols to achieve legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) just as individuals can. Establishing and maintaining legitimacy through actions and symbols to meet cultural expectations of a country are strategies of religious organizations as well as of other firms. Although engaging in promises and images that cannot easily be verified, religious organizations nonetheless must present their beliefs and rituals in ways that elicit perceptions of sincere honesty. Commercial ventures must build credibility through ethical behavior accepted
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
by the society in which they operate (Waller, 2012), and religious organizations require that acceptance too, although the standards for such credibility differ widely. What is generally defined as corruption in North America and Western Europe is so deeprooted in regions such as Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Middle East, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, and countries such as Indonesia that it can be understood as a cultural everyday practice where undocumented payments to mediators who deliver value in exchange, are accepted as common and even normative (Singgih, 2012). Conformity becomes a rationalized participation in dishonest acts (Budiman, 2013). Grover and Hui (2005) find support for the idea that workplace pressures matter to deceptive behavior. People will lie as they seek to promote their self-concept or the way others view them by appearing to perform at a higher level than they actually do, and this occurs most frequently when workplace pressure to perform is high. Australia, Indonesia and the United States have pronounced differences along this dimension according to Hofstede (2001). In the US, competitive pressure to produce is very high, in Australia it is relatively low, and Indonesia somewhere between. While workplace pressures suggest lies will be more supported in the USA, that factor is just one of many broader cultural mandates. As previously discussed, bribes are so common as to be normal in Indonesia, where they are not seen as a transgression: Vauclair (2009) finds that transgressions of justice or fairness are commonly disapproved of across cultures, and that actions which may advance a person’s fulfillment but do not harm others in obvious ways, are more tolerated. Vauclair and Fisher (2011) find that these levels of disapproval and toleration do not vary greatly by geographic locale.
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
What is interesting about country differences in this context, then, is that all peoples consider their way of life moral. National cultures go beyond patterns of individual behavior to broad-based acceptance of the normality and everyday practice of certain acts; that is, these regularly practiced behaviors become moral, just, and right (Eisler, 1987). Only when measured in comparison do differences in values emerge. Corruption on a wider national scale is measured at 107 out of 175 nations for Indonesia (higher scores imply more prevalence of corruption), 17 out of 175 nations for the United States, and 11 out of 175 nations for Australia, leading to transparency rankings of 34/100, 74/100, and 80/100, respectively (Transparency International, 2015). Overall, then, pressures to excel in the workplace notwithstanding, we expect country differences to affect honesty in that order. Based on the above discussion pertaining to corruption, we suggest the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 4a: Persons working in Australia would lie the least, Indonesians would lie the most, and people in the USA would favor telling lies to an extent somewhere in between. With respect to conformity, an equally important country characteristic according to Hofstede (2001) is the extent to which individualism is encouraged in a nation. Snowden (2012) finds a strong emphasis in Australia on conformity, while individualism in the USA is pervasive, celebrated and associated with innovation by requiring repudiation of prior more traditionally accepted patterns of behavior, styles, and references of thought. Individualism in the USA has a longstanding tradition stemming from early writings of John Locke, who argued that individual freedom gave rise to individual initiative which, combined with public spirit, advanced the nation (Andre and Velasquez, 1992).
