Response to Wright’s Analysis of When “Delayed” Integrity Occurs

Abstract

The author extends the conclusions made by Wright regarding why his student cheater chose to unmask himself. She argues that “delayed” integrity (i.e., confessing a dishonest act belatedly) cannot occur in the absence of felt guilt, and therefore, an understanding of antecedents to guilt are essential for predicting when delayed integrity will occur. In addition, the author highlights that “guilt triggers” are at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels, and thus, interventions aimed at motivating delayed integrity must also be at each of these levels. When one tries to describe how each of these interventions might be operationalized, three types of justice concerns emerge. This suggests that perhaps the most parsimonious explanation for when delayed integrity (or any positive work behavior) will occur is this: People will generally behave fairly and responsibly when they have experienced a community of justice ; therefore, a guilty conscience needs no accuser, but a justice-oriented community.