Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Moral Receptors and Moral Disengagement in the Conduct of Unethical Behaviors Against Whistleblowers on Social Media

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social Computing and Social Media: Design, User Experience and Impact (HCII 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13315))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Within the last years, whistleblowing has received considerable attention, as calls for ethical behavior in the workplace have grown louder and more forceful. Despite this fact, research has shown that individuals who blow the whistle are often frowned upon and treated poorly. In this context, while social media allows for offering support to the whistleblower, people may also hide behind online anonymity and engage in unethical behavior towards the whistleblower. Previous research already tried to explain unethical behavior on social media by linking moral receptors with moral disengagement in the context of unethical behavior. We built upon this approach in developing a set of propositions linking the moral receptors “harm/care”, “fairness/reciprocity”, “in-group/loyalty”, “authority/respect”, and “purity/sanctity” with moral disengagement in order to explain unethical behavior against whistleblowers on social media. Furthermore, we discuss some contextual boundary conditions that may aggravate the negative behavior towards whistleblowers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Andon, P., Free, C., Jidin, R., Monroe, G.S., Turner, M.J.: The impact of financial incentives and perceptions of seriousness on whistleblowing intention. J. Bus. Ethics 151(1), 165–178 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3215-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Annisette, L.E., Lafreniere, K.D.: Social media, texting, and personality: a test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 115, 154–158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baccarella, C.V., Wagner, T.F., Kietzmann, J.H., McCarthy, I.P.: Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. Eur. Manag. J. 36(4), 431–438 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Banaji, M.R., Bazerman, M.H., Chugh, D.: How (un)ethical are you? Harv. Bus. Rev. 81(12), 56–64 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought & Action – A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bandura, A.: Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 3(3), 193–209 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bandura, A.: Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2(1), 8 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2007.016056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., Pastorelli, C.: Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71(2), 364–374 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura, A., Caprara, G.V., Zsolnai, L.: Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement. J. Hum. Values 6(1), 57–64 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/097168580000600106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barnett, T., Vaicys, C.: The moderating effect of individuals’ perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 27(4), 351–362 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006382407821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baron, R.A., Zhao, H., Miao, Q.: Personal motives, moral disengagement, and unethical decisions by entrepreneurs: cognitive mechanisms on the “slippery slope’’. J. Bus. Ethics 128(1), 107–118 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2078-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117(3), 497–529 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., Mclendon, C.L.: Cohesion and performance in groups : a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(6), 989–1004 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brief, A.P., Buttram, R.T., Dukerich, J.M.: Collective corruption in the corporate world: toward a process model. In: Turner, M. (ed.) Groups at Work, pp. 471–499. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cassematis, P.G., Wortley, R.: Prediction of whistleblowing or non-reporting observation: the role of personal and situational factors. J. Bus. Ethics 117(3), 615–634 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1548-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., Relly, J.E., Berman, E.M.: Organizational protection for whistleblowers: a cross-national study. Public Manag. Rev. 22(4), 527–552 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1599058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Christian, J.S., Ellis, A.P.J.: The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. J. Bus. Ethics 119(2), 193–208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1631-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chugh, D., Bazerman, M.H., Banaji, M.R.: Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In: Conflicts of Interest, pp. 74–95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610332.006

  19. Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J.: Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8(4), 247–265 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Culiberg, B., Mihelič, K.K.: The evolution of whistleblowing studies: a critical review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 146(4), 787–803 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3237-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cullen, J.B., Victor, B., Bronson, J.W.: The ethical climate questionnaire: an assessment of its development and validity. Psychol. Rep. 73(2), 667–674 (1993). https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.667, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.667

  22. Dyck, A., Morse, A., Zingales, L.: Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? J. Financ. 65(6), 2213–2253 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01614.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. European Commission: Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - EU Anti-Corruption Report. Tech. rep. (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fitness, J.: Anger in the workplace: an emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. J. Organ. Behav. 21(2), 147–162 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<147::AID-JOB35>3.0.CO;2-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Poulsen, A., Søraa, R.A., Custers, B.H.: A little bird told me your gender: gender inferences in social media. Inf. Process. Manag. 58(3), 102541 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102541