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Yet values and practices, including religious practices, change in strength over time; nations experiencing an increase in religiosity such as Australia (Bouma, 2012) may experience an increase in (or a perceived increase in) morality when compared to a previously more secular, materialistic orientation (Melleuish, 2010). To the extent that conformity is a religious characteristic, favoritism and intolerance may emerge more strongly in societies where there is greater diversity, as religion becomes a guide to commonalities (Bouma, 2012) as well as to what is religiously correct. In societies where religion is strong, support for conformity by religious participants may be strongest of all. Conformity then may differ across nations in addition to the factor of individualism, following religious prevalence: with 9/10 of the population believing in God, conformity pressures in Indonesia are expected to be high (Arli and Tjiptono, 2013). High U.S. scores on individualism (Hofstede, 2001) suggest lower support for conformity, with Australia while still valuing conformity, in between. Our previous discussion leads to the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 4b: Persons living in the U.S. will be lowest in obedience and conformity measures, those living in Australia will show intermediate conformity values, while persons living in the more religious and homogeneous society of Indonesia would show the highest rates of obedience and conformity. Hypothesis 4c: Those in the USA will show the highest tolerance for those whose values differ from their own; those in Indonesia will show the least; those in Australia will show a value in between. Finally, position within the organization may matter to support for lies, obedience and conformity. Regarding status within the organization type from which these data were collected, major research universities in Indonesia, Australia and the U.S., overall, college students are
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
observed to lie frequently (Metts, 1989; Knox, et al., 1993). There are differences, however, between those in the U.S. (Lindskold and Han, 1986) and Australia (Peterson, 1996) in the degree to which they accept lying without moral condemnation, with Australian students less satisfied with various forms of deception, assessing more blame, and feeling more guilt, again corroborating Hypothesis 4a.
Method and Data These hypotheses were tested using primary data collected from academics in major research universities in Australia and the United States during the 2008-2009 academic year, and from academics in the largest and most important educational institutions of higher learning in Jakarta, Indonesia during 2010; responses were collected from students and staff in 2009 at one major research university in Australia as well. 2 Respondents were invited to Strongly Agree (2), Agree (1), Does not matter (0), Disagree (-1) or Strongly Disagree (-2) with a variety of value-laden 2
These data were collected in three waves: The first in November of 2008 was a combined US postal service mailing, with stamped return envelopes, and an online survey with link and cover letter, emailed to a sample of faculty across every department at seven major US research universities. 8,795 solicitations were sent in this wave, with faculty names taken from posted University Departmental Website faculty listings; of these, 255 were returned to sender with addressee unknown and 498 were returned fully or partially completed. After cleaning, 444 useable surveys remained. The response rate (498 of the 8540 non-rejected addresses) was 5.83 percent, although it is likely that many of those not returned were also not deliverable but simply discarded by university departments, rather than returned. The second wave in February of 2009 consisted of 4,908 anonymous surveys with cover letters saluting recipients as Academy of Management colleagues, with business reply envelopes, sent to members of the Academy who belonged to either the Business Policy and Strategy or the International Management cluster groups; this mailing list was purchased to over-sample business academics, as some 65 percent of AOM members are academics in business or related fields. Of the surveys sent, 11 were returned to sender as undeliverable and 625 were completed and returned; 547 were useable, for an effective response rate of 12.76 percent. The third wave in April and May of 2009 consisted of 1,442 anonymous surveys distributed either directly into academics’ mailboxes, or via campus mail, at two major universities in Australia; these contained cover letters noting local university approval and included campus mail return envelopes. None were returned as undeliverable (presumably these were simply discarded), 419 were returned partially or fully completed of which 349 were entirely useable. This yielded a response rate of 18.67 percent. These rates do raise the concern of nonresponse bias. Unfortunately, no resources were available for follow-up contact; worse, errors in envelope printing omitted a return address on more than half of the sent envelopes, an error which both decreased the response rate and prevented return-to-sender activity.
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
statements including statements supporting lies, obedience and conformity. Statements focused on values and beliefs. They included: a) “Sometimes people need to say things that are not true;” a measure of honesty b) “Employees should not question their managers;” a measure of obedience and c) “People who do not share others' values should leave” as a measure of intolerance. Demographic information was collected as well. In the case of Indonesia, forward- and back-translations ensured that survey statements maintained original meaning. Since respondents completed the mailed or online questionnaires anonymously and presumably in isolation, without any observant audience, potential contamination from display of religious icons or other spurs to a heightened perception of religious imperatives were assumed to be absent.
Results Table 1 shows means and standard deviations of responses to the three value-laden statements used for this research. ** insert Table 1 About Here ** Overall, there is some support for telling lies, consistent with Ariely’s (2012) finding that lies in general are quite widespread. There is overall notable disagreement that employees should not question their managers, and disagreement that people who do not share others’ values should leave, which sum to a general repudiation of obedience intolerance and conformity, an encouraging overall trend in academies of higher learning. However, the standard deviations of all three variables indicate considerable latitude in individuals’ response.
