How Everyday Counterfeit Behavior That Disrupts Self Authenticity Might Lead to Corruption Tendencies

References

• Rosenstand CAF, Gertsen F, Vesti H. A definition and a conceptual framework of digital disruption. Proceedings of the XXIX ISPIM Innovation Conference - Innovation, The Name of The Game; June 17-20 2018; Stockholm, Sweden: ISPIM; 2018. Available from: https://vbn.aau.dk/files/287480228/A_definition_and_a_conceptual_framework_of_digital_disruption.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Millar C, Lockett M, Ladd T. Disruption: technology, innovation and society. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;129:254–260. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilkki K, Mäntylä M, Karhu K, Hämmäinen H, Ailisto H. A disruption framework. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;129:275–284. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamble P. Coping with IT disruptions - with Behavioral IT® skills. Proceedings of National e-Conference 2020 on The Role of Management Practices in Business Sustainability in an Era of Technology Disruptions; Gujarat, India: IJSRSET; 2020. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3715359.
   Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Park KF. Incumbent adaptation to technological change: the past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. Acad Manag Ann. 2018;12(1):357–389. doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riemer K. How we adapt to digital disruption. The University of Sydney; 2017. Available from: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/10/04/how-we-adapt-to-digital-disruption-.html#uniqueId_cqDpYbbg_0_button. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Schade EC, Voracek M, Tran US. The nexus of the dark triad personality traits with cyberbullying, empathy, and emotional intelligence: a structural-equation modeling approach. Front Psychol. 2021;12:659282. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juneman J. Pencegahan dan penanggulangan penyalahgunaan napza dengan pendekatan psikologi sosial [Drug abuse prevention and control with social psychology approach]. Psikol Plus. 2009;4(3):61–78.
   Google Scholar
• Keen A. The Internet is Not the Answer. London, UK: Atlantic Books Ltd; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Wognum N, Wever M, Stjepandić J. Managing risks in knowledge exchange: trade-offs interdependencies. In: Borsato M, editor. Transdisciplinary Engineering: Crossing Boundaries (Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering Ebook, Volume 4). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press; 2016:15–24. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-703-0-15
   Google Scholar
• Chesney R, Citron DK. Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. Cal L Rev. 2019;107:1753–1820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahr D, DeBella T. Tech brings authentication challenges in ad and IP cases. Law360; 2019. Available from: https://www.law360.com/articles/1135347/tech-brings-authentication-challenges-in-ad-and-ip-cases. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• FranklinCovey. Counterfeiting your culture. FranklinCovey; 2018. Available from: https://resources.franklincovey.com/mkt-sotv1/counterfeiting-your-culture. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Green C. Books we trust: the speed of trust. Social Media Today; 2011. Available from: https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/books-we-trust-speed-trust. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• FranklinCovey. The speed of trust®: building strong teams and relationships at work - toolkit. FranklinCovey; 2011. Available from: https://support.liveclicks.com/cc_files/ex/misc_resources/relationshipTrustToolkit.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• FranklinCovey. Achieving new results in a new reality. FranklinCovey; 2020. Available from: https://www.franklincovey.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/unpredictable__new_AchievingANewReality_.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Takwin B, Suleeman J. Counterfeit self: a confirmatory factor analysis among Indonesians. Kasetsart J Soc Sci. 2018;39(3):518–525. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2017.07.011
   Google Scholar
• Frost SA. Frost’s Laws and By-Laws of American Society. Germany: Salzwasser Verlag GmbH; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Suleeman J, Takwin B. The psychology of corruption: the role of the counterfeit self, entity self-theory, and outcome-based ethical mindset. J Psychol Educ Res. 2018;26(2):7–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaloznaya M. The social psychology of corruption: why it does not exist and why it should. Sociol Compass. 2014;8(2):187–202. doi:10.1111/soc4.12120
   Google Scholar
• Behera NK. The different types of corruption. India Study Channel; 2014. Available from: http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/138785-Thedifferent-types-Corruption.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Moore C. Psychological processes in organizational corruption. In: De Cremer D, editor. Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making. North Carlina, US: Information Age Publishing, Inc; 2009:35–71.