  26. Francis, R.: Freedom to Speak Up - A Review of Whistleblowing in the NHS. Tech. rep, London (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Nosek, B.A.: Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96(5), 1029–1046 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grant, C.: Whistleblowers: saints of secular culture. J. Bus. Ethics 39, 391–399 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019771212846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Groshek, J., Cutino, C.: Meaner on mobile: incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Soc. Media + Soc. 2(4), 205630511667713 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116677137

  30. Haidt, J.: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Penguin, London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Haidt, J., Graham, J.: When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Soc. Justice Res. 20(1), 98–116 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haidt, J., Joseph, C.: Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus 133(4), 55–66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haidt, J., Joseph, C.: The moral mind: how five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In: The Innate Mind, Volume 3, vol. 15, pp. 367–392. Oxford University Press (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195332834.003.0019

  34. Hartmann, T., Vorderer, P.: It’s okay to shoot a character: moral disengagement in violent video games. J. Commun. 60(1), 94–119 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01459.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J.: Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25(1), 121–140 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2307/259266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jubb, P.B.: Whistleblowing: a restrictive definition and interpretation. J. Bus. Ethics 21(1), 77–94 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005922701763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53(1), 59–68 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaptein, M.: From inaction to external whistleblowing: the influence of the ethical culture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. J. Bus. Ethics 98(3), 513–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0591-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., Silvestre, B.S.: Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus. Horiz. 54(3), 241–251 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kish-Gephart, J.J., Harrison, D.A., Treviño, L.K.: Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 95(1), 1–31 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Martin, K.D., Cullen, J.B.: Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: a meta-analytic review. J. Bus. Ethics 69(2), 175–194 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mayer, D.M., Nurmohamed, S., Treviño, L.K., Shapiro, D.L., Schminke, M.: Encouraging employees to report unethical conduct internally: it takes a village. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 121(1), 89–103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mendoza, S.A., Lane, S.P., Amodio, D.M.: For members only: ingroup punishment of fairness norm violations in the ultimatum game. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 5(6), 662–670 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614527115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., Viswesvaran, C.: Whistleblowing in organizations: an examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. J. Bus. Ethics 62(3), 277–297 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0849-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., Dworkin, T.M.: Whistle-Blowing in Organizations. Routledge, New York (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Treviño, L.K., Baker, V.L., Mayer, D.M.: Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Pers. Psychol. 65(1), 1–48 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morrison, E.W., Milliken, F.J.: Speaking up, remaining silent: the dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 40(6), 1353–1358 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Near, J.P., Miceli, M.P.: Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing. J. Bus. Ethics 4, 1–16 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Near, J.P., Miceli, M.P.: Whistle-blowing: myth and reality. J. Manag. 22(3), 507–526 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Near, J.P., Miceli, M.P.: After the wrongdoing: what managers should know about whistleblowing. Bus. Horiz. 59(1), 105–114 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Norgaard, K.M.: “People want to protect themselves a little bit’’: emotions, denial, and social movement nonparticipation. Sociol. Inq. 76(3), 372–396 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00160.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. OECD: Participative Web and User-Created Content. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris (2007). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264037472-en

  53. Papacharissi, Z.: Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media Soc. 6(2), 259–283 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Park, H., Bjørkelo, B., Blenkinsopp, J.: External whistleblowers’ experiences of workplace bullying by superiors and colleagues. J. Bus. Ethics 161(3), 591–601 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3936-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Park, H., Blenkinsopp, J., Park, M.: The influence of an observer’s value orientation and personality type on attitudes toward whistleblowing. J. Bus. Ethics 120(1), 121–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1908-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Park, Y.J., Jang, S.M.: Public attention, social media, and the Edward Snowden saga. First Monday 22(8) (2017). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i8.7818

