INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOLOGY & NEUROSCIENCE

MSc Organisational Psychiatry & Psychology

Module:Dissertation

Module Code:7PCSORES

Title of the Assignment

Unethical Behaviour in the Workplace and its effect on employee well-being: An extension of Jones & Kavanagh (1996)

Journal:Journal of Organisational Behaviour

Word Count: 7,377

(excludes references and appendixes)

Abstract:

Unethical behaviour at work is a severe issue having wide-ranging effects on both organisations and specific employees. This brief article aims to offer a summary of the connection between unethical behaviour and employee well-being while emphasising the detrimental effects that unethical behaviour may have on workers' mental, emotional, and physical health.

The term "unethical behaviour" refers to a broad variety of actions, including dishonesty, bullying at work, assault, and racism. Such behaviour transgresses accepted moral and ethical standards, destroys trust, deflates morale, and negatively impacts the well-being of employees when it occurs in a work environment.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated a clear link between unethical behaviour and detrimental consequences on employee well-being. These outcomes include increased stress, decreased job satisfaction, decreased organisational commitment, decreased productivity, increased burnout, and employee independence who engage in inappropriate behaviour may experience boosted depression, anxiety, and a sense of injustice.

Hffmeier et al. (2016) emphasise the need for tighter replications in cases of inconsistent outcomes and limited follow-up assessments.

Keywords: Unethical Behaviour, Employee Well-being, Locus of Control, Machiavellianism, Social Desirability, Quality of Work, Manager Influence, Peer Influence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pg

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................. 02

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 03

1. INTRODUCTION
   • Unethical Behaviour ...................................................................................05
   • Causes .........................................................................................................07
   • Employee Well-Being ..................................................................................08

1.4Effects ofUnethicalBehaviour on Employee Well-being...........................09

2. METHODS
   • Participants ................................................................................................12
   • Procedure and Design ...............................................................................12
   • Measures ...................................................................................................13

3. RESULTS
   • Participants Characteristics ......................................................................16
   • Data Cleaning ............................................................................................17
   • Summary of main data...............................................................................18
   • Analysis ......................................................................................................20

4. DISCUSSION
   • Result Summary........................................................................................34
   • Discussion of Main Result ........................................................................37
   • Implication ............................................................................................... 40

4.4Limitations ................................................................................................43

5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 46
6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 47
7. APPENDIX ............................................................................................... 53

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1Unethical Behaviour

The term "scalable actions and behaviours that employees engage in that deceive or exploit other people or provide oneself (or one's organisations or associates) with an unfair advantage in the service of some other end" (Wiernik & Ones, 2018, p.37) is used to describe unethical workplace activity. Models of counterproductive work behaviour are frequently used to explain unethical workplace behaviour. Practitioners and researchers sometimes use the term "wider counterproductive work behaviour" interchangeably with the term "unethical behaviour," as shown in the CIPD's 2019 "Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Evidence on Unethical Workplace Behaviour (Jones & Kavanaugh, 1996). Organisations that want a fit and efficient workplace are very concerned about the detrimental effects of improper behaviours on the well-being of staff members. In addition to upholding moral standards, avoiding unethical behaviour in the workplace also promotes employee well-being and mental health, fosters a great work environment, and, in the end, helps the organisation succeed. Unethical behavior involves jeopardizing fundamental interests, a defining characteristic.This is, not every kind of misconduct, such as behaviour in politics, is unethical (Velasquez, 2005). Unethical behaviour, in contrast to violating the law, unlawful conduct, and violations, encompasses transgressing unofficial, unspoken rules and legitimate stated standards, regulations, and prohibitions. Additionally, transgressions of both official and unofficial organisational standards are not the only kind of unethical behaviour in the workplace (Kaptein, 2008).

The application of a common set of ethical standards and principles is a distinguishing feature of an effective and functional organisation or social situation. Whenever such ethical standards are widely accepted and infused by all members, they serve as the model for appropriate behaviour in that specific instance. In this situation, any action or behaviour taken by an employee that departs from the established guidelines and ethical standards is likely to be viewed as unethical by the company. The principles of social conformance and communal evaluation are frequently at the foundation of the strategy of labelling a behaviour or action as unethical. It is usual to assess and respond to a worker's appearing excluded from the group when they display ideas or behaviours that contradict or go beyond the established moral norms.

As the community tries to uphold its collective moral order, the response might take the form of rejection, seclusion, or even a social penalty. Personal relationships and unspoken norms within a company, alongside official rules, significantly influence the perception of unethical acts.Even when an activity does not directly contravene organisational regulations, it may nevertheless be viewed as unethical if it contradicts the group's implicit ethical standards. Individuals who act inconsistently with widely recognised ethical norms set the tone for unethical behaviour in a community. This form of shared decision-making is essential to sustaining social harmony, self-assurance, and cohesion within the organisation (Askew et al., 2015).

1.2 Causes of unethical behaviour

There are a minimum of three psychological advantages to acting unethically. First, itmakes circumstances work for the employee's benefit and grants them possession of assets they do not really obtain. Undeserved benefits from unethical conduct may be classified as unexpected revenue, such as monetary benefits, societal advantages, or mental advantages. The psychological advantages of unethical behaviour come from a feeling of authority and success. Those who cheat have a broader range of alternatives and more influence over their results whenever they act unethically since it helps them to go around the laws that others are required to abide by. Breaking regulations and defeating procedures that are intended to control conduct are frequent challenges in unethical behaviour. People frequently like engaging in demanding mental tasks (Cacioppo et al., 1996), and finishing something challenging can make people feel proud, despite the fact that the behaviour could have been embarrassing (Ruedy et al, 2013).

1.3Employee well being

From both a physical and psychological perspective, an employee's overall performance and interactions are referred to as their well-being. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), there are two major philosophic approaches to pleasure and well-being: hedonism, which is enjoyment-focused, and eudemonism, which is power-realisation-focused. Employee overall well-being which they believe to be impacted by employment and workplace actions has often been termed as employee well-being (Pradhan & Hati, 2019). Organisationshavegenerally historically prioritised lowering stress levels for staff instead of boosting employee wellbeing. When individual assets and societal expectations in a scenario are seen to be out of balance, stress results. Because stress is associated with lower productivity and, consequently, lower profits, businesses are concentrating on putting stress-reduction strategies into place (Keeman et al, 2017). Successful organizations adept at leveraging human capital embrace long-term perspectives regarding the employee-employer relationship, recognizing high-quality human resources as a key organizational capability.Individuals are thus viewed as valuable resources to be cultivated instead of just an expense to be kept to a minimum. Performance of the organisation and employee well-being form a component of a double goal where employees' and employers' interests are viewed as balanced (Kossek et al, 2012). Organisations should give serious consideration to their workers' well-being. It significantly affects the costs of disease and medical treatment, absenteeism, employee turnover, and job performance, all of which have an impact on the effectiveness and viability of businesses. Workplace happiness may boost overall productivity, but when it doesn't exist, a company may eventually run into financial problems. (Pradhan & Hati, 2019).

1.4Effects of unethical behaviour on Employee Well-being

Based on the ethical impact theory (EIT), any unethical activity, no matter how minor the change or how significant the choice, can have an influence on a person's welfare. EIT was developed due to a careful examination of research intounfairness, bullying, and discrimination. Heart disease, problems with sleep, anxiety, and psychological issues are only a few of the psychological and physical effects caused by unethical activity (Giacalone et al, 2016).Workplace discrimination can result in serious mental and physical problems. The negative effects of workplace bullying, which can include actions like verbally harassing people in public, isolating them, and physically harming them, are the focus of the growing study. Bullying has been associated with low confidence, sorrow, anxiety, stress at work, sleeplessness, and even suicidal ideation (e.g., Zapf et al. 1996). Ampleevidenceindicatesthat individuals faced withassault at work experience a variety of negative and occasionally fatal outcomes. Individuals who engage in unethical behaviour may suffer serious repercussions as a consequence of their own conduct. They may act unethically, yet they nevertheless feel extremely uneasy about it; they lack the resolve to resist the pressures they face, but they are cognitively troubled by their own actions (Giacalone et al, 2016). While procurers of unethical behaviour are usually despised, their influence is frequently ignored. According to studies, societal settings, strong pressures, and organisational cultures that value severe rivalry or dominance can cause offenders to suffer the consequences of their behaviour. These elements may result in guilt, humiliation, and the possibility of injury to the offender. Well-being declines are not always caused by unethical behaviour, and their extent differs based on the act.Agreater degradations may result from violent crimes than from small immoral behaviour. Modern prejudice, even more subtle, is not a reliable indicator of life satisfaction. It is crucial to comprehend how unethical behaviour affects one's well-being since discrimination based on these convictions can harm the offender (Giacalone & Promislo, 2010).

A person's psychological health can be severely impacted by unethical behaviour, which can result in emotions of remorse, stress, and social rejection. In addition, it may result in loss of meaning, mental health issues, legal troubles, and reputation damage.Lack of trust can have a detrimental effect on one's reputation, work satisfaction, and confidence. Ethical transgressions may increase mental health issues including anxietyand depression. Making moral decisions, moral growth, and just punishments for maintaining integrity and well-being at work are imperativeto address this.

This project replicates the original research on unethical behaviour in the workplace conducted by Jones and Kavanaugh. The intent is to recreate their examination into actions that depart from ethical norms inside the organisational setting by drawing inspiration from their work. This replication further expands by introducing a new element: employee well-being. Examining the relationship between unethical behavior and its negative impact on employee well-being aims to illuminate the broader implications of unethical conduct in the workplace. By offering a thorough knowledge of theirinteraction, this study contributes to the existing literature and deepens the awareness of the complexity of organisational processes.

For the regression analysis, the hypothesis is as follows:

H0 (null hypothesis): There is no significant relationship between employee well-being and unethical behaviour and other variables includinglocus of control,peer influence, manager influence, quality of work, social desire, and Machiavellianism.

H1 (Alternative hypothesis): There is a significant relationship between employee well-being and unethical behaviour and other variables includinglocus of control,peer influence, manager influence, quality of work, social desire, Machiavellianism.

2. METHODS

2.1Participants

Data was collected via Prolific software and 100 participants were recruited from the UK. Two detailed questionnaires were formed using Qualtrics software which consisted of the study information, the participant's consent form and the chosen measures. There was no specific inclusion criteria except that the participants were solely working professionals at the time of data collection and not studying.

2.2Procedure and Design

In he final report, a longitudinal study, similar subjects or participants are observed or data are collected from them over an extended period. Because the study in this case contains two stages, it enables researchers to track changes or advancements in the relevant variables throughout time.Two periods of data collection mean that information will be collected at separate times, which will result in a more dynamic and thorough grasp of the research variables. The study will use assessments on unethical behaviour and employee well-being, together with a quantitative method for data analysis. The main technique of gathering data will be a survey, which was only carried out with ethical committee approval given the high-risk nature of the project. Participants were fully informed about the study beforeparticipation, and their free consent was requested. Participantsreceivedclear instructions encouraging them to respond to every query honestly and as thoroughly as possible. It wasmade clear that their answers will be kept private and utilised just for study.

Self-reported unethical workplace activity was used as the output of a longitudinal online questionnaire design. A second survey was distributed to examine employee well-being in part 2 of the longitudinal questionnaire after unethical behaviour.

They were questioned about their sex, age, education status, number of months working full-time, and the industry they spent the most time in.

Multiple regression was conducted to predict unethical behaviour and the correlation between employee well-being and unethical behaviour and other predictors.

