Abstract

Public comments criticizing the honesty and trustworthiness of Professionals in Finance (PIFs) are commonly seen as a way to motivate them towards engaging in more socially responsible business practices. However, the link between public views of this professional group, the self-views of individual group members, and their motivation to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities has not been empirically examined. In this research, we draw on Social Identity Theory (SIT) and the Behavioral Regulation Model for social evaluation (BRM) to examine how the self-views of individual group members relate to perceived characteristics of their professional group, indicating Competence and Morality. In two studies (N = 123, 191) we examined whether the self-views of high-profile and general PIFs are affected by other people's perceptions of the honesty and trustworthiness of this professional group. The results offer support for our reasoning derived from SIT and the BRM. In both studies, we first demonstrate that public concerns about the group's lack of honesty and trustworthiness impact on the moral self-views of financial professionals. Subsequently, we employ an experimental design to reveal that reinforcing moral criticism leveled at the group only reduces the motivation of individual group members to engage in CSR activities, while group-level moral affirmation enhances this motivation. The results of both studies converge to demonstrate how public critique on the moral behavior of their professional group relates to the self-views and behavioral motives of PIFs. We consider the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.