Bläße , Louisa Felici as
A icle
Implici measu emen o he mo al sel -image using he Go/No-Go
Associa ion Task (GNAT): An empi ical in es iga ion o he con e gen
alidi y be ween explici and implici measu es
Junio Managemen Science (JUMS)
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Junio Managemen Science e. V.
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Bläße , Louisa Felici as (2025) : Implici measu emen o he mo al sel -image
using he Go/No-Go Associa ion Task (GNAT): An empi ical in es iga ion o he con e gen alidi y
be ween explici and implici measu es, Junio Managemen Science (JUMS), ISSN 2942-1861, Junio
Managemen Science e. V., Planegg, Vol. 10, Iss. 4, pp. 966-984,
h ps://doi.o g/10.5282/jums/ 10i4pp966-984
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/334184
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984
Junio Managemen Science
www.jums.academy
ISSN: 2942-1861
Edi o :
DOMINIK VAN AAKEN
Ad iso y Edi o ial Boa d:
FREDERIK AHLEMANN
JAN-PHILIPP AHRENS
THOMAS BAHLINGER
MARKUS BECKMANN
SULEIKA BORT
ROLF BRÜHL
KATRIN BURMEISTER-LAMP
CATHERINE CLEOPHAS
NILS CRASSELT
BENEDIKT DOWNAR
KERSTIN FEHRE
MATTHIAS FINK
DAVID FLORYSIAK
GUNTHER FRIEDL
MARTIN FRIESL
FRANZ FUERST
WOLFGANG GÜTTEL
NINA KATRIN HANSEN
ANNE KATARINA HEIDER
CHRISTIAN HOFMANN
SVEN HÖRNER
STEPHAN KAISER
NADINE KAMMERLANDER
ALFRED KIESER
ALEKSANDRA KLEIN
NATALIA KLIEWER
DODO ZU KNYPHAUSEN-AUFSESS
SABINE T. KÖSZEGI
ARJAN KOZICA
CHRISTIAN KOZIOL
MARTIN KREEB
WERNER KUNZ
HANS-ULRICH KÜPPER
MICHAEL MEYER
JÜRGEN MÜHLBACHER
GORDON MÜLLER-SEITZ
J. PETER MURMANN
ANDREAS OSTERMAIER
BURKHARD PEDELL
ARTHUR POSCH
MARCEL PROKOPCZUK
TANJA RABL
SASCHA RAITHEL
NICOLE RATZINGER-SAKEL
ASTRID REICHEL
KATJA ROST
THOMAS RUSSACK
FLORIAN SAHLING
MARKO SARSTEDT
ANDREAS G. SCHERER
STEFAN SCHMID
UTE SCHMIEL
CHRISTIAN SCHMITZ
MARTIN SCHNEIDER
MARKUS SCHOLZ
LARS SCHWEIZER
DAVID SEIDL
THORSTEN SELLHORN
STEFAN SEURING
VIOLETTA SPLITTER
ANDREAS SUCHANEK
TILL TALAULICAR
ANN TANK
ANJA TUSCHKE
MATTHIAS UHL
CHRISTINE VALLASTER
PATRICK VELTE
CHRISTIAN VÖGTLIN
BARBARA E. WEISSENBERGER
ISABELL M. WELPE
HANNES WINNER
THOMAS WRONA
THOMAS ZWICK
Volume 10, Issue 4, Decembe 2025
JUNIOR
MANAGEMENT
SCIENCE
Ma ie-Clai e Joyeaux,Wo k Less, Li e Mo e? The Impac o an
In oduc ion o he Fou -Day Wo king Week on
Happiness in he Con ex o he Icelandic Fou -Day
Wo king Week Expe imen
Niklas Janßen, In eg a ing Sus ainabili y in Risk Managemen
and In e nal Con ol Sys ems: An Empi ical
Assessmen o ESG Repo ing o Ge man DAX40 Fi ms
Tobias Kese ü,A New Dimension o T anspa ency: ESG
Disclosu e and I s E ec on Sha eholde Beha io
An onia Engel, ESG Regula ion Ac oss he Globe: Does ESG
Regula ion Pay O ?
Finn Ma hes Gooßen, The Impac o Female Boa d Membe s
on ESG Pe o mance: An Empi ical Analysis
Louisa Felici as Bläße , Implici Measu emen o he Mo al
Sel -Image Using he Go/No-Go Associa ion Task
(GNAT) - An Empi ical In es iga ion o he Con e gen
Validi y Be ween Explici and Implici Measu es
Lau a Wi edu, Who Bea s he Cos s o he UK So D ink Tax?