   Google Scholar
• Furukawa Y, Nakashima K, Tsukawaki R, Morinaga Y. Guilt as a signal informing us of a threat to our morality. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:2122–2132. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-0144-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin E. A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th ed. New York, US: McGraw-Hill; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Pea AG. Can proneness to moral emotions detect corruption? The mediating role of ethical judgment based on unified ethics. Kasetsart J Soc Sci. 2020;41(1):152–159. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.013
   Google Scholar
• Cohen TR, Wolf ST, Panter AT, Insko CA. Introducing the GASP scale: a new measure of guilt and shame proneness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100(5):947–966. doi:10.1037/a0022641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino F, Norton MI, Ariely D. The counterfeit self: the deceptive costs of faking it. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(5):712–720. doi:10.1177/0956797610366545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoll M, Lord RG, Petersen LE, Weigelt O. Examining the moral grey zone: the role of moral disengagement, authenticity, and situational strength in predicting unethical managerial behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2015;46(1):65–78. doi:10.1111/jasp.12353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolorow R. Toward greater authenticity: from shame to existential guilt, anxiety, and grief. Int J Psychoanal Self Psychol. 2011;6(2):285–287. doi:10.1080/15551024.2011.552411
   Google Scholar
• Chandran N. South Korea’s Park swept up in political storm. CNBC; 2015. Available from: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/17/south-koreas-park-swept-up-in-political-storm.html. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce C. Japan minister’s suicide over corruption inquiry. Telegraph; 2007. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552942/Japan-ministers-suicide-over-corruption-inquiry.html. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshida R. How Japanese tax-payers’ money is lost in Bid-rigging. The Japan Times; 2007. Available from: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/07/03/reference/how-japanese-tax-payers-money-is-lost-in-bid-rigging/. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Gunawan H. Moral emotions, income sufficiency, family self-sufficiency, and selflessness. Proceedings of SGEM2014 Proceedings (Book 1, Vol. 1, 241–248); Sofia, Bulgaria: STEF92 Technology Ltd; 2014. doi:10.5593/sgemsocial2014/B11/S1.032.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Pane MM. Corruptive tendencies, conscientiousness, and collectivism. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;153:132–147. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.048
   Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Suleeman J, Takwin B. Psychological mechanism of corruption: a comprehensive review. Asian J Sci Res. 2018;11(4):587–604. doi:10.3923/ajsr.2018.587.604
   Google Scholar
• Tracy JL, Robins RW, Tangney JP. The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research. New York, US: Guilford Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Moore C, Detert JR, Klebe Treviño L, Baker VL, Mayer DM. Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Pers Psychol. 2012;65(1):1–48. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detert JR, Treviño LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(2):374–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist J, Feist GJ. Theories of Personality. 7th ed. New York, US: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Wood AM, Linley PA, Maltby J, Baliousis M, Joseph S. The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. J Couns Psychol. 2008;55(3):385–399. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK. Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2000;9(1):26–29. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JF, Connelly S. Moral disengagement and ethical decision-making: the moderating role of trait guilt and shame. J Pers Psychol. 2016;15(4):184–189. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page TE, Pina A, Giner-Sorolla R. “It was only harmless banter!”: the development and preliminary validation of the moral disengagement in sexual harassment scale. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(3):254–273. doi:10.1002/ab.21621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman GE, Bloom P, Knobe J. Value judgments and the true self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40(2):203–216. doi:10.1177/0146167213508791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino F, Kouchaki M, Galinsky AD. The moral virtue of authenticity: how inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(7):983–996. doi:10.1177/0956797615575277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid PF. Authenticity: the person as his or her own author - dialogical and ethical perspectives on therapy as an encounter relationship - and beyond. In: Wyatt G, editor. Rogers’ Therapeutic Conditions: Evolution, Theory and Practice (Vol. 1: Congruence. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books; 2001:217–232.
   Google Scholar
• Kernis MH, Goldman BM. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;38:283–357. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae G. Alienation, authenticity and the self. Hist Hum Sci. 2010;23(4):21–36. doi:10.1177/0952695110375763
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman GE, De Freitas J, Knobe J. Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cogn Sci. 2015;39(1):96–125. doi:10.1111/cogs.12134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark GL. The anatomy of corruption: the practice of pension fund trustee decisionmaking. Environ Plan a Econ Space. 1998;30(7):1235–1253. doi:10.1068/a301235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber M. Consciousness and rationality. In: Weber M, Weekes A, editors. Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind. New York, US: SUNY Press; 2009:345–386.
   Google Scholar
• Chiou WB, Wan PH, Wan CS. A new look at software piracy: soft lifting primes an inauthentic sense of self, prompting further unethical behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2012;70(2):107–115. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amankwah-Amoah J, Antwi-Agyei I, Zhang H. Integrating the dark side of competition into explanations of business failures: evidence from a developing economy. Eur Manage Rev. 2017;15(1):97–109. doi:10.1111/emre.12131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor A. The next generation: technology adoption and integration through internal competition in new product development. Organ Sci. 2010;21(1):23–41. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer T. Can we ever kill silo thinking? (Likely not.). The Context of Things; 2017. Available from: https://thecontextofthings.com/2017/07/27/silo-thinking/. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Ballor JJ. Plagiarism in a digital age. J Mark Moral. 2014;17(2):349–352.
   Google Scholar
• Macnamara J. Toward a theory and practice of organizational listening. Int J List. 2017;32(1):1–23. doi:10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076
   Google Scholar
• Anton C. Technology, hypocrisy and morality: where, oh where, has all the hypocrisy gone? Explor Media Ecol. 2018;17(2):119–135. doi:10.1386/eme.17.2.119_1
   Google Scholar
• Kotekar V. A study of deviant workplace behavior and withdrawal intentions in education sector. Arts Educ Int Res J. 2017;4(1):67–72.
   Google Scholar
• Wiseman R. Queen Bees & Wannabes. 3rd ed. New York, US: Harmony; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Malone P, Hayes J. Backstabbing in organizations: employees’ perceptions of incidents, motives, and communicative responses. Commun Stud. 2012;63(2):194–219. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.635552
   Google Scholar
• McKenna E. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. 6th ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Ferro MJ, Martins HF. Academic plagiarism: yielding to temptation. Br J Educ Soc Behav Sci. 2016;13(1):1–11. doi:10.9734/BJESBS/2016/20535
   Google Scholar
• Taylor DG. Plagiarism in the digital world. Luxemburg: Sacred Heart University; 2016. Available from: https://www.shu.lu/plagiarism-digital-world/. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Statt N. Fuckjerry founder apologizes for stealing jokes and pledges to get creator permission. The Verge; 2019. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/2/18208446/fuckjerry-elliot-tebele-meme-joke-aggregator-repost-new-policy-change. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Howard RM, Watson M. The scholarship of plagiarism: where we’ve been, where we are, what’s needed next. Writing Prog Adm. 2010;33(3):116–124.
   Google Scholar
• McCornack S. Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication. 2nd ed. Massachusetts, US: Bedford/St. Martin’s; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Wood JT. Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. 8th ed. Massachusetts, US: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Pearse M, Dunwoody M. Learning That Never Ends: Qualities of a Lifelong Learner. Maryland, US: R&L Education; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen J. Listen like you mean it. HuffPost; 2015. Available from: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/listen-like-you-mean-it_b_6136092. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Hargie O. Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice. 6th ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2011. DOI:10.4324/9781315741901
   Google Scholar
• Bariso J. Elon Musk tries to avoid having meetings at Tesla - and encourages people to leave if they’re not adding any value. Insider; 2020. Available from: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-3-rules-running-better-meetings-like-having-less-2019-8?IR=T. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Leheney M. The people side of leadership: an overlooked opportunity. Public Manager. 2008;37(2):15–18.