2.3Measures

Locus of Control, Machiavellianism, and Social Desirability Concurrent with the original study, ten items of the Rotter (1966), Christie & Geis (1970) and Crowne and Marlowe (1960) scales (respectively) were adopted using a 5-point Likert scale response.

The 16-item Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1966), which employs a 6-point Likert scale, was used to assess the locus of control. participants gave their answers as disagree very much (1) to agree very much (2).

Internal reliability estimates (Cronbach's Alpha) were first reported to be 0.76.

Machiavellianism was represented by the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970). Twenty questions were posed, some of which were altered to refer to "people" rather than "men," and answers were graded on a seven-point Likert scale (Miller et al., 2019).

The complete 20-item scale was utilised to compute a total score since there was uncertainty about the component structure. This allowed further secondary studies to include various structures (E.g., Rauthmann, 2013). Internal reliability estimates (Cronbach's Alpha) had been estimated to be 0.72. A 7-point Likert scale with the options "Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree" was used by participants.

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form was used to gauge social desirability (Hart et al., 2015). Contrary to many short versions of alternative measures, this 16-item scale that distinguishes between self-deceptive amplification and impression management generates data with strong psychometric qualities (Barger, 2002).

While assessing the quality of the workplace, job satisfaction was taken into account. This was measured using the employment in General scale (Ironson et al., 1989). It was selected because it can be used for any employment and has better psychometric qualities than other brief job satisfaction measures (van Saane et al., 2003). According to the original instructions, 18 words that participants used to characterise their work, such as "pleasant" and "enjoyable," were graded and scored: either No (0), ? (1), or Yes (3).

The 10-item Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (Brown et al., 2005) was used to evaluate manager influence. A 7-point likert scale with the options "Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree" was used by participants to grade the manager they worked for. Other measures are frequently seen to be dominated by elements that are beyond the definition of ethical leadership explicitly, making this scale the most generally used evaluation of this concept (Wiernik & Ones, 2018).

Five questions addressing participants' knowledge or observations of peers' unethical workplace practices were used to measure peer influence. The questions are taken from Kaptein (2008) Unethical Behaviour Towards Employees subscale, which was selected for its adaptability to a variety of workplaces and business sectors as well as its distinct emphasis on the outcome assessment. Participants gave their answers on a 7-point Likert scale, with the options "Never" and "(Almost) always".

The 17 unethical workplace behaviours that Newstrom and Ruch (1975) had developed, and which are usually attributed to Akaah (1992) were questioned for declarations of usage from the participants. Due to their relevance to both remote and in-person work, as well as a critical examination of the area, these items were determined to be the most pertinent since they provide "the most conceptually clear and comprehensive measure of employee unethical behaviours" (Wiernik & Ones, 2018, p. 42). According to procedures that increase self-reporting of unethical work behaviour (Wouters et al., 2014), responses were collected using a 7-point Likert scale with just the anchors "Never" and "Frequently."

The "employee well-being scale" developed by Pradhan & Hati (2022) will be used to gauge employee happiness. There are 10 items in the psychological well-being, 10 in the social well-being, 9 in the workplace, and 4 in the subjective well-being areas. All parameters, with Cronbach's alpha reliability values varying from 0.72 to 0.96, were judged to be satisfactory. The construct validity of the employee well-being measure was examined by assessing convergent and discriminant validity.

3. RESULTS

3.1Participant characteristics

Table 1

Statistics

	sex	country	student	exp_months	age	uk_race	employed	industry
NValid Missing	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mean	1.62	1.00	2.00	279.23	41.36	1.34	1.00
Median	2.00	1.00	2.00	269.50	41.00	1.00	1.00
Mode	1	1	2	465	19a	1	1
Std. Deviation	.648	.000	.000	168.176	13.969	.879	.000
Range	2	0	0	553	47	4	0
Minimum	1	1	2	1	18	1	1
Maximum	3	1	2	554	65	5	1

1. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

The presented data presents a thorough synopsis of the personal and professional attributes of the respondents. A total of 100 respondents, most of whom are employed, are included in the dataset.47 of them were males (47%) and 44 were girls (44%). Furthermore, 9% of participants identified as others, making up the entire sample of participants (Table 1).The age range of the individuals was varied, with a standard deviation of 13.9 and a mean of 41.36. It's interesting to see that occupational variables and status as a student show a predominate level, with the majority of respondents working in a particular industry and being students. The data demonstrates a gender-balanced distribution, while the UK race variable points to a reasonable degree of diversity. The respondents' different origins are shown by the wide variety of professional experience, as represented by the experience in months.

3.2Data cleaning

A carefully chosen sample of100 participants was used in the current study, and, remarkably,no data-cleaningtechniques were necessary. The lack of blank mistakes indicates that the data obtained is accurate and useful. The participants showed how to effectively express their thoughts, which removed the need for a lot of coding and sped up the process of understanding the data and producing accurate findings. The study's goal of identifying the variables that directly affect employee well-being is greatly aided by this data processing efficiency, which allows for targeted investigation and well-informed choices.

3.3Summary of main data

Table2

Descriptive statistics

	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
em_wb	3.9631	.67047	100
work_loc	3.5177	.73719	100
mach	3.3845	.75382	100
soc_des	3.9328	.77203	100
work_qual	1.5297	.25251	100
man_inf	4.1252	.79942	100
peer_inf	4.0127	.80217	100
unethical_bhv	4.0414	.74245	100

The participant characteristics are covered in the section above. It has been demonstrated that all 100 study participants were participating.

The descriptive statistics for the participant's opinions on employee well-being (emp_wb), locus of control (work_loc), social desirability (soc_des), Machiavellianism(mach), quality of work experience (work_exp), manager influence (man_inf), peer influence (peer_inf), and unethical workplace behaviour (unethical_bhv) are shown in Table 2.

According to Table 2, the locus of work has a mean of 3.51 and a standard deviation of 0.73. In contrast, the mean number of participants in Machiavellianism is 3.38, with a 0.75 standard deviation. The quality of the work is 1.529, and the social desirability mean is 3.93. On the other hand, the manager influence is 4.12 and the standard deviation is 0.79, indicating that most of them are not truly happy with how managers behave at work.

Additionally, neutral conduct within employee well-being has been found; as a result, the mean and standard deviation of this aspect are 3.96 and 0.67, respectively. While the mean and standard deviation of unethical behaviour, respectively, are 4.04 and 0.74. Overall, it can be said that participants are unsatisfied with their jobs and the peer pressure they experience because they sense external pressure that might alter their conduct and workplace performance and result in unethical action (Rasool et al., 2021). According to the descriptive statistics, peer influence has a mean of 4.01 and a standard deviation of 0.802167. As a result, the table implies that each independent value's mean is comparable, which is why there is unethical behaviour among employees.

The average result for every variable is represented by the mean, which indicatescentral tendency.The data's degree of variability or dispersion is reflected in the standard deviation. Greater variability is indicated by higher values.

The sample size, or the number of data points for each variable, is the number of observations (N).For instance, the average score for emotional well-being (em_wb) is roughly 3.96, with a standard deviation of 0.67, indicating a considerable degree of variability within the group. The other variables can be interpreted similarly. These statistics provide witha quick overview of your dataset's distribution and central tendency, laying the groundwork for further study and analysis.

Regression analysis was then used to further the analytical process, identifying the independent and dependent variables and carrying out the analysis using SPSS. The discussion that follows will carefully lay out the information and provide an analysis, which will result in accurate findings. After every analysis is finished, the results will be summarised in tables followed. These descriptive statistics provide an essential frame by providing important information on the variability and central tendency of each variable. It is essential to have this basic understanding tounderstand the context of subsequent evaluations. Notably, the higher mean values for perceived peer influence and employee well-being indicate that workplace dynamics may have an advantageous foundation. On the other hand, the observable variation in the quality of work and unethical behaviour demands careful analysis and points up areas that need more research.

3.4Analysis

Regression analysis was then used to further the analytical process, identifying the independent and dependent variables and carrying out the analysis using SPSS. The discussion that follows will carefully lay out the information and provide an analysis, which will result in accurate findings. After every analysis is finished, the results will be summarised in tables followed. These descriptive statistics provide an essential frame by providing important information on the variability and central tendency of each variable. It is essential to have this basic understanding tounderstand the context of subsequent evaluations. Notably, the higher mean values for perceived peer influence and employee well-being indicate that workplace dynamics may have an advantageous foundation. On the other hand, the observable variation in the quality of work and unethical behaviour demands careful analysis and points up areas that need more research.

Table3

Correlation table

		em_wb	work_ loc	mach	soc_ des	work_ qual	man_ inf	peer_ inf	unethical_ bhv
pearson correlation	em_wb	1.000	.219	.251	-.270	.306	-.332	-.440	-.346
	work_ loc	.219	1.000	.738	-.693	-.086	-.112	-.418	-.396
	mach	.251	.738	1.000	-.574	-.063	-.046	-.381	-.254
	soc_ des	-.270	-.693	-.574	1.000	-.026	.204	.343	.376
	work_ qual	.306	-.086	-.063	-.026	1.000	-.615	-.264	-.131
	man_ inf	-.332	-.112	-.046	.204	-.615	1.000	.565	.418
	peer_ inf	-.440	-.418	-.381	.343	-.264	.565	1.000	.485
	unethical_ bhv	-.346	-.396	-.254	.376	-.131	.418	.485	1.000

		em_wb	work_ loc	mach	soc_ des	work_ qual	man_ inf	peer_ inf	unethical_ bhv
sig (1- tailed)	em_wb	.	.014	.006	.003	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
	work_ loc	.014	.	.000	.000	.199	.133	.000	.000
	mach	.006	.000	.	.000	.268	.324	.000	.005
	soc_ des	.003	.000	.000	.	.399	.021	.000	.000
	work_ qual	.001	.199	.268	.399	.	.000	.004	.097
	man_inf	.000	.133	.324	.021	.000	.	.000	.000
	peer_ inf	.000	.000	.000	.000	.004	.000	.	.000
	unethical_bhv	.000	.000	.005	.000	.097	.000	.000	.

		em_wb	work_ loc	mach	soch_ des	work_ qual	man_ inf	peer_ inf	unethical_ bhv
N	em_ wb	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	work_ loc	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	mach	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	soc_ des	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	work_ qual	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	man_ inf	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	peer_ inf	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
	unethical_ bhv	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

The correlation table (table 3) above, provides a thorough illustration of the correlations between the variables, highlighting the connections between each variable and the others in the research.This helps to study the general association and develops a deeper grasp of the subject.The correlations between the various variables in the dataset are shown by the correlation matrix. We can see the direction and intensity of relationships by examining the Pearson correlation coefficients. For example, there is a positive association between work quality (work_qual) and employee well-being (em_wb), suggesting that better work quality is related to higher employee well-being. On the other hand, other factors, such associal desirability (soc_des) and unethical behaviour (unethical_bhv), have negative relationships with employee well-being. This suggests that when employee well-being rises, these variables tend to fall. The statistical

significance of these connections is shown by the significance levels (Sig.). The dependability of these relationships is highlighted by the notable number of correlations that are significant at the 0.05 level. All things considered, the correlation matrix illuminates possible patterns and relationships within the data and offers insightful information about how different components interact.

An overview of regression study done on the employee well-being variable using various sets of predictors is given in the model summary.