An Empi ical S udy o Medium-Te m E ec s
Thiemo Janßen, F om Pic u es o Pe cep ions: Explo ing he
S a egic Use o Visuals in CSR Repo s and he Impac
o Regula o y Manda es
Vanessa Jeske, De e minan s o Co po a e Bond Mu ual Fund
Flows
Felix Yumuşak, The In luence o Leade ship S yle on he
Accep ance o Gene a i e AI in he Wo kplace -The
Role o O ganiza ional Commi men , Job Insecu i y
and In e ac ion F equency
831
858
876
904
940
966
985
1009
1028
1053
Published by Junio Managemen Science e.V.
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he CC-BY-4.0
(A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional). Open Access unding p o ided by ZBW.
ISSN: 2942-1861
Implici Measu emen o he Mo al Sel -Image Using he Go/No-Go
Associa ion Task (GNAT) - An Empi ical In es iga ion o he
Con e gen Validi y Be ween Explici and Implici Measu es
Louisa Felici as Bläße
Technical Uni e si y o Munich
Abs ac
While people a e inc easingly awa e o clima e change, many s ill esis li es yle changes. Resea ch now ocuses on unde -
s anding conscious (explici ) and unconscious (implici ) a i udes o encou age sus ainable beha io . This hesis used he
Go/No-Go Associa ion Task (GNAT) o measu e pa icipan s’ implici mo al sel -image and examine i s co ela ion wi h an
explici mo al sel -image ques ionnai e, indica ing con e gen alidi y and e ec i e applica ion o he GNAT as an implici
measu e o he mo al sel -image. A e applying exclusion c i e ia, 68 pa icipan s we e andomly assigned o wo g oups
wi h di e en wo d lis s. Resul s showed ha epea ed exposu e o ewe wo ds in g oup A led o li le o no co ela ion,
while g oup B, using mo e a ied wo ds, showed highe co ela ion and good con e gen alidi y. This demons a es ha
he GNAT e ec i ely measu es mo al sel -image when lea ning e ec s a e a oided. The indings o e insigh s in o implici
a i udes ha in luence decisions and yield p ac ical implica ions o di e en s akeholde s. This hesis con ibu es h ough
i s expe imen al design, adap ed exclusion c i e ia, and sample co ec ion o all pe ec esponses, alida ing he GNAT as an
implici measu e and o e ing a ounda ion o u u e esea ch.
Keywo ds: con e gen alidi y; explici measu es; go/no-go associa ion ask (GNAT); implici measu es; mo al sel -image
1. In oduc ion
Ha e you e e o de ed some hing online, used non-
ecyclable packaging, chosen a non-o ganic p oduc , no
sepa a ed ood was e app op ia ely, o a eled by plane?
The answe is likely yes, as we ace many sus ainable deci-
sions daily. Unsus ainable beha io is pe cei ed as immo al,
as people a e inc easingly awa e o hei impac on clima e
change (Sachde a e al., 2015). Bu why do people engage
in unsus ainable and, consequen ly, immo al beha io s?
I would like o hank Kon ad Kobe , my Bachelo ’s hesis supe iso , o
his dedica ed suppo , con inuous encou agemen , and cons uc i e eed-
back h oughou he du a ion o his hesis. I am especially g a e ul o
his aluable assis ance and expe ise in he expe imen al design. Addi-
ionally, I would like o hank P o . D . Alwine Mohnen om he Chai o
Co po a e Managemen a he Technical Uni e si y o Munich o se ing
as my examine .
The e has been an inc easing ocus on unde s anding he
psychological d i e s ha mo i a e immo al beha io in he
las decades, especially wi h he in ensi ying global clima e
c isis (Sachde a e al., 2015). The ul ima e goal is o use his
knowledge o nudge people u he in o being mo e sus ain-
able (Fische e al., 2012; Sachde a e al., 2015). The e o e,
i is essen ial o unde s and why people beha e immo ally
and how people’s mo ali y can be measu ed.
T adi ional explici measu es o en all sho o cap u ing
he pe cep ion o people’s mo al sel es. Social desi abili y bi-
ases in luence he answe s gi en in such sel - epo ques ion-
nai es (C owne & Ma lowe, 1960). In ecen decades, a i-
ous implici measu es ha e been de eloped o measu e un-
conscious a i udes. The mos amous me hod is he Implici
Associa ion Tes (IAT), which was u he de eloped in o he
Go/No-Go Associa ion Task (GNAT). P e ious esea ch has
al eady implici ly assessed he mo al sel -image (pe cep ion
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5282/jums/ 10i4pp966-984
© The Au ho (s) 2025. Published by Junio Managemen Science.