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 2 shows correlations for these three variables with respondent characteristics in religiosity, status in university, and country of residence. ** Insert Table 2 about here ** The first result shown in Table 2 is that religiosity is negatively correlated with telling lies. It is also positively correlated with intolerance. Academics tend to be more religious, students less so; and American academics more religious compared to Australian and Indonesian respondents. Academics are also less supportive of telling lies, and favor questioning established authority. Students, consistent with Metts’ (1989) and Knox et al.’s (1993) earlier findings, also in this sample on average favor telling lies. Table 3 addresses the first several hypotheses: That religious persons display more honesty than those less religious, or less honesty as in H1a and H2a, respectively; that religious persons are more obedient (H1b) and that religious persons are more tolerant (H1c) of others whose values are different from their own. ** Insert Table 3 around here ** Column 1 shows support for H1a, religious persons do indeed support lies less than similarly situated others. Column 2 shows support for H1b as well as H2b, with religiosity predicting support for obedience and conformity. Column 3, however, shows that religious persons are less tolerant of diversity than non-religious others, contrary to H1c but consistent with the Secular Humanist view as per H2c. Hypotheses 4a and 4b speak to country differences. We suggest that country residency in the U.S.A. where workplace pressures to perform are high; lying would be high as well, with the lower pressure to perform in Australia driving more honesty. Results in Table 3 Column 1
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
indicate the opposite is true: Australians support lying significantly more than the omitted category of the U.S.A. 3 This a result somewhat inconsistent with these nations’ overall corruption rankings, where the USA is considered more corrupt than Australia. Here, Americans prefer not so much to lie. One explanation is that this is a sample of academics, and while there is room in academia for corruption, there is perhaps less payoff than in some other occupations. Within academia, why should Americans lie less? Perhaps because of our obsession with discovery, related to individualism where we score high on Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of culture, and inversely to power distance where we Americans score rather low. Country differences do emerge as predicted in H4b (Table 3 column 2) with the U.S. being lower in obedience (highest in individualism) and Indonesia being highest in obedience. Residency in Australia positively predicted intolerance of diverse values and views (Column 3) compared to the omitted category of the USA.. Finally, students, as predicted, are willing to lie more than respondents who are University Academics and Staff; students show significantly higher levels of support for acquiescence and intolerance / conformity as well (Table 3, Columns 1, 2 and 3, respectively). In Table 4 we test whether religion’s effect on lying or honesty is mediated by conformity. ** Insert Table 4 about here **
3
We included three nations in the regression analysis by using a dummy variable string, structured so that for each of the three nations, respondents living in the US get a value of 1, respondents not living in the US get a 0; Respondents living in Australia get a 1 if they live there, 0 if they do not, respondents living in Indonesia get a 1 if they live there, 0 if they do not. This over-specifies the equation. Therefore, we include only two, and omitted the third category of nation. We include Indonesia and Australia, and leave out (omitted) the US. This yields the result that any significant country difference is the difference between the listed country and the country omitted from the analysis, in this case the US.
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Column 1, for reference, replicates the predictors of honesty shown in Table 3 Column 1. Column 2 shows a significant mediation effect, namely, that acquiescence and conformity / intolerance do increase support for lies, a finding first shown in the Pearson Correlations of Table 2. The main result that religiosity is associated with decreased lying remains. Hypothesis 2a that atheist persons because of their grounding in facts would be more honest is not supported as shown in column 3, as results show a clear Atheistic “no effect:” that atheistic persons are neither more nor less honest than anyone else. Finally, the country effect that Australian academics favor lying more on average than academics in the Unites States (the omitted category), remains. When mediated by obedience and conformity, Indonesian respondents wish to lie less than respondents in the USA. This suggests that obedience and conformity outweigh honesty among Indonesian respondents. In Table 5 we test the hypothesis that religionists display wider variations in their support for lies, obedience and conformity / intolerance than do those who do not believe in any gods. These results are shown in Columns 1 and 2 for Religionists, and Columns 3 and 4 for those completely non-religious defined as those who replied to the four-point scale question, “How Religious Are You?” by checking the box, “Not at all religious.”. ** Insert Table 5 About Here ** In responding to each of the three questions studied here, Religionists do display a significantly wider variance than those completely non-religious. This result supports the idea that the “average” religious person’s support for honesty may be driven by intrinsic motivation among some, causing them to lie less, but by extrinsic motivation for others, leading this group of religionists to lie more than those who do not hold a religion .