Table 4

Model Summary^c

						Change	Statistics
Mode	R	R Square	Adj R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change	Durbin-Watson
1	.509a	.259	.211	.59540	.259	5.423	6	93	<.001
2	.528b	.279	.224	.59062	.020	2.511	1	92	.117	2.086

1. Predictors: (Constant), peer_inf, work_qual, soc_des, mach, man_inf, work_loc
2. Predictors: (Constant), peer_inf, work_qual, soc_des, mach, man_inf, work_loc, unethical_bhv
3. Dependent Variable: em_wb

Model 1: - R Square (R?2;): 0.259 means that the predictors account for about 25.9% of the variation in employee well-being.

• Adjusted R Square: 0.211, a more realistic representation of model fit based on sample size and predictor count.
• The average difference between the expected and observed values is represented by the Standard Error of the Estimate, which is 0.59540.

Change Data: - A big F A p-value of less than 0.001 and a change of 5.423 suggest that the predictors take a substantial joint lead in explaining the variation in emotional well-being.

Watson-Durbin Statistic: - A number around 2 (in this case, 2.086) indicates that the residuals do not significantly exhibit autocorrelation.

The second model, called the Extended Model, adds unethical behaviour (unethical_bhv) as a predictor.

- R Square rises to 0.279, indicating that 27.9% of the variance in employee well-being can be explained by the extended model.

- The regression coefficient was adjusted to 0.224.

Change Statistics: - The inclusion of unethical behaviour does not appear to significantly enhance the model fit, as indicated by an F Change of 2.511 and a p-value of 0.117.

The original model explains 25.9% of the variability in employee well-being and offers a reasonable match in the absence of unethical behaviour. The explained variance is slightly, but not considerably, improved by including unethical behaviour in the extended model. These findings emphasise the significance of various factors in the understanding of employee well-being, including machiavellianism, manager influence, social desirability, peer influence, and work quality. Beyond the initial set of predictors, unethical behaviour may not significantly contribute to explaining employee well-being, at least in this investigation, as indicated by the insignificant shift in the extended model.

Researchers and practitioners can use these insights to understand the complex dynamics influencing emotional well-being in the studied context. It also prompts further exploration into the nuanced relationships between these variables, potentially uncovering specific factors that play pivotal roles in influencing employee well-being.

In addition to this, it has been noted in the model summary table that an alternate hypothesis has been accepted above the null because the value of p is less than 0.001. Because of this, and in accordance with the established criteria, a substantial influence on the dependent variable is found when changes are found in the independent variable and the value of p< 0>

This showed that when some of the variables vary, there are slight variations in social desire. The management, peer pressure, and unethical behaviour were also associated negatively with job quality (Sakka & Ahammad, 2020). Finally, a positive correlation between management influence and peer influence has been found, along with a moderate correlation between the two. Therefore, research showed that a company may reduce the bad and unethical behaviour of employees as a result of a change in working practices.

The regression analysis's coefficients, which evaluate how different factors affect employee well-being

Table 5

Coefficients^a

	Understandardiz-ed Coefficients		Standardi-zed Coefficients			Collineariarity Statistics
Model	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.	Tolerance	VIF
1 (Constant)	4.499	1.167		3.855	<.001
work_loc	-.081	.142	-.089	-.573	.568	.329	3.040
mach	.108	.121	.122	.894	.374	.428	2.337
soc_des	-.127	.110	-.146	-1.149	.253	.493	2.029
work_qual	.603	.307	.227	1.963	.053	.595	1.681
man_inf	.018	.115	.021	.115	.878	.427	2.343
peer_inf	-.278	.102	-.332	-2.715	.008	.532	1.880
2 (Constant)	4.740	1.168		4.059	<.001
work_loc	-.120	.143	-.132	-.843	.401	.319	3.134
mach	.126	.121	.142	1.044	.299	.424	2.358
soc_des	-107	.110	-.124	-.974	.333	.487	2.055
work_qual	.651	.306	.245	2.127	.036	.589	1.698
man_inf	.061	.117	.073	.522	.603	.403	2.479
peer_inf	-.243	.104	-.291	-2.340	.021	.508	1.968
unethical_bhv	-.157	.099	-.173	-1.585	.117	.655	1.526

a Dependent Variable: em_wb

Model 1: Constant: 4.499 is the intercept when there are no predictor variables.

- Locus of Control (work_loc): Employee well-being decreases by 0.081 units for every unit reduction in locus of control; nevertheless, this relationship is not highly significant.

-Machiavellianism (Mach): The relationship between an increase in machiavellianism of one unit and an increase in employee well-being of 0.108 units is not of statistical significance.

- Social Desirability (soc_des): Employee well-being decreases by 0.127 units for every unit reduction in social desirability; nevertheless, this relationship is not of statistical significance.

- Work Quality (Work_Qual): Employee well-being increases by 0.603 units for every unit increase in work quality, a relationship that approaches statistical significance (p = 0.053).

- Manager Influence (man_inf): In this model, manager influence has very little bearing on worker well-being.

- Peer Influence, (peer_inf): Employee well-being decreases by 0.278 units for every unit fall in peer influence; this relationship is statistically significant.

Model 2 (expanded Model): - In the expanded model, the constant rises to 4.740.

- Work_loc, mach, soc_des, work_qual, and man_inf coefficients are still comparable to those in Model 1.

- peer inf: Employee well-being decreases by 0.243 units for every unit reduction in peer influence; this relationship is statistically significant.

Unethical Behaviour (unethical_bhv): Employee well-being decreases by 0.157 units for every unit decrease in unethical behaviour; however, this effect is not statistically significant (p = 0.117).

Collinearity Statistics:

- Multiple linearities are evaluated byapplying tolerance and the variance inflation factor, or VIF.

Tolerance values of 0.2 and VIF values under 5 generally denote reasonable variation levels.

- All predictors in the two models demonstrate multicollinearity at acceptable levels appropriate.

This result displays the anova table for two regression models, which assesses how well the models match the dependent variable of employee well-being.

Table 6

ANOVA^a

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	11.535	6	1.922	5.423	<.001b
	Residual	32.968	93	.354
	Total	44.503	99
2	Regression	12.411	7	1.772	5.082	<.001c
	Residual	32.092	92	.349
	Total	44.503	99

1. Dependent Variable: em_wb
2. Predictors: (Constant), peer_inf, work_qual, soc_des, mach, man_inf, work_loc
3. Predictors: (Constant), peer_inf, work_qual, soc_des, mach, man_inf, work_loc, unethical_bhv

Tounderstand the complex interactions between predictors and the dependent variable in two different models, regression analyses were carried out. The sum of squares for residual and regression in Model 1, along with the related degrees of freedom, clarifies the variance that is clarified by predictors and the remainder. The model's statistical significance is verified by the mean squares, which show that the observed results are unlikely to be the result of chance, with a significant p-value (< 0>

Analysis:

1. ANOVA Examinations:

- The low p-values (<0>

- The variability described by the regression model and the variability not clarified by the model are compared using the F-statistics (5.082 for Model 2 and 5.423 for Model 1).

1. Model Comparison:

Model 2 adds a new predictor (unethical_bhv) to the ones from Model 1 that already exist.

- In comparison to Model 1, the F-statistic for Model 2 evaluates whether the inclusion of unethical behaviour significantly improves the model fit.

2. Degrees of Freedom:

The number of estimated variables in the model is reflected in the degrees of freedom. Understanding the variability distribution benefits from both regression and residual df.

4. Mean Squares: The regression and residual components' variance are estimated using Mean Square. It displays the average unexplained variability (Residual MS) and the average variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the predictors (Regression MS).

To sum up, the information supplied includes a thorough examination of the variables affecting employee well-being (em_wb). The central tendency and variability of important factors, including locus of control, Machiavellianism, social desirability, work quality, manager influence, peer influence, and unethical behaviour, were clarified by the descriptive statistics. The degree and direction of the links between these variables are shown by correlation coefficients, which provide information about possible linkages.

Through the use of coefficients and ANOVA tables, regression analyses offer a more thorough understanding of howvarious factors work together to determine emotional well-being. Setting a baseline, Model 1 illustrates the importance of factors such as social desirability, work quality, and peer influence. By including unethical behaviour, Model 2 expands on the research and shows how little of an impact it has on employee well-being.

4. 4.DISCUSSION

4.1Result Summary

The main objectives of the study were to determine how several independent factors impacted unethical behaviour at work and to investigate the relationships between these variables and employee well-being. The study's participant data analysis yielded several notable findings (Qin & Men, 2022). The study found that the chosen participants were relatively uniform in age, with a mean age of 41. Most participants were between the ages of 41 and 50, which further pointed to a concentration of employees in this age bracket. The 279 months of average work experience among the participants, or nearly 22 years, points to a workforce with some experience. The participants' mean locus of work was 3.51 which suggested that they were typically devoted to their work.

Asummary of the variability and central tendency of the important variables in the data set may be seen in the descriptive statistics table. Notably, work quality (work_qual) has a mean of 1.5297, indicating a lower average, whereas emotional well-being (em_wb) shows a mean of 3.9631, indicating a comparatively high average score. The standard deviations provide information on how the data are distributed around the means; for example, the variables man_inf and peer_inf exhibit high levels of variability. The foundation for comprehending the distribution of responses and locating possible areas of interest for more research is laid forth in this table.

By examining the connections between variables, the correlation matrix reveals variations in connection. Positive correlations show that one variable tends to increase along with the other, such as the one involving Manager Influenceand Peer Influence. On the other hand, reverse relationships are provided by negative correlations, such as the one involving locus of controland Social Desirability. These correlations are given an additional degree of confidence by the significance levels (p-values). For example, there is a large negative association between Employee Well Beingand UnethicalBehaviour, indicating that employeewell-being tends to grow when unethical behaviour declines. This matrix acts as a guide for comprehending how the variables in your study are related to one another.

A thorough understanding of the predictors' roles in the explanation of emotional well-being is given by these tables. Peer influence is found to be a significant negative predictor in Model 1, indicating that a decline in peer influence is linked to a decline in EmployeeWell-Being. UnethicalBehaviouris introduced in Model 2 to expand the analysis, yet the coefficient is not statistically noteworthy. Both models' ANOVA findings reveal strong overall model matches, with Model 2 exhibiting a little better match but not a statistically significant variation. This shows that although the chosen predictors describe EmotionalWell-Being as a whole, the inclusion of unethical behaviour does not considerably increase the model's capacity to explain.

The findings of this study have a number of implications for management and organisations. First, dissatisfaction with managers' behaviour highlights the importance of effective leadership and management training. Since managers have a big influence on how employees act and feel about themselves, addressing their flaws might lead to a more positive work environment. Second, the presence of unethical activity among the participants demonstrates the requirement for a strong ethical culture inside the company (Elbers et al., 2023). Thirdly, given the weak connection between employee well-being and the independent components, there could be other factors affecting employee well-being that were not taken into account in this study.

4.2Discussion of the main result

The significant positive connection observed between work locus of control(work_loc) and Machiavellianism (mach) implies that people who work in particular locations are more likely to use cunning strategies. However, employee well-being has a negative correlation with both unethical behaviour and social desirability, suggesting that a higher level of employee well-being is associated with a decreased propensity for acting unethically and responding in a socially desirable manner. The complicated connection between job performance and ethical considerations is hinted at by the considerable negative correlation between work quality and employee well-being and the positive correlation between work quality and unethical behaviour. The correlation matrix, which is backed by the p-values, emphasises the statistical importance of these linkages in addition to highlighting their strength and type.These results, which have a sample size of 100, offer a strong basis for comprehending the relationships between unethical behaviour, work-related variables, and employee well-being in the environment under study. Moreover, there are notable relationships between unethical behaviour, manager influence (man_inf), and peer influence (peer_inf). Peer influence may have a positive link with unethical behaviour, indicating that people may be persuaded to participate in unethical behaviour by their peers. On the other hand, if there is a negative association between manager influence and unethical behaviour, it could mean that employees are less likely to act unethically when they have substantial manager influence. The intricate balance between various components is also shown by the correlation matrix; for example, the positive correlation between social desirability and social desirability itself may point to biases in self-reporting or internal consistency in the assessment.

