Why Marshall
Leadership
Dean Geoffrey Garrett
Dean's Cabinet
Boards
Real-World Learning
Human Leadership
Tech Fluency
Global Opportunities
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Teaching + Innovation
Experiential Learning Center
Open Expression Statement
Programs
Undergraduate Programs
Admissions
Degrees
BS Business Administration (BUAD)
Business Emphases
BS Accounting (ACCT)
World Bachelor in Business (WBB)
BS Business of Cinematic Arts (BCA)
BS Artificial Intelligence for Business (BUAI)
Undergraduate Minors
Graduate Programs
MBA Programs
Full-Time MBA (FTMBA)
Executive MBA (EMBA)
Part-Time MBA (MBA.PM)
International MBA (IBEAR)
Online MBA (OMBA)
Specialized Masters
MS Business Administration (MSBUSAD)
MS Business Analytics (MSBA)
MS Entrepreneurship + Innovation (MSEI)
MS Finance (MSF)
MS Global Supply Chain Management (MSGSCM)
MS Marketing (MSMKT)
MS Social Entrepreneurship (MSSE)
Master of Business for Veterans (MBV)
Master of Management Studies (MMS)
Accounting Masters
Master of Accounting (MAcc)
Master of Business Taxation (MBT)
Master of Business Taxation for Working Professionals (MBT.WP)
PhD Program
Accounting
Data Sciences + Operations
Finance
Management + Organization
Marketing
Graduate Certificates
GC in Business Analytics
GC in Financial Analysis + Valuation
GC in Management Studies
GC in Marketing
GC in Optimization + Supply Chain Management
GC in Strategy + Management Consulting
GC in Sustainability + Business
GC in Technology Commercialization
GC in Library and Information Management – Online
Executive Education
Departments
Business Communication (BUCO)
Faculty
Data Sciences and Operations (DSO)
Finance + Business Economics (FBE)
Leventhal School of Accounting (ACCT)
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies (BAEP)
Management and Organization (MOR)
Marketing (MKT)
Institutes + Centers
Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute
Peter Arkley Institute for Risk Management
VanEck Digital Assets Initiative
Institute for Outlier Research in Business
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Incubate USC
Brittingham Social Enterprise Lab
Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making
Center for Effective Organizations
Center for Global Innovation
Center for Investment Studies
Initiative on Digital Competition
Trojan Network
Recruiting
Undergraduate
Graduate
Career Services
Giving + Support
Alumni Engagement + Resources
Student Organizations
Scott Wiltermuth researches how socio-environmental factors affect people’s reactions to unethical behavior and their likelihood of behaving unethically themselves. He also researches how interpersonal dynamics, such as synchrony and dominance, affect people’s willingness to cooperate with others. He has published papers in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and numerous other academic journals. His work has been reported in many media outlets, including: The Economist, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post. Previously, he worked in the airline industry as a strategy consultant.
Areas of Expertise
Course List
RESEARCH + PUBLICATIONS
This paper examines how people price the resale of durable goods in systematically biased ways. We show across four studies that the anchoring effect of durable goods’ prior sales prices on subsequent valuations is discontinuous at psychologically-salient round number reference points (e.g., $10,000 increments) because these numbers create qualitative differences in how people perceive values below them vs. values at/above them. Resellers set disproportionately larger subsequent prices when previous prices move from just below round-number thresholds (e.g., $349,000) to those at or just above these thresholds (e.g., $351,000). The findings show that buyers who pay a price just below a round number therefore may sacrifice money because they receive disproportionately less when reselling the good. Market forces only partially attenuate this pricing bias, but valuator experience seems to play moderating role. Archival data shows that home buyers who previously paid just under a $10,000 reference point subsequently listed their homes for about 1.8 percent (over $3700) less on average than did buyers selling comparable homes who previously paid at or above a round number threshold. This drop is observable controlling for home characteristics and the general relationship between previous and current prices. Three experimental studies looking at housing and used car markets replicate these findings, highlight the mechanism, and increase confidence in causality. Market mechanisms and the negotiation process attenuate discontinuities by about 30%, but lower initial listing prices persist to final sales prices. We find additional weak evidence suggesting valuator experience may attenuate intergenerational pricing bias.
Victims of many types of transgressions may delay voicing accusations of wrongdoing. Across seven studies and a within-paper meta-analysis, we examine whether these victims pay a social cost and, if so, how they can reduce it. We find that people perceive victims who delay (vs. do not delay) voicing accusations to have less psychological standing to accuse their transgressors. People therefore perceive such victims as lacking in integrity-based trustworthiness and, often, in benevolence-based trustworthiness as well. People consequently report greater intentions to avoid such victims, trust them less in an economic game with money at stake, and are less willing to hire them. The findings collectively highlight the difficulty that victims face in moving from silence to voice. We further draw on the triangle model of excuses (e.g., Schlenker, 1997) to identify attributions that attenuate the social cost of victims’ delayed accusations.
In this research, we challenge the belief that positive signals of morality always increase job candidates’ appeal to interviewers. In four experiments with both experienced and novice interviewers, we find that signals of the candidates’ morality interact with the nature of the industry such that candidates who send signals of morality are less likely to be selected for jobs in a morally tainted industry, compared to neutral candidates. Moderated mediation analyses indicate that this effect is driven by a perceived lack of job fit (Experiments 1 and 2). Results of Experiment 3 indicate that this moderation effect is limited to candidates who signal morality—candidates applying for jobs in morally tainted industries who signal immorality do not enjoy a competitive advantage over moral or morally neutral candidates. Finally, the framing of the organization, that is, whether critical aspects of the organization are presented as more morally or economically oriented, within morally tainted industries helps mitigate the penalizing effects interviewers put on candidates who signal their morality—a moral frame eliminates this negative effect whereas an economic frame does not (Experiment 4). Together, these studies indicate that a job candidate's morality is a complicated and important quality that can profoundly affect his/her ratings of hireability.
Management scholars have typically regarded the widespread instances of hypocrisy across business, religious, and political institutions to be motivated and strategic. We suggest, however, that hypocrisy may stem not only from people’s motivation to interpret and utilize information in a self-serving manner, but also from fundamental differences in people’s access to that information itself. More specifically, we present a multi-stage Theory of Ethical Accounting (TEA) that describes how this differential access to information, specifically about the self vs. others, can create an interrelated series of cognitive distortions in how people account for the same unethical behavior. TEA posits that such distortions can allow people to believe they are being fair and consistent when appraising the morality of the self and others, while actually being inconsistent in how they do so, and describes how this can ultimately make it harder to address not only hypocrisy but unethical behavior more broadly in organizations.
A single transgressor sometimes harms more than just 1 victim. We examine a previously undocumentedsocial cost of forgiving following these multiple-victim transgressions. We find that nonforgiving victimsbelieve that other victims who forgive the common transgressor make their decisions to withholdforgiveness appear ungenerous. Faced with this threat, nonforgiving victims report that other forgiving(vs. nonforgiving) victims have overclaimed their standing to forgive the common transgressor andconsequently perceive these forgiving victims as demonstrating a lack of benevolence toward them.Nonforgiving victims also perceive forgiving victims to have relatively little integrity. We test thesesocial costs of forgiving in the field and in the lab across 7 studies plus a meta-analysis of 5 of thosestudies. We also identify 1 route by which forgiving victims can attenuate the social costs they face: theycan affirm other victims’ decisions to withhold forgiveness