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
It is interesting to note as well the differences in mean values between Religionists and those completely non-religious. Religionists on average differ by being more honest, more obedient, and less tolerant of diversity. This main result is extremely robust. The fact is, people in our three-nation sample who perceive themselves as religious, as a general group, do oppose lying more, believe in stricter obedience, and are more intolerant of those who do not share their values, than people who are equivalent in many measured ways, but who simply do not believe in one or more Gods.
Conclusion Religion plays a nuanced role among Academics, Staff and Students in major research universities in Indonesia, Australia and the United States. Those more religious do appear on average more honest, and this finding shows up with or without mediating variables. They are also more conformist, obedient, and intolerant of others with values differing from their own. Similarly, country differences quite significantly emerged: Australians are more willing to tell lies compared to respondents in the USA, controlling for organizational position and when (or when not) mediated by conformity. Indonesian respondents focus more on obedience and conformity: when support for lies is mediated by their position on obedience and conformity, Indonesians are more honest than their USA counterparts. This last finding is both unexpected and unique: it contradicts many other findings about covert behavior and behavioral dishonesty. At the same time, Indonesians’ truthfulness is consistent with Vauclair (2009) and Vauclair and Fisher’s (2011) findings that condemnation of injustice is quite universal: what differs across cultures is the definition of what constitutes a transgression. The honesty statement to which respondents reacted in this survey was phrased in
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
an extremely conservative, pro-social way: “Sometimes people need to say things that are not true,” a phrasing that could evoke a respondent’s understanding of the need for praise for an unfortunate haircut, for example, rather than support for heinous acts of deceit. In this interpretation, it may simply be that Australians are kinder, rather than more self-serving. Finally, those self-reporting religiosity did display significantly more variability in their replies to the three statements about honesty, obedience, and intolerance of diversity, a result supporting both views of intrinsic religious motivation, and extrinsic religious instrumentalism. As expected, students were quite willing to lie more than regularly employed others, while academics when compared to students or staff were less conformist and significantly more tolerant of others with values different from their own. Together, these findings suggest that religion motivates honesty not necessarily through select conscious choice to be more virtuous in one’s behavior, in which case forgiveness – also a clear religious virtue – would have dominated intolerance, which it did not. Instead, two alternative explanations remain. Opposition to lying could, as Baier and Wright (2001) suggest, run primarily through conformity to religion’s hierarchical mandates. Or, as Hume (1888; 1967 reprint) suggests, religious people may favor honesty because it resembles heaven, to which permanent station religionists sincerely aspire.