The observed correlations are given further confidence by the significance levels in the matrix, which are indicated by p-values. The dependability of these connections within the sample is reinforced by the nearly universally significant correlations. To summarise, the correlation matrix reveals the links between variables and provides opportunities for further investigation into the dynamics of work-related factors, unethical behaviour, and employee well-being in the population under study.

The overview of regression study done on the employee well-being variable using various sets of predictors is given in the model summary (table 5).

Interpretation of Model 1:

According to the first model (Model 1), the combination of the following predictors can account for about 25.9% of the variation in employee well-being (em_wb): Machiavellianism (mach), social desirability (soc_des), peer influence (peer_inf), work quality (work_qual), manager influence (man_inf), and work locus of control (work_loc). The F Change statistic shows that the model is of statistical significance, indicating that the predictors together have a significant impact on predicting employee well-being. The separate nature of mistakes is guaranteed by the Durbin-Watson statistic, which is near to 2. It shows that there is no significant autocorrelation in the residuals.

Interpretation of Model 2: To evaluate the impact of unethical behaviour (unethical_bhv) on employeewell-being, one extra predictor has been added to the extended model (Model 2). The R Square rises to 27.9%, suggesting that the explanation of the variation has somewhat improved. But as the non-significant F Change and p-value show, the alteration in R Square is not significantly different.This suggests that the model's capacity to predict employeewell-being beyond the original set of variables is not considerably improved by including immoral behaviour.

The overall Impacts:

The results emphasise how crucial peer pressure, high-quality work, social desirability, Machiavellianism, and managerinfluence are in determining employeewell-being. Given the other characteristics included in this analysis, unethical behaviour may not be a significant predictor of employee well-being, as indicated by its non-significant contribution to the extended model.

The coefficients shed light on how each predictor affects employee well being. Peer influence and work quality seem to have more of an impact; work quality has a marginally significant effect. Although unethical behaviour is introduced by the extended model, its effect is not statistically significant. The reliability of the regression analysis is ensured by the collinearity statistics, which indicate that the predictors do not exhibit strong correlations with one another. These findings can be used by researchers to comprehend the relative significance of various elements for forecasting employeewell-being within the environment under study.

Notable indicators of employee well-being seem to be peer influence and the quality of the work produced.The prediction power of the extended model remains largely unaltered even when unethical behaviour is incorporated.The predictors appear to individually contribute to the explanation of employee well-being, as indicated by the lack of significant multiple correlations.

The anova table for two regression models(table 6) show that there seems to be a range of connections between the variables. Peer pressure and the work quality are found to be significant variables that are positively correlated with employee well being. Negative relationships have been shown between social desirability and unethical behaviour, indicating that employee well-being tends to rise as social desirability rises and unethical behaviour falls. In the extended model, however, the effect of unethical behaviour on employee well-being is not statistically significant. These findings show the complex links and possible areas for intervention or development, offering insightful information about the interplay between workplace factors and employee well-being.

The descriptive statistics provide a summary of the sample's characteristics by presenting the mean, standard deviation, and number of samples for every variable, thus improving the thorough evaluation carried out. Examining the links between the variables, the correlation matrix shows both positive and negative correlations. Peer influence and the quality of the work produced are repeatedly found to have a positive correlation with employee well-being, which supports the potential for significance in creating a pleasant place to work.

Regression analyses measure the effect of predictors on employee well-being, which contributes to a deeper understanding. The addition of unethical behaviour in Model 2 does not result in a statistically significant gain in predicting employee well-being, even though work quality seems to be a substantial positive influence. The extended model emphasises the significance of evaluating unethical behaviour in addition to other factors, and the ANOVA findings support the general importance of both models.

The study discovered a strong correlation between somefactors and worker well-being, such as unethical behaviour, peer and manager influence, work quality, social desire, and Machiavellianism. With the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0), a meaningful link was not established. The alternative hypothesis (H1), which states that there is a substantial correlation between unethical behaviour and employee well-being, is supported by the data. The model's explanatory power is greatly increased when unethical behaviour is included as a predictor. This suggests that, in addition to other factors, unethical behaviour is a key factor impacting employee well-being.

Theoretical implications and empirical data are consistent, indicating that work-related dynamics, ethical issues, and interpersonal impacts are interdependent and directly affect the well-being of employees. This advances our theoretical knowledge and has application to organisations trying to provide a morally and ethically sound workplace for employees. The research evidence highlights the interconnected nature of factors shaping employee well-being in organisational settings by indicating that a variety of factors, such as the ethical atmosphere, social connections, and broader workplace dynamics, influence how individuals perceive well-being in the workplace.

4.3Implications

The implications derived from the data offer thorough direction for both researchers and practitioners alike, presenting significant insights into the complicated nature of workplace relationships and employee well-being.

1. Identifying Influential variables: The importance of interpersonal interactions in the workplace is highlighted by the recognition of influential variables, especially the positive correlations between peer influence (peer_inf) and manager influence (man_inf) with employee well-being. This suggests employees tend to report increased levels of emotional well-being as they see supportive connections with their managers and perceive pleasant interactions with their peers.

People in the workplace work alongside and interact with coworkers and managers for a considerable amount of their working hours. Positive peer interactions contribute to a pleasant emotional environment by fostering a sense of support, teamwork, and solidarity. Similarly, productive interactions with managers that are marked by good communication, mentoring, and support can improve employee well being by building a sense of security, confidence, and coherence with company objectives.

Organisations should encourage teamwork, honest communication, and dependable connections tocreate a positive working culture. This promotes emotional health, a sense of fulfilment and belonging, and teamwork as well as professional growth and mentoring.

2. Assistance for Work Quality

The finding that work quality (work_qual) has a noticeably low mean indicates a possible area for organisational change and emphasises how crucial it is to put measures in place to improve work quality. In this sense, "work quality" refers to the calibre and level of jobs and projects that employees accomplish. The lower mean raises the likelihood that employee members are not satisfied with the calibre of their position or perceive it to be lacking. According to the relationship between work quality and employee well-being, workers who believe their jobs are of a higher calibre typically have happier workplaces. Individual's general emotional state can be improved when they believe that their work is of high qualitysince it can lead to feelings of achievement, satisfaction, and contentment. Conversely, poorer opinions about the calibre of the work may lead to dissatisfaction and discontent as well as possibly have a detrimental effect on workers' well-being.

3. Examining the influence of unethical behaviour: The expanded model's insignificant effect of unethical behaviour (unethical_bhv) shows that, when paired with the other variables, it was not a significant factor in predicting the variation in employees' emotional well-being. Tocomprehend the importance of unethical behaviour in the workplace and its possible impact on employees' emotional well-being, organisations should carefully explore and thoughtfully examine this. Organisations should critically examine the dynamics around unethical behaviour, considering other elements that may impact the relationship between unethical behaviour and emotional health. The organisational culture, the widespread adoption of moral principles and standards, and the efficiency of the current systems in place to prevent and deal with unethical behaviour are all potential factors to take into account.

Consider putting in place ethics training programmes, open reporting procedures, management support for ethics, assistance with ethical decision-making, and ongoing ethics assessments as ways to combat unethical behaviour. These steps promote transparency, educate workers on the repercussions of unethical behaviour, and offer support to staff members who are faced with moral conundrums.

4. Well Being Programmes: Programmes for holistic well-being address many facets of employees' lives and offer a comprehensive strategy for fostering their health and happiness. Activities for team building, networks for mental health support, skill development, feedback systems, administrative influence, wellness initiatives, mobility and time management, and involvement in the community are all included in these programmes. With an emphasis on social dynamics, the calibre of the job, and managerial influence, they seek to establish a positive and productive work environment. Organisations can improve overall well-being and satisfaction by fostering a vibrant and supportive work environment by including these characteristics. Holistic well-being programmes enable organisations tofoster a work environment where people feel appreciated, supported, and driven, which improves overall well-being and happiness. They do this by recognising the interconnectivity of social, professional, and personal components.

5. Sustained Research and Study:

Researching workplace well-being among employees is essential for improving theories, revealing underlying factors, and developing solutions based on evidence. Although there may be underlying elements or interactions that are not explicitly measured, the data supplied provides insightful information. Subsequent investigations ought to go into moderating elements, the interplay between predictors, longitudinal records, contextual elements, employee viewpoints, and logical consequences. Studies with a longitudinal design can reveal patterns or trends and offer insights into the temporal dimensions of worker well-being. Examining contextual elements like company culture, market trends, and financial situations is also important. In addition to providing context and depth, qualitative research approaches can enhance quantitative findings. Because organisational settings are dynamic, it is necessary to do continuing research toadjust tactics and guarantee that employee well-being is adequately handled.

6. Feedback and Involvement:

Tounderstand and support their employees' emotional well-being, organisations must prioritise employee feedback and engagement. Organisations can gain valuable insights, pinpoint concerns, customise actions, empower staff, cultivate a healthy work environment, create transparent communication, and anticipate problems by incorporating employees in decision-making processes. This strategy boosts job happiness, retention, and cultural advancement in addition to emotional well-being. Organisations can establish a work environment that prioritises emotional well-being by integrating regular feedback and involvement into organisational practices. This can create a continuous feedback loop that facilitates adaptive measures and fosters a culture that values and supports the employees' holistic well-being. This promotes a productive workplace in addition to collecting data.

4.4 Limitations

1. Sampling Bias -

When a study's participant sample is not reflective of the total population, it can lead to sampling bias. Selection effects, under- or over-representation, and voluntary involvement can all contribute to this. If the population being studied is not representative, the external validity of the research is undermined, which makes it challenging to draw wider conclusions. The study's findings may be distorted by selection effects. Analyzing limitations and taking proactive steps to reduce bias can lead to a more nuanced interpretation of the results.

2. Self Reporting Bias

Self-reported data in studies can be hindered by social desirability bias, where participants adjust their responses to align with societal norms. This could result in underreporting of unappealing behaviours or an overemphasis on behaviours that are considered acceptable in society. The authentic prevalence of particular attitudes or behaviours within an organisation may be affected by this bias. When responses mirror stereotypes more than real experiences, it can challenge the study's validity. Confidentiality, deceptive tactics, and data triangulation are examples of mitigation mechanisms. Researchers need to betransparent, and in their final report, the limitations of self-reporting should be highlighted.

3. Longitudinal Attrition

Longitudinal attrition arises when study participants gradually stop participating or are unavailable for later stages of data collecting. This may lead to a selection bias, thus limiting the studys applicability. Additionally, attrition lowers the sample size that can be analysed, reducing the study's statistical power. Evaluating the data requires a knowledge of the reasons for attrition, as temporal changes may cause changes in the participants' circumstances. Researchers can utilise tactics likefrequent communication and providing incentives for ongoing participation to lessen its effects. For the study to be credible, attrition rates and dropout causes must be disclosed in full, which werent done previously.

Deeg, D. J. (2002). Attrition in longitudinal population studies: does it affect the generalizability of the findings?: an introduction to the series.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,55(3), 213-215.

4. Instrumental Reliability

The uniformity and predictability of questionnaires used to gauge particular notions, such asunethical behaviour and employee well-being, is known as instrument dependability. Interpreting variability, response consistency over time, bias in data provided by participants, possible measurement errors, and validity implications are some of the factors that can limit the reliability of an instrument.

To improve instrument reliability, researchers can evaluate test-retest reliability, simplify language, make sure instruments are appropriate for the culture and context, and transparently disclose the reliability coefficients. Readers canassess the data's quality and the possible influence of dependability on the study's conclusions through transparent reporting.

5. Generalization

Since the study concentrated on a specific organisational situation, its conclusions about workplace dynamics may not apply to other contexts. The results of the study might not be generally relevant because of differences in culture, organisational size and structure, industry-specific practices, and time variations. Organisational size, cultural quirks, and the nature of the sector are a few examples of the variables that can mould relationships and employee experiences. In such a case emphasising on the importance of external validity issues becomes imperative. Subsequent investigations ought to examine the relevance of the study's ideas in various situations, for example, by carrying out comparable investigations in various industries or cultural backgrounds.

5. CONCLUSION

In summary, the examination of the given data regarding employee well-being and related variables provides insightful knowledge about the complicated functioning of the workplace. This study sheds light on the relationships between variables like as peer influence, managerial influence, work quality, social desire, Machiavellianism, and unethical behaviour, and how these relate to employee well-being. It does this by using statistical analyses, correlations, and regression models. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that good leadership has a major influence on worker happiness. Tosupport efficient management techniques, the study also emphasises the necessity for organisations to fund leadership development initiatives. The data's implications imply that companies ought to think about comprehensive well-being initiatives that handle a variety of issues, such as social conditions,standards ofwork, and managerial influence. Proactive problem solving, constant input from staff, and tailored interventions are essential components of a healthy work environment that promotes employeewell-being.To find hidden dynamics, study moderating factors, and offer a more nuanced view of employeewell-being in the workplace, more investigation and research are advised. To ensure that study findings are incorporated into practical initiatives for organisational well-being, future research should also concentrate on practical consequences.Future studies should take a variety of viewpoints and the temporal evolution of well-being into account. This study adds to the amount of information already available on unethical behaviourand employeewell-being. It gives organisations a basis to implement evidence-based tactics for fostering a positive and encouraging work environment by citing and expanding upon earlier studies. The results highlight the significance of continued investigation and useful interventions to advance employees' general well-being and, eventually, cultivate a pleasant workplace culture.

Tocreate a productive workforce through pleasant work environments, establishing social ties, and promoting meaningful work, the study highlights the significance of placing a high priority on employee well-being in enterprises. Research in the future ought to take a more meticulous.

6. REFERENCES

Akaah, I. P. (1992). Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate.Journal of Business

Ethics, 11(8), 599-608.

Askew, O. A., Beisler, J. M., & Keel, J. (2015). Current trends of unethical behavior within organizations.International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS),19(3), 107-114.

Athota, V.S. and Malik, A., 2019.Managing employee well-being and resilience for innovation: Evidence from knowledge-intensive service industries. Springer.

Barger, S. D. (2002). The Marlowe-Crowne affair: Short forms, psychometric structure, and

social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2), 286-305.

Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing.Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Brownell, K.M., Quinn, A. and Bolinger, M.T., 2023. The Triad Divided: A Curvilinear Mediation Model Linking Founder Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy to New Venture Performance.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, p.10422587231173684.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253

Chinwuba, U.C., 2023. Counterproductive Workplace Behavior (CWBs): Antecedents and Outcomes.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970).Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic.

Cowan, R.L., Clayton, E. and Bochantin, J., 2021. Human resources as an important actor in workplace bullying situations: Where we have been and where we should go.Pathways of Job-Related Negative Behaviour, pp.477-494.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354

De Clercq, D., Azeem, M.U. and Haq, I.U., 2021. If the organization is a mess, do employees explain or exploit the situation?.Personnel Review,50(2), pp.610-629.

Elbers, A., Kolominski, S. and Blesa Aledo, P.S., 2023. Coping with Dark Leadership: Examination of the Impact of Psychological Capital on the Relationship between Dark Leaders and Employees Basic Need Satisfaction in the Workplace.Administrative Sciences,13(4), p.96.

Ellen III, B.P., Alexander, K.C., Mackey, J.D., McAllister, C.P. and Carson, J.E., 2021. Portrait of a workplace deviant: A clearer picture of the Big Five and Dark Triad as predictors of workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology,106(12), p.1950.

Ernst Kossek, E., Kalliath, T., & Kalliath, P. (2012). Achieving employee wellbeing in a changing work environment: An expert commentary on current scholarship.International Journal of Manpower,33(7), 738-753.

Evans, T.R., 2022. Unethical Behaviour in the Workplace: A Direct and Conceptual Replication of Jones & Kavanagh (1996).

Giao, H.N.K., Vuong, B.N. and Tushar, H., 2020. The impact of social support on job-related behaviors through the mediating role of job stress and the moderating role of locus of control: Empirical evidence from the Vietnamese banking industry.Cogent Business & Management,7(1), p.1841359.

Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2010). Unethical and unwell: Decrements in well-being and unethical activity at work.Journal of Business Ethics,91, 275-297.

Giacalone, R. A., Promislo, M., & Jurkiewicz, C. (2016). Ethical Impact Theory: How Unethical Behavior at Work Affects Individual Well-Being.Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1-5.

Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of

desirable responding short form (BIDR-16).Sage Open, 5(4), 2158244015621113.

Hjalmarsson, A.K. and Dderman, A.M., 2022. Relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, and self-perceived individual work performance: A cross-sectional study on the Swedish version of TEIQue-SF.Current Psychology,41(5), pp.2558-2573.

Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193.

Johnson, A., Dey, S., Nguyen, H., Groth, M., Joyce, S., Tan, L., ... & Harvey, S. B. (2020). A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being.Australian Journal of Management,45(3), 402-424.

Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioural intentions in the workplace.Journal of Business Ethics,15, 511-523.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective.Journal of management,34(5), 978-1008.

Keeman, A., Nswall, K., Malinen, S., & Kuntz, J. (2017). Employee wellbeing: Evaluating a wellbeing intervention in two settings.Frontiers in psychology,8, 505.

Kennedy, J.C., Chan, K.Y., Ho, M.H.R., Uy, M.A. and Chernyshenko, O.S., 2021. Motivation to lead as mediator of relations between the dark triad, big five, and leadership intention.Frontiers in psychology,12, p.675347.

Lainidi, O., Chalili, V., Maliousis, I., Spiliou, M., Tzioti, E., Koutsimani, P. and Montgomery, A., 2023. Perspective Chapter: The Dark Triad in the Organization: a review of the evidence and future recommendations.

Lata, M. and Chaudhary, R., 2020. Dark Triad and instigated incivility: The moderating role of workplace spirituality.Personality and Individual Differences,166, p.110090.

Lata, M. and Chaudhary, R., 2021. Workplace spirituality and experienced incivility at work: Modeling Dark Triad as a moderator.Journal of Business Ethics,174, pp.645-667.

Lien, T.T.H., Anh, T.T., Anh, T.N., Anh, L.H.T. and Thao, N.T.T., 2022. Selfish personalities influencing start-up intention and motivation: a study of Vietnam.Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,11(1), p.15.

Miller, B. K., Nicols, K., & Konopaske, R. (2019). Measurement invariance tests of revisions to archaically worded items in the Mach IV scale.PloS one, 14(10), e0223504.

Mohamed, A.N.T.I. and Al Samman, A.M., 2022. Moral identity as moderator in the relationship between Machiavellian leadership perception and employees opportunistic behaviors.Information Sciences Letters,11(1), pp.241-256.

Newstrom, J. W. & Ruch, W. A. (1975). The Ethics of Management and the Management of Ethics.Michigan State University Business Topics (Winter),23, 29-37

Nowack, K. and Zak, P., 2020. Empathy enhancing antidotes for interpersonally toxic leaders.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,72(2), p.119.

Palmer, J.C., Holmes Jr, R.M. and Perrew, P.L., 2020. The cascading effects of CEO dark triad personality on subordinate behavior and firm performance: A multilevel theoretical model.Group & Organization Management,45(2), pp.143-180.

Qin, Y.S. and Men, L.R., 2022. Exploring the impact of internal communication on employee psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of employee organizational trust.International Journal of Business Communication, p.23294884221081838.

Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health,18(5), 2294.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 128.

Ruedy, N. E., Moore, C., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The cheaters high: The unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,105(4), 531.

Sakka, G., & Ahammad, M. F. (2020). Unpacking the relationship between employee brand ambassadorship and employee social media usage through employee wellbeing in workplace: A theoretical contribution.Journal of business research,119, 354-363.

Salas-Vallina, A., Rodrguez Snchez, A. and Pozo-Hidalgo, M., 2023. Embracing paradox: middle managers compassion and the vulnerable customer.International Journal of Bank Marketing.

Schyns, B., Braun, S. and Wisse, B., 2019. Dark personalities in the workplace.Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of work locus of control scale.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335340

Stapleton, M., 2023.Psychopathic traits in managers: Implications for employees' motivation, performance, and well-being at work(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Waikato).

Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & Frings?Dresen, M. H. W. (2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfactiona systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53(3), 191-200.

Velasquez, M. G. 2005. Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Wiernik, B. M., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Ethical employee behaviors in the consensus

taxonomy of counterproductive work behaviors.International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 26(1), 36-48.

Wouters, K., Maesschalck, J., Peeters, C. F., & Roosen, M. (2014). Methodological issues in the design of online surveys for measuring unethical work behavior: Recommendations on the basis of a split-ballot experiment.Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 275-289.

7. APPENDIX

Appendix A: Dissertation Proposal

Introduction:

Unethical behaviour is defined as the negative impact one's actions have on others. This harmful effect is frequently prohibited or virtuously unacceptable by organisations or society as a whole. Workplace unethical behaviour is characterised as "scalable actions and behaviours that employees engage in that deceive or exploit other people or provide oneself (or one's organisations or associates) with an unfair advantage in the service of some other end" (Wiernik & Ones, 2018, p.37).

A vast spectrum of unethical workplace behaviours, such as lying, cheating, and stealing, have been identified (Trevino et al.,2006). "Unethical practice is common through - and further than that conscious reasoning, and it can be achieved to profit oneself or others." (Veetkazhi et al., 2020).

Oftentimes, concepts of counterproductive work behaviour are used to explain unethical workplace behaviour which is characterised as "scalable actions and behaviours employees engage in that detract from (legitimate) organisational goals or well-being and include behaviours that have unfavourable consequences for the organisation or its stakeholders" (Ones & Dilchert, 2013, p.645).

