In the complex network of human relationships, choosing to show allegiance to someone often shapes decisions and actions. But what happens when loyalty to one friend extends to their connections?
New research from the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business explores how the quality and strength of one’s loyalty to another can be influenced by the willingness to support an indirect tie, even when the outsider has been accused of unethical behavior. The paper, “When Your Friend is My Friend: How Loyalty Prompts Support for Indirect Ties in Moral Dilemmas,” was published in Organization Science.
Angus Hildreth, assistant professor at the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, and Zachariah Berry, Ph.D. ’24, assistant professor of management and organization at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business, pursued the research because they were interested in understanding why certain people get away with wrongdoing over long periods of time.
“We were interested in why individuals like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and even those with no power, can get away with unethical behavior and why no one steps forward to blow the whistle,” Hildreth said. “It seems intuitive that loyalty might explain why close friends wouldn’t come forward, but it’s less obvious why those who aren’t directly connected to perpetrators wouldn’t step forward.”
The researchers surmised it might be because loyalty—or, more specifically, the obligations of loyalty to direct ties, such as colleagues and friends—might transfer through a person’s network to other ties, and that this might explain why indirect ties don’t raise an alarm.
The researchers found that the obligations of loyalty to friends transfer to indirect ties even if they’ve been accused of wrongdoing such as sexual harassment, theft, false advertising, fraud, bribery, plagiarism and dishonesty. This transfer occurs regardless of the wrongdoing type, or the strength of evidence presented against the accused. This finding challenges the prevailing assumption that loyalty only benefits direct ties and suggests a more expansive influence of loyalty within social networks.
Their findings are based on 11 studies involving 2,249 participants conducted over five years. In several studies, participants were presented with a situation in which one of their colleagues’ friends, whom they did not know, had been accused of sexual harassment. Participants were asked about the likelihood that they would verbally support the accused.
“One of the fascinating things we found was that this loyalty effect remained no matter how much evidence was presented supporting the allegation,” Berry said. “We tried increasing the evidence from a second accusation to video-taped evidence of the alleged crime and still found that loyalty increased support.”
One of the critiques with the early studies was the hypothetical nature of the scenarios, so Hildreth and Berry conducted a separate field study involving a college fraternity in which they recruited a “confederate”—a member of the frat—to administer the study.
The confederate requested support from the other frat members for an anonymous friend who had supposedly been accused of stealing funds from an organization on campus. Each member of the fraternity was asked to add their name to a petition in support of the confederate’s friend. Unbeknownst to the frat members, they each received a different petition to ensure that they would be the second signatory on the petition (the confederate was first) if they chose to sign.
Hildreth said this was to reduce “social proof” concerns—the chance that members might sign only if they’d seen that several others had.
The researchers believe their work reveals important practical implications for preventing and managing unethical behavior in the workplace.
“Most organizations are aware that loyalty is this double-edged sword,” Berry said. “On the one hand organizational loyalty helps organizations attract, retain and motivate employees, but on the other hand, personal loyalties can get in the way of organizations making efficient and fair decisions.”
“Organizations probably aren’t aware that others’ loyal obligations may also bias decision-making,” Hildreth said. “For example, if you know your boss is a Cornell alumnus and one of the applicants your company is considering is also from Cornell, how does that factor into your decision-making, even if you have no connection to Cornell?”
More information:
Zachariah Berry et al, When Your Friend is My Friend: How Loyalty Prompts Support for Indirect Ties in Moral Dilemmas, Organization Science (2024). DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2023.18003
Provided by
Cornell University
Citation:
Loyalty influences support for indirect ties in moral dilemmas, study finds (2024, October 2)