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
References Abrami, L. M. (2010). The Ten Commandments as Positive Affirmations. The Jewish Bible Quarterly, 38(1) 32-35. Ali, A.J., Camp, R. C., & Gibbs, M. (2000). The Ten Commandments Perspective on Power and Authority in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 351-361. Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (1992). Creating the Good Society. Issues in Ethics 5(1), 1-5. Ariely, D. (2012). The Honest Truth About Dishonesty – How We Lie to Everyone, Especially Ourselves. NY: Harper Collins. Arli, D., & Tjiptono, F. (2014). The End of Religion? Examining the Role of Religiousness, Materialism & Long-Term Orientation on Consumer Ethics in Indonesia. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 388-400. Baier, C., & Wright, B. R. E. (2001). If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 3-21. Benefiel, M. F. L., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality & Religion in the Workplace: History, Theory & Research. Psychology of Religion & Spirituality, 6(3), 175-187. Bouma, G. (2012). Religious Diversity and Social Policy: An Australian Dilemma. Australian Journal of Social Issues 47(3), 281-295. Budiman, A., Roan, A., & Callan, V. J. (2013). Rationalizing Ideologies, Social Identities and Corruption Among Civil Servants in Indonesia During the Suharto Era. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 139-149. Burkett, S. R. (1993). Perceived Parents’ Religiosity, Friends Drinking, and Hellfire. . Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 134-154. Burkett, S. R., & White, M. (1974). Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 455-562. Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A. L., LoTempio E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the atheist personality: Well-being, awe, and magical thinking in atheists, Buddhists, and Christians Mental Health. Religion & Culture 14(7): 659-672. Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Rosin, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion & Unforgivable Offenses. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 85-117. Couenhoven, J. (2010). Forgiveness and Restoration. A Theological Exploration 90(2), 148-170. Christina, G. (2012). Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things that Piss Off the Godless. San Francisco: Greta Christina/Dirty Heathen Publishing. E-book. DePaolo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Kirkendol, S. E., Boden, J. M. (2004). Serious Lies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26 (2-3), 147-167. Edwords, F. (2015). “What is Humanism” http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism accessed 7/28/2015. Eisler, R. (1987). The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future. Harper Collins Publishing. Exline, J. J. (2008). Beliefs about God and Forgiveness in a Baptist Church Sample. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 27(2), 131-139. Fox, A., & Thomas, T. (2008). Impact of religious affiliation and religiosity on forgiveness. Australian Psychologist, 43(3), 175-185. Gearing, R. E., & Lizardi, D. (2008). Religion & Suicide. Journal of Religious Health, 48, 332341.
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Gino, F., Shahar, A., Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393-398. Grover, S. L., & C. Hui. (2005). How job pressures and extrinsic rewards affect lying behavior The International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(3), 287-300. Glouberman, M. (2011). I am the Lord Your God: Religion, Morality, and the Ten Commandments. Heythrop Journal, 52(4), 541-558. Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The Role of Consequences. American Economic Review 95(1): 384-394. Gunn, A.E. & White, K. (1997). Review of Jan Aersten’s Medieval Philosophy & The Transcendentals: The Case of Thomas Aquinas. Review of Metaphysics, 51(2), 405-408. Gunther, S. (2007). O, People of the Scripture! Come to a Word Common to You and Us. The Ten Commandments & The Qur’an, 9(1), 28-58. Harris, E. (2010). Introduction: Authority in Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 30, 43-48. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hood, R.W., Spilka, J.R., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York: Guilford Press. Hume, D. (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967 reprint. Johnson, M. K., Wade, C. R., & LaBouff, J. P. (2011). Religiosity and Prejudice Revisited: InGroup Favoritism, Out-Group Derogation, or Both? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 4(2), 154-168. Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 163-175. Knox, D., Schacht, C., Holt J. & Turner, J. (1993). Sexual lies among university students. College Student Journal, 27, 269-272. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nesbit, R. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the over justification hypothesis. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137. Lindskold, S., & G. Han. (1986). Intent and the Judgment of Lies. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 129-130. Louche, C., D., Arenas, K., & van Cranenburgh, C. (2012). From Preaching to Investing: Attitudes of Religious Organizations Towards Responsible Investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 301-320. Lowery, C. M., & Beadles II., N. A. (2009). Differences between work-related ethics and nonwork ethics, and the effects of religiosity. Journal of Managerial Issues 21(3), 421-435. Mann, H., Garcia-Rada, X., Houser, D., & Ariely, D. (2014). Everybody Else Is Doing It: Exploring Social Transmission of Lying Behavior. PLOS ONE 9(10), e109591. Massey, J. E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis. Journal of Business Communication, 38(2), 153–182. Mazar, N., Omir, O & Ariely, D. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Selfconcept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research 45(December), 633-644. McCarthy, M. (2007). Religious Disillusionment and the Cross: An Augustinian Reflection. The Heythrop Journal 48(4), 577-592. Meileander, G. (2004). Hearts Set to Obey. A Journal of Theology. 43(1), 42-52. Melleuish, G. (2010). Religion and Politics in Australia. Political Theology, 1 (6), 909-927.