Employee well-being research is well documented in organisational research. However, the general public's understanding, conceptualization, and the idea of employee well-being is still unclear and uncertain (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999; Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern & Seligman, 2011; Keyes, Shmotkin & Ryff, 2002; Seligman, 2011 ; Stratham and Chase, 2010; Zheng, Zhu, Zhao and Zhang, 2015). "Well Being" is defined as a state of health, happiness, and wellness. Employee well-being in this context refers to the physical, mental, and Employee satisfaction, well-being, and mental wellbeing. The world health organisation offers a broad definition and strives to acquire an issue widely accepted to all past studies of worker well being, namely "the state of each worker, understanding their abilities, dealing with their normal life stresses, work productively and is able to contribute to their community. According to the EIT (ethical impact theory), each and every unethical behaviour at all, any change, no matter how small, or any decision, no matter how big, can affect a person's personal wellbeing. EIT is mostly founded on a thorough analysis of the studies in the fields of injustice, bullying, and prejudice. An unethical act has a detrimental effect on both mental and physical health, which include cardiac disease, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and psychological issues (e.g. Klonoff et al. 1999). As an outcome, being the target of job discrimination can lead to severe emotional and physical issues. The detrimental impacts of bullying by coworkers and managerswhich may include behaviours like humiliating others in public, harassing employees verbally, alienating them, and physically abusing themare the subject of increasing research. Low self-esteem, sadness, anxiety, job stress, insomnia, and even suicidal thoughts have all been linked to bullying (eg, Zapf et al.1996). There is therefore plenty of proof that individuals who've been assaulted at workplace have a variety of detrimental and occasionally lethal results.

Those who commit unethical acts may experience severe consequences as a result of there own actions. They may engage in unethical behaviour but remain profoundly uneasy about it; they lack the strength to overcome the pressures they encounter yet are cognitively upset by their own behaviour. (Evans and associates 2007)

This study is a direct and conceptual replicaltion of Jones & Kavanagh (1996): Unethical behaviour in the workplace with an extension of employee well being. We will look into how unethcal behaviours can affect the employees well being and other factors.

Methodology:

Participants-

The study aims to recruit 100 participants using advertising methods like social media, reaching out to teachers personally and using Prolific software. A detailed questionnaire will be formed on Qualtrics software which will consist of the study information sheet, participant consent form and the chosen measures. The inclusion criteria of the present study will be employees working in an organisation for more than 5 years in the United Kingdom. They should also be English literate to avoid any communication barriers.

Material-

The current study will employ a structured survey that will be distributed to participants in order to examine unethical workplace behaviour and its relationship to well-being. For secondary analysis, explanatory and predictive statements, as well as information about the sample, a variety of demographic questions were added. They were asked about their sex, age, race, if they were students, how many months they had worked full-time, and what industry they spent the most time in. The following unethical behaviour will be studied using well defined scales:

The locus of control was evaluated using the 16-item Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1966), which uses a 6-point Likert scale. Initial reports of internal reliability estimations (Cronbach's Alpha) indicated that they were 0.76.

The Mach IV was used to signify Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970). Twenty questions were asked, with some of the original questions changed to refer as "people" rather than "men," and responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale (Miller et al., 2019). Due to uncertainty regarding factor structure, the entire 20-item scale was used to calculate a combined score, allowing later secondary analyses to take other structures into account. (e.g., Rauthmann, 2013). Initial reports of internal reliability estimations (Cronbach's Alpha) indicated that they were 0.72.

To measure social desirability, the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form was employed (Hart et al., 2015). Unlike many short forms of alternative measures, this 16-item measure uses a 7-point Likert scale to differentiate among self-deceptive amplification and impression management and produces data with good psychometric qualities. (Barger, 2002). Internal reliability estimates (Cronbachs Alpha) were originally reported as 0.56.

Job satisfaction was used to evaluate the quality of work experience. This was recorded using the Job in General scale (Ironson et al., 1989) was chosen since it can be applied to any job category and the data it produces has better psychometric qualities than other quick employee satisfaction measures (van Saane et al., 2003). 18 adjectives were rated and scored to describe a participant's work, including nice and delightful in accordance with the original instructions.: Yes (0), No (0), or? (1) (3).Incremental validity was established.

The 10-item Ethical Leadership Questionnaire was used to assess manager influence (Brown et al., 2005). Participants were given a 7-point scale to use when rating their manager, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 7 being "Strongly Agree." Other measures are generally believed to be dominated by elements that are notably outside the parameters of ethical leadership, making this scale the most widely used evaluation of this concept (Wiernik & Ones, 2018).

5 questions probing participants' perceptions or knowledge of unethical workplace behaviour by their peers were used to quantify peer influence. The questions were based on the Unethical Behaviour Toward Employees subscale from Kaptein (2008), which was chosen for its potential applicability to a wide range of workplaces and industries as well as its strong distinction from outcome measurement. On a seven-point scale, from "Never" to "(Almost) often," participants' responses were recorded.

Participants' declarations of engaging in the 17 unethical workplace practises identified by Newstrom and Ruch (1975) and frequently attributed to Akaah were gathered at time 2. (1992). These items were chosen to be the most relevant because of a critical analysis of the field concluded that the items were "the most conceptually clear and complete measure of employee unethical behaviour" due to their relevance to both remote and in-person work (Wiernik & Ones, 2018, p.42). According to procedures that encourage workers to self-report unethical workplace behaviour, responses were gathered using a 7-point Likert scale with only the anchors "Never" and "Frequently" (Wouters et al., 2014).

To measure employee well-being, employee well-being scale by Pradhan & Hati (2022) will be used. It includes domains like 10-item psychological well-being, 10-item social well-being, 9-item workplace well-being and 4-item subjective well-being. Cronbach's alpha reliability was found to be acceptable for all dimensions ranging from 0.72 to 0.96. Construct validity of the employee well-being scale was examined by assessing convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity of a scale was confirmed by two ways, the first one was examined by average variance extracted (AVE) which was more than 0.50 and the second one is by analysing standardized loading or composite reliability of each dimension, which was greater than 0.70. Discriminant validity of the scale can be confirmed by two methods: first one is that the average shared variance extracted (ASVE) of dimensions needs to be higher than the correlation square between dimensions (r2 ) as suggested by Hair et al. (2010) and the second one is that all maximum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) values must be less than average variance extracted (AVE).

Procedure-

The present study will follow a quantitative approach to analyse the data, for which measures on unethical behaviour and employee well-being will be used. Thus, a survey method will be conducted for the purpose of data collection. Although, the study will begin only after receiving ethical approval (high risk) from the ethics committee. The participants will be first informed about the study then their voluntary consent will be taken. They will be instructed to answer all the questions truthfully and to the best of their knowledge, and their responses would be kept confidential and for research purpose. Afterwards data will be analysed to conclude the data.

Ethical Considerations-

The study will comply with all ethical norms and standards of Kings College London. Ethical approval application will be made to Kings College London and NHS through REMAS. All participants will receive an informed consent form before the semi-structured interview and will be informed that they have a liberty to not participate. The participants anonymity and confidentiality will be assured. The information provided by the participant will be kept strictly confidential. No psychological harm will be imposed. Their demographic data, as well as other data will not be disclosed. The results of the study will be

used exclusively for research purposes.

Appendix B: Information sheet

INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS

Ethical Clearance Reference Number:HR/DP-22/23-35187

YOU MAY DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEETHERE

Title of study

Workplace Experiences Part 1

Invitation Paragraph

I would like to invite you to participate in this research project which forms part of a multi-lab research. Before you decide whether you want to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what your participation will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.

What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the study isto better understand different workplace experiences. You will be asked to complete a few psychological questionnaires today, and to then complete a second (very brief) questionnaire about some of your actions in a few days time.

Why have I been invited to take part?

You have been approached to participate as many individuals are required. To take part you must be over 18 years of age, currently employed (not including self-employed) and based in the US or UK.

What will happen if I take part?

If you agree to take part, you will complete a first survey anonymously, today. First, you will provide some demographic information. Then,you will complete six psychological measures including 10 to 20 questions each (e.g., Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune, Most people are brave, 1 am very confident of my judgments). Thist first part of the study will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete.

After a few days (at least 7, but no more than 28), we will contact you and ask you to take part in the second part of the study. You will be presented again with participant information, as in this section, after which you will complete two measures, asking about some of your work behaviours in the last year, as well as about your well-being as an employee. This second part of the study will take you approximately 5 minutes.

Do I have to take part?

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in anyway. If you choose to take part you will be asked to provide your consent. To do this you will be asked to indicate that you have read and understood the information provided and that you consent to your anonymous data being used for the purposes explained.

You are free to withdraw at any point during completion of the survey, without having to give a reason: you can do so by simply closing your internet browser. Withdrawing from the study will not affect you in any way. Your last opportunity to withdraw your data will be after the debriefing: once you submit the survey, it will no longer be possible to withdraw from the study because the data will be fully anonymous. Please do not include any personal identifiable information in your responses.

If you decide to end the survey early but still wish to receive the full debriefing and any further information, you can contact any of the researchers listed at the end of this Participant Information Sheet.

Incentives

Participants will receive 2.50 for the first part of the study (and a further 1.10 for the second part of the study).

What are the possible risks of taking part?

There are no foreseeable risks other than possible discomfort in answering some questions, however you are encouraged to withdraw should you feel unable to continue. If you feel upset by the topics discussed during the study, you are encouraged to seek support: you can find information on support by visitingMinds website, which includes, for example, free and confidential, 24/7 access to digital peer support throughSide by Side. You are also encouraged to contact the researcher with any issues that may arise.

Data handling and confidentiality

This research is anonymous. This means that nobody, including the researchers, will be aware of your identity, and that nobody will be able to connect you to the answers you provide, even indirectly. Your answers will nevertheless be treated confidentially, and the information you provide will not allow you to be identified in any research outputs/publications. Your data will be held securely stored on a double authenticated OneDrive account.
Upon project completion, all the data you provide (including all demographic

information, but excluding any identifying information) will be openly shared online and

thus publicly accessible via the OSF (osf.io) where it will be permanently publicly available

for analysis, and for external examination and scrutiny.

Any personal data collected independently of the anonymous survey as described elsewhere in this information sheet willbe processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). If you would like more information about how your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection laws please visit the link below:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/support/research-ethics/kings-college-london-statement-on-use-of-personal-data-in-research

What will happen to the results of the study?

The results of the study will be summarised in a research work by Dr Thomas Evans in University of Greenwich, written in collaboration with the current team and further collaborators from other universities.

Who should I contact for further information?

If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact me using the following contact details:

Dr Amlie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe (Principal Investigator and Research Supervisor) :amelie.gourdon-kanhukamwe@kcl.ac.uk

Serene George (Researcher):serene.george@kcl.ac.uk

What if I have further questions, or if something goes wrong?

??

If this study has harmed you in any way or if you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study you can contact King's College London using the details below for further advice and information:

The Chair, Health Faculties RESC (Purple),rec@kcl.ac.uk

Thank you for reading this information sheet and for considering taking part in this research.

Appendix C:Questionnaire 1

PisINFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS

Version Number 2: 03/06/23; Ethical Clearance Reference Number:HR/DP-22/23-35187

YOU MAY DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEETHERE

Title of study

Workplace Experiences Part 2

Invitation Paragraph

I would like to invite you to participate in the second part of this research project, which forms part of a multi-lab research. Before you decide whether you want to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what your participation will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.

What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the study isto better understand different workplace experiences. You already completed a few psychological questionnaires a few days ago, and will now complete a second (very brief) questionnaire about some of your actions.

Why have I been invited to take part?

You have been approached to participate as you participated in the first part of the study. You were approached to take part in the overall study as you are over 18 years old, currently employed (not including self-employed) and based in the US or UK.

What will happen if I take part?

If you agree to take part in the second part of the study, you will complete two psychological measures. The first one will ask about 17 unethical work behaviours you might have engaged in in the last year (e.g., Used company services/materials for personal use). The second one will ask you questions about your well-being as an employee (e.g., My views are well accepted by my teammates.). This will take you approximately 5 minutes.

Do I have to take part?

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in anyway. If you choose to take part you will be asked to provide your consent. To do this you will be asked to indicate that you have read and understood the information provided and that you consent to your anonymous data being used for the purposes explained.

You are free to withdraw at any point during completion of the survey, without having to give a reason: you can do so by simply closing your internet browser. Withdrawing from the study will not affect you in any way. Your last opportunity to withdraw your data will be after the debriefing: once you submit the survey, it will no longer be possible to withdraw from the study because the data will be fully anonymous. Please do not include any personal identifiable information in your responses.

If you decide to end the survey early but still wish to receive the full debriefing and any further information, you can contact any of the researchers listed at the end of this Participant Information Sheet.

Incentives

Participants will receive 1.10 for this second part of the study.

What are the possible risks of taking part?

To participate in the second part of this study, you may need to disclose illegal behaviours, or behaviours that would be seen as reprehensible by your employer(s). We are collecting the data fully anonymously, so we will not be able to link these disclosures to your identity, unless you contact us by email later to ask questions about the study. If you have questions, we therefore encourage to first use Prolifics messaging tool, as this only displays your Prolific ID, preserving your anonymity. Please note as well that the unethical behaviours we will ask about are protected by confidentiality under the British Psychological Societys research ethical guidelines.

Additionally, we will be asking questions about your well-being as an employee, which might create some discomfort or upset for you. If you feel upset by any of the topics discussed during the study, you are encouraged to seek support: you can find information on support by visitingMinds website, which includes, for example, free and confidential, 24/7 access to digital peer support throughSide by Side. You are also encouraged to contact the researcher with any issues that may arise (using first Prolifics messaging tool as point of contact to preserve your anonymity).

Data handling and confidentiality

This research is anonymous. This means that nobody, including the researchers, will be aware of your identity, and that nobody will be able to connect you to the answers you provide, even indirectly. Your answers will nevertheless be treated confidentially, and the information you provide will not allow you to be identified in any research outputs/publications. Your data will be held securely stored on a double authenticated OneDrive account.
Upon project completion, all the data you provide (including all demographic
information, but excluding any identifying information) will be openly shared online and
thus publicly accessible via the OSF (osf.io) where it will be permanently publicly available
for analysis, and for external examination and scrutiny.

Any personal data collected independently of the anonymous survey as described elsewhere in this information sheet will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). If you would like more information about how your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection laws please visit the link below:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/support/research-ethics/kings-college-london-statement-on-use-of-personal-data-in-research


What will happen to the results of the study?

The results of the study will be summarised in a research work by Dr Thomas Evans in University of Greenwich, written in collaboration with the current team and further collaborators from other universities.

Who should I contact for further information?

If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact me using the following contact details:

Dr Amlie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe (Principal Investigator and Research Supervisor) :amelie.gourdon-kanhukamwe@kcl.ac.uk
Serene George (Researcher):serene.george@kcl.ac.uk

What if I have further questions, or if something goes wrong?

If this study has harmed you in any way or if you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study you can contact King's College London using the details below for further advice and information:

The Chair, Health Faculties RESC (Purple),rec@kcl.ac.uk

Thank you for reading this information sheet and for considering taking part in this research.

icf_introCONSENT FORM

Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet (above)

Title of Study:Workplace Experiences Part 2
King's College Research Ethics Committee Ref:HR/DP-22/23-35187

Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organising the research must explain the project to you before you agree to take part. If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you decide whether to join in.?

I confirm that I understand that by selecting each response below I am consenting to this element of the study. I understand that it will be assumed that unselected responses mean that I DO NOT consent to that part of the study. I understand that by not giving consent for any one element I will be deemed ineligible for the study and will not take part.

icf_1 I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated 03/03/20223 (Version 2) for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information and asked questions which have been answered to my satisfaction.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_2 I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this project and understand that I can refuse to take part.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_3 I understand that the data collected through the questionnaire is fully anonymous, and that therefore I will only be able to withdraw until I have submitted my questionnaire.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_4 I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes explained to me in the Information Sheet. I understand that such information will be handled under the terms of UK data protection law, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_5 I understand that my information may be subject to review by responsible individuals from the College for monitoring and audit purposes.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_6 I understand that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained, and it will not be possible to identify me in any research outputs

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_7 I consent to my anonymised data being shared with third parties which are within the EU (University of Greenwich) as outlined in the participant information sheet.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_8 I consent to my anonymised data being published openly on the Open Science Framework, on servers which are both within and outside the EU, as outlined in the participant information sheet.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_9 I agree that the research team may use my data for future research and understand that any such use of identifiable data would be reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. (In such cases, as with this project, data would not be identifiable in any report).

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_10 I understand that I must not take part if I fall under the exclusion criteria as detailed in the information sheet and explained to me by the researcher.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_11 I understand that the information I have submitted will be published as a report.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

Start of Block: Demographic Questions

Q13 What is your sex?

• Male (1)
• Female (2)
• I do not wish to identify as either (3)

Q14 What is your age?

• ________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Demographic Questions

Q15 In the last twelve months, how often have you done the following?

Please be honest, your answers are completely confidential.

	Never (1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	Frequently (7)
Used company services/materials for personal use (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Padded an expense claim up to 10% (2)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Gave gifts/favours in exchange for preferential treatment (3)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Took longer than necessary to do a job (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Divulged confidential information (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Did personal business on company time (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Concealed one's errors (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Passed blame for errors to an innocent colleague (8)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Claimed credit for someone else's work (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Falsified time/quality/quantity reports (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Padded an expense claim more than 10% (11)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Called in sick just to take a day off (12)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Authorised a colleague to violate company rules (13)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Took company materials and supplies (14)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Accepted gifts/favours in exchange for preferential treatment (15)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Took extra personal time (e.g. lunch hour, breaks, early departure) (16)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Chose to not report others' violations of company policies and rules (17)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

Q16 Have your employment circumstances changed since you completed the first part of this study a few weeks ago?

• I am still employed in the same job. (1)
• I have a different job. (3)
• I am now unemployed or self-employed. (2)

End of Block: Ubeh

24 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

	Strongly disagree (1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	Strongly agree (7)
I easily adapt to day-to-day changes of my life and manage my responsibilities well. (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I care for things that are important to me, not what is important to others. (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I feel I am a sensible person. (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am not flexible. (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I understand the expectation from me. (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I feel I am capable of decision-making. (8)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I feel depressed from the stress and demands of day-to-day life. (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I believe that I have a purpose and direction in life. (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I think life is a continuous process of learning. (11)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am a confident person. (12)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am an important part of my team and organization. (2)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
People are trustworthy in my team. (13)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am close to my teammates in my organization. (14)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My team is a great source of social support. (15)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My views are well accepted by my teammates. (16)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
People in my team dont help each other in difficult times. (17)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I take active part in important decision-making activities of my team. (18)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I love to spend time with my teammates. (19)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My day-to-day activities contribute towards the benefits of my team. (3)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am quite satisfied with my job. (20)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I enjoy meaningful work. (21)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I attach lots of value to my work. (22)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My work achievement often acts as a source of motivation. (23)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My workplace is very conducive. (24)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I used to maintain a balance between work and home life. (25)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My employer does care a lot about their employees. (26)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My work offers challenges to advance my skills. (27)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Mostly I feel happy. (28)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am an optimistic person. (29)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I feel good about myself. (30)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
My life is mostly sorrowful. (31)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: Extension

Start of Block: ManCh Q37 We want to ensure that all data we analyse is meaningful and accurately reflects engagement with the study content. In your honest opinion, should we use your data in our analyses of this study? Your response to this will have no impact or consequences to you so please do be honest. Yes, do use my data (1) No, do NOT use my data (2) End of Block: ManCh

Start of Block: debrief

debrief Debrief - Workplace Experiences Part 2

YOU MAY DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEETHERE.

Thank you very much for participating in our study!

At this time, we would like to tell you more about the study. We did not tell you exactly what we were interested in at the beginning, because it may have affected the results of the study. In some studies, if we tell the participants what the purpose of the experiment is and our predictions, they may perform in a manner to help us to achieve the results we expect. However, that would not be a good indication of how people actually react to events in everyday life. The opposite may also happen; that is, participants may act in a way to disconfirm our predictions. These reactions to the purpose of our study can render the results invalid. For these reasons, we could not tell you about the study until after it was completed.

This project aims to explore the personal and situational factors which are associated with unethical workplace behaviour. Jones and Kavanagh (1996) found that work quality and Machiavellianism (a personality trait related to manipulativeness and indifference to morality) affect unethical workplace behaviour, while they found no gender difference. Additionally, they found that manager and peer influence, as well as locus of control (how one attributes causes to events in their life), affected unethical workplace behaviour only inconsistently. The current project therefore aims to replicate this work, to add up to the understanding of unethical behaviour at work. You can find out more about this project, including the proposal and materials,here.

To achieve this aim, we measure these personal and situational factors in the first part of the study, and then ask about actual unethical work behaviours you might have engaged in in the second part of the study, as well as about your well-being as an employee. This is so we can extend the original findings to real-world behaviours, as the original study only included students as participants.

As a result, you might have disclosed illegal behaviours, or behaviours that would be seen as reprehensible by your employer(s). We are collecting the data fully anonymously, so we will not be able to link these disclosures to your identity, unless you contact us by email later to ask questions about the study. If you have questions, we therefore encourage to first use Prolifics messaging tool, as this only displays your Prolific ID, preserving your anonymity. Please note as well that the unethical behaviours we asked about are protected by confidentiality under the British Psychological Societys research ethical guidelines.

Additionally, we asked questions about your well-being as an employee, which might have created some discomfort or upset for you. If you feel upset by any of the topics discussed during the study, you are encouraged to seek support: you can find information on support by visitingMinds website, which includes, for example, free and confidential, 24/7 access to digital peer support throughSide by Side. You are also encouraged to contact the researcher with any issues that may arise (using first Prolifics messaging tool as point of contact to preserve your anonymity).
Now that you know about the true purpose of the study?and?are fully informed, you may decide you do not want your data used in this research. On the next?page,?we will ask you for confirmation of your consent of your responses being shared anonymously. If you would like your data removed from the study and permanently deleted, thendo not consent.??
?
Please do not disclose any research procedures or hypotheses to anyone how might participate in this study in the future as this could affect the results of the study.??

If you have any questions and/or concerns, do not hesitate to contact one of the researchers listed below:

Dr Amlie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe (Principal Investigator and Research Supervisor) :amelie.gourdon-kanhukamwe@kcl.ac.uk
Serene George (Researcher):serene.george@kcl.ac.uk

consent_confirm We would like you to confirm whether or not you are willing for your data to be used for the purpose described to you at the start of the study. This is the last opportunity to withdraw from the study (because your responses are anonymous and so we would not know whose data to withdraw if you contacted us).

• I consent to having my data analysed alongside the data of other participants. (1)
• I wish to withdraw my data from this study. (2)

End of Block: debrief

Appendix D:Questionnaire 2

pisINFORMATION SHEET FOR PARTICIPANTS

Version Number 2: 03/06/23; Ethical Clearance Reference Number:HR/DP-22/23-35187

YOU MAY DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION SHEETHERE

Title of study

Workplace Experiences Part 1

Invitation Paragraph

I would like to invite you to participate in this research project which forms part of a multi-lab research. Before you decide whether you want to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what your participation will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.

What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the study isto better understand different workplace experiences. You will be asked to complete a few psychological questionnaires today, and to then complete a second (very brief) questionnaire about some of your actions in a few days time.

Why have I been invited to take part?