  57. Parlangeli, O., Marchigiani, E., Bracci, M., Duguid, A.M., Palmitesta, P., Marti, P.: Offensive acts and helping behavior on the Internet: an analysis of the relationships between moral disengagement, empathy and use of social media in a sample of Italian students. Work 63(3), 469–477 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Parmerlee, M.A., Near, J.P., Jensen, T.C.: Correlates of whistle-blowers’ perceptions of organizational retaliation. Adm. Sci. Q. 27(1), 17 (1982). https://doi.org/10.2307/2392544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Richardson, B.K., McGlynn, J.: Rabid fans, death threats, and dysfunctional stakeholders: the influence of organizational and industry contexts on whistle-blowing cases. Manag. Commun. Q. 25(1), 121–150 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910380344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rothschild, J., Miethe, T.D.: Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation. Work Occup. 26(1), 107–128 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026001006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Santana, A.D.: Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journal. Pract. 8(1), 18–33 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Scheiner, C.W.: The role of moral receptors and moral disengagement in the conduct of unethical behaviors on social media. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2020, Part I. LNCS, vol. 12194, pp. 335–348. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Scheiner, C.W., Baccarella, C.V., Bessant, J., Voigt, K.I.: Participation motives, moral disengagement, and unethical behaviour in idea competitions. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 22(06), 1850043 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919618500433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Scheiner, C.W., Krämer, K., Baccarella, C.V.: Cruel intentions? – The role of moral awareness, moral disengagement, and regulatory focus in the unethical use of social media by entrepreneurs. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) SCSM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9742, pp. 437–448. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39910-2_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Soeken, K., Soeken, D.: A survey of whistleblowers: their stressors and coping strategies. Proc. Hear. HR 25(1), 156–166 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Statista: Daily Time Spent on Social Networking by Internet Users Worldwide from 2012 to 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-media-usage-worldwide/

  67. Statista: Global Social Network Penetration Rate as of January 2021, by Region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269615/social-network-penetration-by-region/

  68. Statista: Most Popular Social Networks Worldwide as of October 2021, Ranked by Number of Active Users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

  69. Statista: Share of Internet Users Worldwide who Believe that Social Media Platforms have had an Impact on Selected Aspects of Daily Life as of February 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1015131/impact-of-social-media-on-daily-life-worldwide/

  70. Statista: Social Media - Statistics & Facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks

  71. Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., Mashek, D.J.: Moral emotions and moral behavior. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 58(1), 345–372 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J.: Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 67(4), 732–740 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Torre, J., Verducci, T.: The Yankee Years. Doubleday, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R., Reynolds, S.J.: Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review. J. Manag. 32(6), 951–990 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ufkes, E.G., Otten, S., van der Zee, K.I., Giebels, E.: Neighborhood conflicts: the role of social categorization. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 23(3), 290–306 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211248985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. U.S. Department of Justice: Justice Department Recovers over $2.2 Billion from False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2020 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Victor, B., Cullen, J.B.: The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Adm. Sci. Q. 33(1), 101 (1988). https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Waytz, A., Dungan, J., Young, L.: The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness-loyalty tradeoff. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(6), 1027–1033 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Whitaker, L., Backhouse, S.H., Long, J.: Reporting doping in sport: national level athletes’ perceptions of their role in doping prevention. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 24(6), e515-521 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zhong, C.B., Liljenquist, K.: Washing away your sins: threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science 313(5792), 1451–1452 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Stefan Becker & Christian W. Scheiner

  2. Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Christian W. Scheiner

Authors
  1. Stefan Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian W. Scheiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Becker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

    Gabriele Meiselwitz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Becker, S., Scheiner, C.W. (2022). The Role of Moral Receptors and Moral Disengagement in the Conduct of Unethical Behaviors Against Whistleblowers on Social Media. In: Meiselwitz, G. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media: Design, User Experience and Impact. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05061-9_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05061-9_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05060-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05061-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation