Search results

This study examined a mediating model of income and pay satisfaction with a direct path (income → pay satisfaction) and an indirect path with two mediators (income → the love of money → pay equity comparison → pay satisfaction). Results of the whole sample showed that the indirect path was significant and the direct path was insignificant. When the indirect path was eliminated, income contributed positively to pay satisfaction. We then tested the model across two moderators: culture (the United States versus Spain) and gender. This study provides the following theoretical and empirical contributions: the direct relationship between income and pay satisfaction depends on the indirect path and the extent to which (1) income enhances the love of money and (2) the love of money is applied to evaluate pay equity comparison satisfaction. If both conditions exist, income leads to pay dissatisfaction. If the second condition does not exist, income does not lead to pay dissatisfaction. Pay satisfaction depends on (1) one’s love of money and (2) how one compares. The role of the love of money in pay satisfaction is “not”universal across cultures and gender.

This research examines the love of money as a moderator and as a mediator of the self‐reported income‐pay satisfaction relationship among university professors (lecturers). Hierarchical multiple regression results showed that the interaction effect between self‐reported income and the love of money on pay satisfaction was significant. For high‐love‐of‐money professors (lecturers), the relationship between income and pay satisfaction was positive and significant, however, for low‐love‐of‐money professors (lecturers), the relationship was not significant. High‐love‐of‐money participants had lower pay satisfaction than low‐love‐of‐money participants when the self‐reported income was below $89,139.53. When income was higher than $89,139.53, the pattern of pay satisfaction was reversed. Further, the love of money was a mediator of the self‐reported income‐pay satisfaction relationship. Income increases the love of money that, in turn, is used as a “frame of reference” to evaluate pay satisfaction.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to use several variables measured at Time 1 to predict cluster membership (bad apples vs good apples) measured at Time 2 and investigate possible differences between business and psychology students in unethical behavior.

Business and psychology students' propensity to engage in unethical behavior (PUB), the love of money, machiavellianism, and risk tolerance at Time 1 and propensity to engage in unethical behavior at Time 2 (four weeks later) were measured. Cluster analysis was used to analyze Time 2 data and bad apples (Cluster 1, high propensity to engage in unethical behavior) and good apples (Cluster 2, low propensity to engage in unethical behavior) were identified. Then all the variables measured at Time 1 were used to predict cluster membership (bad apples vs good apples) measured at Time 2.

In three discriminant analyses, it was found that variables at Time 1 predicted cluster membership at Time 2 for the whole sample and the business sample, but not for the psychology sample. The differences between bad apples and good apples were significant for business students, but not significant for psychology students. Correlation data showed that the love of money was significantly correlated with machiavellianism and risk tolerance.

Students are not assigned randomly to business and psychology courses. Students' behavioral intention, not actual unethical behavior, is measured here. Can professors change people's love of money, machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and the propensity to engage in unethical behavior and enhance students' and future managers' ethical decision making? This issue deserves critical attention in future research.

It is plausible that corruptions and scandals are caused not by lack of intelligence, but by lack of wisdom, or virtue. Professors and researchers may have to focus on ethics training, in general, and the bad apples in bad (business) barrels (mostly male business students), in particular, identify the most critical time and methods in teaching business ethics, enhance learning based on students' own experiences, and promote ethical values in schools, universities, and organizations.

This research shows the importance of incorporating propensity to engage in unethical behavior (PUB), the love of money, machiavellianism, and risk tolerance in identifying bad apples vs good apples across majors.