The Relationships Among Love of Money, Machiavellianism and Unethical Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An emerging stream of work on money can be found in the management and organizational behavior literature; however, individuals’ attitude toward money (whether loving or hating it) is a relatively new concept to wait to be explored by scholars. Generally, growing body of literature has to researches investigating the positive side of money. Nevertheless, in this study we aim to explain not only positive, but also negative side of money differentiating individuals very much and very little fond of money and investigate the relationship between love of money, machiavellian personality and unethical behavior of individuals. Focusing individuals’ passion for money or wealth, we also purpose to illuminate the issue whether individual groups being very much and very little fond of money represent different level of machiavellian personality and unethical behavior. In addition, we investigate how differentiates unethical behavior in terms of individual’s machiavellianism level. Demographic variables are also within the scope of this research, so individuals’ attitudes toward money, machiavellian personality and unethical behavior are explained in terms of demographic characteristics. Therefore, we gathered data from 360 MBA students and conducted hierarchical regression as well as ordinal logistic regression analyses in order to verify our hypotheses. Results indicated that machiavellianism was partially mediated the relationship between love of money and unethical behavior. Implication showed that individuals being very much fond of money were 5,87 times likely to represent upper level machiavellian personality than individuals being very little fond of money. Furthermore, individuals being very much fond of money were 3,58 times likely to exhibit upper level unethical behavior than individuals being very little fond of money. Higher degree machiavellian individuals 2, 28 times likely to exhibit upper level unethical behavior than lower degree machiavellian individuals. Moreover, the evidence from the research represents that individuals not receiving ethics lesson were 2,05 times likely to exhibit upper level machiavellian personality than individuals receiving ethics lesson. Also, it can be comment males are 2,38 times likely to represent upper level unethical behavior than females.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".