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 495-512. Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contributions of discrepancy beyond actual self-ratings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26; 108-123. Ning, S. R., & Crossman, A. M. (2007). We Believe in Being Honest: Examining Subcultural Differences in the Acceptability of Deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37 (9), 2130-2155. Perrin, R. (2000). Religiosity & Honesty: Continuing the Search for the Consequential Dimension. Review of Religious Research, 41(4), 534-544. Pelaia, A. (2015). What is Yom Kippur? http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/yomkippur.htm, accessed July 28, 2015. Peterson, C. (1996). Deception in Intimate Relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31(6), 279-288. Piazza, J. (2012). If you love me keep my commandments. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 285-302. Piazza, J. & J. F. Landy. (2013). Lean not on your own understanding: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making 8(6), 639-661. Randolph-Seng, B., & Nielsen M. E. (2007). Honesty: One Effect of Primed Religious Representations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17(4), 303-315. Reed, E. D. (2013). Responsibility to Protect & Militarized Humanitarian Intervention; when & Why Churches Failed to Discern Moral Hazard. Journal of Religious Ethics. 41(1), 183208. Secular Humanist Society of NY (2015) Home: Humanism http://www.shsny.org/ accessed 7/28/2015. Suchman, M. C. (1995).Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Shulman, B. (2008). The Political Science of the 10 Commandments. Journal of Individual Psychology 59(2), 166-175. Smith, R.E., Wheeler, G. & Diener, E. (1975). Faith Without Works: Jesus People, Resistance to Temptation & Altruism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 320-330. Simpson, R. M. (1933). Attitudes Towards the Ten Commandments. Journal of Social Psychology, 4(2), 223-230. Singgih, E. G. (2012). Some Notes on Corruption in Indonesia: A Cultural-Religious Perspective. Exchange, 41, 311-319. Snell, W. E. Jr., & Overbey G. A. (2008). Assessing Belief in the Ten Commandments: The Multidimensional 10 Commandments Questionnaire. Journal of Religious Health, 47, 188216. Snowden, C. (2012). I’m Alright, Thanks: Non-Conformity And the Media Framing of Social Inclusion. Media International Australian, 142, 64-73. Stark, R., Doyle, D. P., & Kent, L. (1982). Religion and Delinquency: The Ecology of a ‘Lost’ Relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18, 4-24. Teo, L. S., Wang, K. L.; Cheng, D., & Lee, I. (2014). How, when & why displaying one’s religious affiliations at work affect evaluator judgments. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. 765-770.
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
The Holy Bible (1988). New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. The Holy Qur’an. (2009). New York, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., U.S. Tittle, C. R. & M. R. Welch. (1983). Religiosity and Deviance: Toward a Contingency Theory of Constraining Effects. Social Forces, 61, 653-682. Transparency International (2015). Corruption by Country / Territory http://www.transparency.org/country#IDN Retrieved 20/02/2015; http://www.transparency.org/country#USA_DataResearch retrieved July 28, 2015; http://www.transparency.org/country#AUS retrieved July 28, 2015. Trevino, L, K., & S. A. Youngblood. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378-385. Van Buren, H. J. III., & M. Greenwood. (2013). The Genesis of Employment Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 117: 707-719. Van Cappellan, P., Corneille, O., Cols, S., & Saraglou, V. (2011). Beyond mere compliance to authoritative figures: Religious priming increases conformity to informational influence among submissive people. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 97105. Vauclair, C.-M. (2009). Desired or desirable values? Considering morality in cross-cultural value research and its implications for research and measurement. Mackenzie Business Review, Special Issue: Human Values, 10, 60-83. Vauclair, C-M & Fischer R. (2011). Do Cultural Values Predict Individuals' Moral Attitudes? A Cross-Cultural, Multi-Level Approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 645657. Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2005). Religiosity & Consumer Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 57(2) 175-181. Waller, D. S. (2012). Truth in Advertising: The Beginning of Advertising Ethics in Australia Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27, 46-56. Weaver, G. R. & Agle, B. R., (2002). Religiosity & Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27, (1) 77-97. Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. NY: Routledge. 2005 reprint. Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Grasmick, H. G. (2006). Christian Religiosity, Self-Control and Social Conformity. Social Forces 84(3), 1605-1623. Williamson, O. 1993. Opportunism and its Critics Managerial and Decision Economics, 14: 97. Yagil, D., & Rattner, A. (2002). Between commandments and laws: Religiosity, political ideology, and legal obedience in Israel. Crime, Law & Social Change, 38(2), 185-209. Young, P. & Chen G-M. (2013). The Impact of an Individual’s Spirituality on Communication in the Workplace. China Media Research, 9(3), 99-110. Zogbhi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. & Suarez-Acosta, M. (2014). Employees’ Reactions to Peers’ Unfair Treatment by Supervisors: The Role of Ethical Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. 122(4), 537-549. Zuckerman, P. (2009). Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass 3(60), 949971.
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 1: Means of selected variables, sample of academics, students and staff in major research universities in Australia, Indonesia and the USA. n = 5747. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Sometimes People Need to Say Things 0.1122 1.2237 -2 2 That are Not True (dishonesty) Employees Should Not Question Their Managers (obedience)
-0.9556
1.0718
-2
2
People who do Not Share Others' Values Should Leave (intolerance & conformity)
-1.0609
0.9923
-2
2
30
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 2. Pearson Correlations (with levels of significance) between religiosity, lying, subservience and intolerance (n=5747).
How religious Say things not true Not question managers Share values or leave Academics
Say things not true -.112** 0 -
Not question managers .024 0.07 .111** 0 -
Share values or leave .057** 0 .164** 0 .216** 0 -
Academics
Students
.089** 0 -.206** 0 -.316** 0 -.199 0 -
-.091* 0 .228** 0 .291** 0 .193** 0 -.856 0 -
Staff Students Australia U.S.A.
Staff .013 .327 -.061** 0 .025 .05 -.005 .687 -.205** 0 -.343** 0 -
Australia -.070** 0 .148** 0 -.253** 0 .116* 0 -.340** 0 .284** 0 .076** 0 -
U.S.A. .133** 0 -.181 0 -.272** 0 -.192** 0 .739** 0 -.632** 0 -.148** 0 -.463** 0 -
Indonesia -.053** 0 .018 .148 .544** 0 .049** 0 -.396** 0 .345** 0 .066** 0 -.583** 0 -.377** 0
Note: ** correlations are significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 3: OLS Regression results (with t-values) for the effect of religiosity on lying, obedience, and intolerance.
Need to Say Things Not True How Religious
Employees Not Question
Share Values Or Leave
-.087** -6.755
.064** 5.853
0.081** 6.256
-.015 -.501
-.059* -2.305
-.068* -2.239
Students
.197** 7.999
.076** 3.635
.095** 3.813
Australia
.069** 2.876
-.001 -.036
.103** 4.255
Indonesia
-.019 -.781
.504** 24.304
.046 1.866
F statistic R-square
84.174** 0.068
537.097** 0.318
61.211** 0.051
Academics
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 4: OLS Regression for religiosity on lying mediated by questioning and intolerance. Need to Say Things That Are Not True (1) (2) (3) How Religious
-.087** -6.755
-0.102** -7.949
Employees Not Q Managers
.097** 6.191
Share Values or Leave
.109** 8.205
Academics
-.015 -.501
-.001 -.048
-.005 -.179
Student
.197** 7.999
.181** 7.349
.197** 8.314
Australia
.069** 2.876
.057* 2.352
.091** 3.882
Indonesia
-.019 -.781
-.077** -3.011
.002 .097
Atheists
F statistic R-square
.001 .083 84.174** 0.068
79.400** .089
78.521** .060
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Table 5. Tests of Hypotheses 3a and 3b - Variance of Religionists vs Nonbelievers Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations Religious At All n=3712 mean std.dev.
Completely Non-Religious n=2066 mean std.dev.
Sometimes people Need to say things that are Not True
0.0563
1.2402
.2087**
1.1824*
Employees Should Not Question Their Managers
-.8186
1.1094
-1.2575**
.9022*
People who do Not Share Others' Values Should Leave
-1.0275
.9994
-1.1576**
.9453*
Statistically significant difference between the two groups: ** p
