This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shapiro, D. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Response to Wright’s Analysis of When "Delayed" Integrity Occurs

A Guilty Conscience Needs No Accuser, but Rather, a Community

University of Maryland

The author extends the conclusions made by Wright regarding why his student cheater chose to unmask himself. She argues that "delayed" integrity (i.e., confessing a dishonest act belatedly) cannot occur in the absence of felt guilt, and therefore, an understanding of antecedents to guilt are essential for predicting when delayed integrity will occur. In addition, the author highlights that "guilt triggers" are at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels, and thus, interventions aimed at motivating delayed integrity must also be at each of these levels. When one tries to describe how each of these interventions might be operationalized, three types of justice concerns emerge. This suggests that perhaps the most parsimonious explanation for when delayed integrity (or any positive work behavior) will occur is this: People will generally behave fairly and responsibly when they have experienced a community of justice; therefore, a guilty conscience needs no accuser, but a justice-oriented community.

Key Words: guilty conscience • confession • ethical climate

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?