How cheating undermines the perceived value of justice in the workplace: The mediating effect of shame.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of cheating. Given that cheating violates moral norms that govern social relationships, it is critical to understand how cheating can influence social dynamics in the workplace. Drawing upon appraisal theories, we argue that cheating can have damaging consequences for individuals and their social relationships by eliciting shame. In turn, shame can reduce the extent to which individuals value receiving justice-a critical facilitator of social relationships in the workplace. We test our predictions across 6 studies using different samples and methodologies. In Study 1, we find that cheating is negatively associated with the importance people place on others upholding justice for them (i.e., overall justice values). In Studies 2-6, we demonstrate that shame plays a mediating role in this relationship, even in the presence of guilt and embarrassment. In Studies 3-5, we identify organizational identification as a moderator and show that the effect of cheating on shame is stronger for those with high (vs. low) identification. Theoretical implications include the importance of identifying the outcomes of cheating for individuals within organizational contexts, understanding the functional and dysfunctional consequences of shame, recognizing the differential effects of discrete emotions, and elucidating the role of identity within the context of cheating. We conclude with practical recommendations for managing cheating behaviors and their outcomes in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it