   Google Scholar
• Encyclopaedia Britannica. Pancasila. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc; 2021. Available from https://www.britannica.com/topic/New-Nationalism. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• BBC Indonesia. Sidang perdana, Ratu Atut tidak ajukan nota keberatan [First trial, Ratu Atut did not file a note of objection]. BBC Indonesia; 2014. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2014/05/140506_ratuatut_sidang_perdana. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Djohan M. Ratu Atut kerap sibuk kampanye antikorupsi dan agama [Ratu Atut is often busy with anti-corruption and religious campaigns]. Tempo.co; 2013. Available from: https://foto.tempo.co/read/10392/ratu-atut-kerap-sibuk-kampanye-antikorupsi-dan-agama. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Firdaus F. Suryadharma Ali divonis 6 tahun penjara [Suryadharma Ali sentenced to 6 years in prison]. Rappler; 2016. Available from: https://r3.rappler.com/indonesia/118621-vonis-suryadharma-ali-kasus-haji. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Ibrahim IS. Dunia simbolik dan Gaya hidup dalam beragama: Dari ideologisasi ke komersialisasi spiritualitas [The symbolic world and lifestyle in religion: from ideological to commercialization of spirituality]. Mediator. 2002;3(1):25–30. doi:10.29313/mediator.v3i1.745
   Google Scholar
• Wollschleger J, Beach L. A cucumber for a cow: a theoretical exploration of the causes and consequences of religious hypocrisy. Rational Soc. 2011;23(2):155–174. doi:10.1177/1043463111404673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abranches A. Can hypocrisy be a virtue? Hume on the morality of princes. Ethics Politics Soc. 2019;2:139–154. doi:10.21814/eps.2.1.89
   Google Scholar
• McDermott ML, Schwartz D, Vallejo S. Talking the talk but not walking the walk: public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. Am Politics Res. 2015;43(6):952–974. doi:10.1177/1532673X15577830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graafland J. Religiosity, attitude, and the demand for socially responsible products. J Bus Ethics. 2017;144(1):121–138. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2796-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck E, Poels K, Walrave M. Older and wiser? Facebook use, privacy concern, and privacy protection in the life stages of emerging, young, and middle adulthood. Soc Media Soc. 2015;1(2):1–11. doi:10.1177/2056305115616149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akkuş A. Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes toward science. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2019;6(4):706–720. doi:10.21449/ijate.548516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Berline R. An investigation on organizational charlatan behaviour and moral identity as predictors of shame: importance for education. J Educ Learn. 2015;9(2):135–144. doi:10.11591/edulearn.v9i2.1535
   Google Scholar
• Howard SJ, Ehrich JF, Walton R. Measuring students’ perceptions of plagiarism: modification and Rasch validation of a plagiarism attitude scale. J Appl Meas. 2014;15(4):372–393.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stinson B. Fake listening. Barney Stinson Blog; 2013. Available from: https://www.barneystinsonblog.com/fake-listening/. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Listen and lead. Fake listening. Listen and lead; 2008. Available from: https://jobspage.typepad.com/listenandlead/2008/11/fake-listening.html. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Drollinger T, Comer LB, Warrington P. Development and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychol Mark. 2006;23(2):161–180. doi:10.1002/mar.20105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber S, Huber OW. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions. 2012;3(3):710–724. doi:10.3390/rel3030710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann W, Wisneski DC, Brandt MJ, Skitka LJ. Morality in everyday life. Science. 2014;345(6202):1340–1343. doi:10.1126/science.1251560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey A. Reframing plagiarism in Academia 4.0. Proceedings of 18th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, ECRM; Johannesburg, South Africa: ACPIL; 2019. doi:10.34190/RM.19.068.
   Google Scholar
• Wanschers MEA. Toward ‘industry 4.0’ and team effectiveness: best practices of employees of a transitioning organisation [thesis]. Enschede, Netherlands: Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente; 2018. Available from: http://essay.utwente.nl/75928/1/Wanschers_BA_BMS.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Kuipers G, Franssen T, Holla S. Clouded judgments? Aesthetics, morality and everyday life in early 21st century culture. Eur J Cult Stud. 2019;22(4):383–398. doi:10.1177/1367549419861634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White GM. Affecting culture: emotion and morality in everyday life. In: Kitayama S, Markus HR, editors. Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1994:219–239. doi:10.1037/10152-006
   Google Scholar
• Mullen E, Monin B. Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67(1):363–385. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellemers N, van der Toorn J, Paunov Y, van Leeuwen T. The psychology of morality: a review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2019;23(4):332–366. doi:10.1177/1088868318811759
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Simone S. The affective component of workplace in organizational behavior studies. Am Int J Contemp Res. 2014;4(9):38–43.
   Google Scholar
• de Vries MF. A tale of two organizations: creating the authentizotic organization INSEAD Working Paper No. 2017/64/EFE; 2017. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3045179.
   Google Scholar
• Baron P. A cybernetic approach to contextual teaching and learning. Constr Found. 2016;12(1):91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesenbichler KS, Selenko E, Clarke G. Perceptions of corruption: an empirical study controlling for survey bias. J Interdiscip Econ. 2018;30(1):55–77. doi:10.1177/0260107917723787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsky A. Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: a review and theory development. J Bus Ethics. 2008;81(1):63–81. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9481-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ordóñez LD, Welsh DT. Immoral goals: how goal setting may lead to unethical behavior. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;6:93–96. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey H. A comparison of the social-adaptive perspective and functionalist perspective on guilt and shame. Behav Sci. 2017;7(4):83. doi:10.3390/bs7040083
   PubMedGoogle Scholar