The Love of Money, Machiavellianism, and Unethical Behavior: College Major and Gender Academy of Management 2007 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. August 3-8, 2007 Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Ph.D. Middle Tennessee State University, the USA Yuh-Jia Chen, Ph.D. Palm Beach Atlantic University, the USA

Outline The Meaning of Money The Love of Money Scale The Machiavellianism Scale The Unethical Behavior Scale Method Results Discussion, Implications, Limitations

Money The instrument of commerce and the measure of value (Smith, 1776/1937). Attract, retain, and motivate employees and achieve organizational goals (Chiu, Luk, & Tang, 2002; Milkovich & Newman, 2005; Tang, Kim, & Tang, 2000).

The Meaning of Money is “in the eye of the beholder” (McClelland, 1967, p. 10) and can be used as the “frame of reference” (Tang, 1992) in which people examine their everyday lives (Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang, Luna-Arocas, & Sutarso, 2005).

The Importance of Money *10 Job Preferences, Pay was ranked: (Jurgensen, 1978) No. 5 by Men No. 7 by Women *11 work goals, Pay was ranked: (Harpaz, 1990). No. 1 in Germany No. 2 in Belgium, the UK, and the US

Why Do Students Go to College? In 1971, 49.9 % of freshman said: They want “to make more money”. In 1993, 75.1 % (The American Freshman, 1994).

The ABCs of Money Attitudes Affective: Do you “love or hate” money? Behavioral: What do you “do” with your money? Cognitive: What does money “mean” to you?

The Love of Money Scale Factor 1: Rich (Affective) 1. I want to be rich. 2. It would be nice to be rich. 3. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good. Factor 2: Motivator (Behavior) 4. I am motivated to work hard for money. 5. Money reinforces me to work harder. 6. I am highly motivated by money. Factor 3: Importance (Cognitive) 7. Money is good. 8. Money is important. 9. Money is valuable.

The Machiavellianism Scale Factor 1: 1.The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. 2. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. 3. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so 4. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.

The Unethical Behavior Scale Factor 1: Resource Abuse 1. Use office supplies (paper, pen), Xerox machine, and stamps for personal purposes 2. Make personal long-distance (mobile phone) calls at work 3. Waste company time surfing on the Internet, playing computer games, and socializing Factor 2: Not Whistle Blowing 4. Take no action against shoplifting by customers 5. Take no action against employees who steal cash/merchandise 6. Take no action against the fraudulent charges made by one ’ s company Factor 3: Theft 7. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking 8. Take merchandise and/or cash home 9. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the customers) Factor 4: Corrucption 10. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting records 11. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to one ’ s position and power 12. Lay off 500 employees to save the company money and increase one ’ s personal bonus Factor 5: Deception 13. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher bonus 14. Give customers “ discounts ” first and then secretively charge them more money later (bait & switch) 15. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know about their benefits

Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) Attitude  Behavioral Intention: The Love of Money  Unethical Behavior *The Love of Money  Machiavellianism  Unethical Behavior College Major: Business vs. Psychology Gender: Males vs. Females

Theoretical Model The Love of Money Time 1 Income Time 1 Unethical Behavior Time 2 Machiavellianism Time 1 Path 1 Path 5 Path 2 Path 6 Path 3 Path 4 Theoretical Model

Method N = Business students in the “Principles of Management” course (for juniors) (n = 198, male = 116 (63%), female = 68) 2. Psychology students in “Basic Statistics for Behavioral Science” course (for juniors) (n = 101, male = 33 (37%), female = 56)

Ethics Intervention The effect of business ethics intervention on students’ propensity to engage in unethical behavior…… Ethics Intervention: Between Time 1 and Time 2, business students were given lectures of a specific chapter on social responsibility and managerial ethics and completed a quiz covering four chapters including the ethics chapter

Measures 1. The 9-item-3-factor Love of Money Scale (Tang & Chen, 2006; Tang et al., 2006) at Time 1 2. The 5-item-1-factor Machiavellianism Scale at Time 1 3. The 32-item-5-factor Unethical Behavior Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 4. demographic variables (sex; age; years of education, etc.,)

Results 1. Descriptive Statistics 2. SEM 3. Cluster Analyses

Main Findings 1. Effects of Ethics Intervention: For business students, Factor Theft decreased significantly from Time 1 (1.42) to Time 2 (1.26) 2. Machiavellianism serves as a mediator : The love of money is indirectly related to unethical behavior through Machiavellianism (the Love of Money  Machiavellianism  Unethical Behavior) 3. College Major as a Moderator : Business students considered money a motivator (3.92 vs. 3.64) and were more likely to become whistleblowers (1.41 vs. 1.65) than psychology students 4. Gender as a Moderator : Males had higher scores on Factor Important, Machiavellianism, and Factor Corruption than females

Implications Effects of Ethics Intervention : This significant frame-breaking change (Thompson & Hunt, 1996) suggests that learning does occur among business students.

Limitations 1. “ convenience ” samples may not represent the population of all universities or the specific disciplines. 2. Students ’ propensity to engage in unethical behavior and not actual unethical behavior.

Final Thoughts and Conclusions The differences in our theoretical model come from students’ college major and gender, which are beyond business professors’ control, supporting the symbolic view. Since students have already learned it in the ethics intervention, it is not the lack of education or learning (intelligence) but the lack of virtue (Giacalone, 2004) or wisdom (Feiner, 2004) that caused the unethical behavior in this study

Thank You Danke Dankeshen Grazie Merci Muchas Gracias 謝謝