You have been approached to participate as many individuals are required. To take part you must be over 18 years of age, currently employed (not including self-employed) and based in the US or UK.

What will happen if I take part?

If you agree to take part, you will complete a first survey anonymously, today. First, you will provide some demographic information. Then, you will complete six psychological measures including 10 to 20 questions each (e.g., Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune, Most people are brave, 1 am very confident of my judgments). Thist first part of the study will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete.
After a few days (at least 7, but no more than 28), we will contact you and ask you to take part in the second part of the study. You will be presented again with participant information, as in this section, after which you will complete two measures, asking about some of your work behaviours in the last year, as well as about your well-being as an employee. This second part of the study will take you approximately 5 minutes.

Do I have to take part?

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in anyway. If you choose to take part you will be asked to provide your consent. To do this you will be asked to indicate that you have read and understood the information provided and that you consent to your anonymous data being used for the purposes explained.

You are free to withdraw at any point during completion of the survey, without having to give a reason: you can do so by simply closing your internet browser. Withdrawing from the study will not affect you in any way. Your last opportunity to withdraw your data will be after the debriefing: once you submit the survey, it will no longer be possible to withdraw from the study because the data will be fully anonymous. Please do not include any personal identifiable information in your responses.

If you decide to end the survey early but still wish to receive the full debriefing and any further information, you can contact any of the researchers listed at the end of this Participant Information Sheet.

Incentives

Participants will receive 2.50 for the first part of the study (and a further 1.10 for the second part of the study).

What are the possible risks of taking part?

There are no foreseeable risks other than possible discomfort in answering some questions, however you are encouraged to withdraw should you feel unable to continue. If you feel upset by the topics discussed during the study, you are encouraged to seek support: you can find information on support by visitingMinds website, which includes, for example, free and confidential, 24/7 access to digital peer support throughSide by Side. You are also encouraged to contact the researcher with any issues that may arise.

Data handling and confidentiality

This research is anonymous. This means that nobody, including the researchers, will be aware of your identity, and that nobody will be able to connect you to the answers you provide, even indirectly. Your answers will nevertheless be treated confidentially, and the information you provide will not allow you to be identified in any research outputs/publications. Your data will be held securely stored on a double authenticated OneDrive account.
Upon project completion, all the data you provide (including all demographic
information, but excluding any identifying information) will be openly shared online and
thus publicly accessible via the OSF (osf.io) where it will be permanently publicly available
for analysis, and for external examination and scrutiny.

Any personal data collected independently of the anonymous survey as described elsewhere in this information sheet will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). If you would like more information about how your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection laws please visit the link below:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/support/research-ethics/kings-college-london-statement-on-use-of-personal-data-in-research


What will happen to the results of the study?

The results of the study will be summarised in a research work by Dr Thomas Evans in University of Greenwich, written in collaboration with the current team and further collaborators from other universities.

Who should I contact for further information?

If you have any questions or require more information about this study, please contact me using the following contact details:

Dr Amlie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe (Principal Investigator and Research Supervisor) :amelie.gourdon-kanhukamwe@kcl.ac.uk
Serene George (Researcher):serene.george@kcl.ac.uk

What if I have further questions, or if something goes wrong?

If this study has harmed you in any way or if you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study you can contact King's College London using the details below for further advice and information:

The Chair, Health Faculties RESC (Purple),rec@kcl.ac.uk

Thank you for reading this information sheet and for considering taking part in this research.

End of Block: pis

Start of Block: icf

icf_introCONSENT FORM

Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet (above)

Title of Study:Workplace Experiences Part 1
King's College Research Ethics Committee Ref:HR/DP-22/23-35187

Thank you for considering taking part in this research. The person organising the research must explain the project to you before you agree to take part. If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you decide whether to join in.?

I confirm that I understand that by selecting each response below I am consenting to this element of the study. I understand that it will be assumed that unselected responses mean that I DO NOT consent to that part of the study. I understand that by not giving consent for any one element I will be deemed ineligible for the study and will not take part.

icf_1 I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated 03/06/20223 (Version 2) for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information and asked questions which have been answered to my satisfaction.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_2 I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this project and understand that I can refuse to take part.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_3 I understand that the data collected through the questionnaire is fully anonymous, and that therefore I will only be able to withdraw until I have submitted my questionnaire.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_4 I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes explained to me in the Information Sheet. I understand that such information will be handled under the terms of UK data protection law, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_5 I understand that my information may be subject to review by responsible individuals from the College for monitoring and audit purposes.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_6 I understand that confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained, and it will not be possible to identify me in any research outputs

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_7 I consent to my anonymised data being shared with third parties which are within the EU (University of Greenwich) as outlined in the participant information sheet.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_8 I consent to my anonymised data being published openly on the Open Science Framework, on servers which are both within and outside the EU, as outlined in the participant information sheet.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_9 I agree that the research team may use my data for future research and understand that any such use of identifiable data would be reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. (In such cases, as with this project, data would not be identifiable in any report).

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_10 I understand that I must not take part if I fall under the exclusion criteria as detailed in the information sheet and explained to me by the researcher.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_11 I understand that the information I have submitted will be published as a report.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

icf_12 I agree to the research team using Prolific systems to contact me between 7 and 28 days after my participation, to complete a second part of the study.

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

End of Block: icf

Start of Block: Demographic Questions

Q8 What is your sex?

• Male (1)
• Female (2)
• I do not wish to identify as either (3)

Q9 What is your age?

________________________________________________________________

Q10 In what country do you currently reside?

• UK - England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland (1)
• US - Any state in the US (2)
• Other (3)

Display This Question:

If Q10 = 1

Q11 With which of the following do you most strongly identify?

• Asian or Asian British (3)
• Black, African, Caribbean or Black British (4)
• White (1)
• Mixed or Multiple Groups (2)
• Other Group (5)

Display This Question:

If Q10 = 2

Q12 Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin?

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

Display This Question:

If Q10 = 2

Q13 With which of the following do you most strongly identify?

• American Indian or Alaska Native (1)
• Asian (2)
• Black or African American (3)
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (5)
• White (6)
• Two or more races (7)
• Other Group (8)

Q14 Are you currently a student in Higher Education (University)?

• Yes (1)
• No (2)

Display This Question:

If Q14 = 1

Q15 What year of study are you currently in?

• First Year (1)
• Second Year (2)
• Sandwich/Third Year in a 4-Year Degree (3)
• Final Year (4)

Display This Question:

If Q14 = 1

Q16 What is the field of your study? E.g. Psychology and Sociology

• ________________________________________________________________

Q17 Are you currently employed?

• I am Employed (1)
• I am self-employed or not employed (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Q17 = 2

Q18 Across all previous and current jobs, how many months of full-time work experience do you hold?


E.g. 0 or 12 or 120

Display This Question:

If If Across all previous and current jobs, how many months of full-time work experience do you hold? ... Text Response Is Greater Than 0

Q19 In what work type/industry is your current employment within?


E.g. healthcare, retail, administration, management, etc.

________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Demographic Questions

Start of Block: Lock

Q20 the following questions concern your beiiefs about job in general. They do not refer only to your present job.

	Disagree very much (1)	Disagree modestly (2)	Disagree slightly (3)	Agree slightly (4)	Agree modestly (5)	Agree very much (6)
A job is what you make of it. (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o
On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish. (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o
If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that gives it to you. (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o
If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it. (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck. (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. (8)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort. (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o
In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune. (11)	o	o	o	o	o	o
When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know. (12)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job. (13)	o	o	o	o	o	o
To make a lot of money you have to know the right people. (14)	o	o	o	o	o	o
It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs (15)	o	o	o	o	o	o
People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded. (16)	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do. (17)	o	o	o	o	o	o
The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck. (18)	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: Lock

Start of Block: Match

Q21 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

	Strongly disagree (1)	Disagree (2)	Somewhat disagree (3)	Neither agree nor disagree (4)	Somewhat agree (5)	Agree (6)	Strongly agree (7)
Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives. (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
One should take action only when sure it is morally right. (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Generally speaking, people wont work hard unless theyre forced to do so. (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
It is wise to flatter important people. (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. (11)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most people are brave. (12)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. (13)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. (14)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Honesty is the best policy in all cases. (15)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Barnum was very wrong when he said theres a sucker born every minute. (16)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most people are basically good and kind. (17)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight. (18)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
It is possible to be good in all respects. (20)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Most people forget more easily the death of a parent than the loss of their property. (21)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so. (22)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
There is no excuse for lying to someone else. (23)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest. (24)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: Match

Start of Block: SoDas

Q22 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements

	Strongly disagree (1)	Disagree (2)	Somewhat disagree (3)	Neither agree nor disagree (4)	Somewhat agree (5)	Agree (6)	Strongly agree (7)
I have not always been honest with myself. (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I always know why I like things. (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
It's hard for me to shut off a disturbing thought. (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I never regret my decisions. (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I sometimes lose out on things because I can't make up my mind soon enough. (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am a completely rational person. (8)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I am very confident of my judgments (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I have sometimes doubted my ability as a lover. (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I sometimes tell lies if I have to. (11)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I never cover up my mistakes. (12)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone. (13)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. (14)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back. (15)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening. (16)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I never take things that don't belong to me. (17)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
I don't gossip about other people's business (18)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: SoDas

Start of Block: QuaWor

Q23 Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it like most of the time?

	No (0)	? (1)	Yes (3)
Pleasant (1)	o	o	o
Bad (2)	o	o	o
Great (3)	o	o	o
Waste of time (4)	o	o	o
Good (5)	o	o	o
Undesirable (6)	o	o	o
Worthwhile (7)	o	o	o
Worse than most (8)	o	o	o
Acceptable (9)	o	o	o
Superior (10)	o	o	o
Better than most (11)	o	o	o
Disagreeable (12)	o	o	o
Makes me content (13)	o	o	o
Inadequate (14)	o	o	o
Excellent (15)	o	o	o
Rotten (16)	o	o	o
Enjoyable (17)	o	o	o
Poor (18)	o	o	o

End of Block: QuaWor

Start of Block: ManInf

Q24 To what extent do you believe your manager...

	Strongly Disagree (1)	Disagree (2)	Somewhat disagree (3)	Neither agree nor disagree (4)	Somewhat agree (5)	Agree (6)	Strongly Agree (7)
Listens to what employees have to say (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards (2)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Conducts their personal life in an ethical manner (3)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Has the best interests of employees in mind (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Makes fair and balanced decisions (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Can be trusted (6)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Discusses business ethics or values with employees (7)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics (8)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Defines success not just by results but also the way they are obtained (9)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
When making decisions, asks "what is the right thing to do?" (10)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: ManInf

Start of Block: PeerInf

Q25 In the past 12 months, I have personally seen or have first-hand knowledge of employees or managers in my work group...

	Never (1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(Almost) always (7)
Discriminating against employees (on the basis of age, race, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation, etc.) (1)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Engaging in (sexual) harassment or creating a hostile work environment (e.g. intimidation, racism, pestering, verbal abuse, and physical violence) (2)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Violating workplace health and safety rules or principles (3)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Violating employee wage, overtime, or benefits rules (4)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
Breaching employee privacy (5)	o	o	o	o	o	o	o

End of Block: PeerInf

Start of Block: ManCh

Q26 We want to ensure that all data we analyse is meaningful and accurately reflects engagement with the study content. In your honest opinion, should we use your data in our analyses of this study?

Your response to this will have no impact or consequences to you so please do be honest.

• Yes, do use my data (1)
• No, do NOT use my data (2)

End of Block: ManCh