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he CC-BY-4.0
(A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional). Open Access unding p o ided by ZBW.
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 967
o one’s own mo ali y) wi h he IAT, yielding p omising e-
sul s (Pe ugini & Leone, 2009). Howe e , li le esea ch has
been de o ed o he GNAT, and i has only been used once o
cap u e he mo al sel -image (Fe guson, 2018).
This bachelo ’s hesis uses he GNAT o measu e he im-
plici mo al sel -image and o examine he con e gen a-
lidi y ( he abili y o wo measu es o cap u e a join con-
s uc (Ca lson & He dman, 2012)) o his implici measu e-
men me hod by co ela ing i wi h an explici mo al sel -
image ques ionnai e. I aims o answe he ollowing e-
sea ch ques ion: “To wha ex en can he Go/No-Go Asso-
cia ion Task (GNAT) be e ec i ely applied o measu e mo al
sel -image, and is he e a co ela ion be ween he ou comes
o his me hod and he explici mo al sel -image?”
The iming o his esea ch is c ucial, as i aligns wi h
he g owing in e es in sus ainable p ac ices and he need
o deepen he unde s anding o he in e nal, implici mo i-
a ions behind a beha io change (Maza & Zhong, 2010;
Sachde a e al., 2015; Schlegelmilch & Simb unne , 2019).
Applying implici psychological es s, such as he GNAT, o
consume beha io o ma ke ing s a egies opens up a new
ield o esea ch. These measu es imp o e he assessmen o
implici a i udes owa d p oduc s o b ands because he im-
plici es p ocedu es a e based on less biased, unconscious
answe s and eac ions and, he e o e, a e e y aluable o
subsequen analyses. An e ec i e and alida ed ool o de-
e mine people’s mo al sel -image could p o ide essen ial in-
sigh s o di e en s akeholde s o in luence consume s o-
wa d mo e sus ainable and mo al choices.
This hesis is s uc u ed as ollows:
Chap e 1b ie ly in oduces he opic and aim o his he-
sis. Chap e 2 e iews cu en esea ch li e a u e, p esen -
ing heo ies o mo al beha io , impo an de ini ions, and
measu emen me hods, leading in o Chap e 3, which co -
e s he me hodology and de ailed esea ch design o he pe -
o med GNAT expe imen . Chap e s 4and 5p esen he
compelling esul s and elabo a e on he expe imen ’s key
indings, discussing i s limi a ions, sugges ions o u u e e-
sea ch, and implica ions o p ac i ione s in managemen and
policy. Chap e 6p o ides a comp ehensi e summa y o he
main indings o he expe imen , e lec ing on he esea ch’s
signi icance.
2. Theo e ical Backg ound
A wide ange o heo ies a e ying o explain why peo-
ple beha e immo ally. The a ional economic model expec s
people o beha e immo ally whene e hei po en ial gain
exceeds hei expec ed punishmen since i is he bes choice
economically (Becke , 1968). Following his easoning, peo-
ple should beha e immo ally e e y ime hey could po en-
ially gain mo e han hey would lose. In con as , i can
be obse ed ha people in insically limi hei immo ali y
and a oid oo much lying i i h ea ens hei pe cep ion o
hei own mo ali y (mo al sel -image) (Maza e al., 2008;
Sachde a e al., 2009). I appea s ha he idea o an en-
i ely a ional pe son (e.g., homo economicus (Melé & Can-
ón, 2014)) does no apply o mos people and si ua ions.
Ins ead, an in e nal o ce seems o es ic people om ex-
ploi ing he po en ial bene i s o chea ing o i s ull ex en
(Co nelissen e al., 2013; Maza e al., 2008).
I becomes e iden ha people ace an in e nal con lic
whene e hey ha e an oppo uni y o chea (Ba kan e al.,
2015; Maza e al., 2008). This e hical dissonance is a s a e
o ension ha occu s when people a e ei he emp ed o ben-
e i om hei immo al beha io o o uphold a posi i e mo al
sel -image, also known as mo al sel -concep 1(Maza e al.,
2008). Fes inge (1957) desc ibes his s a e as cogni i e dis-
sonance and a gues ha i s p esence mo i a es people o sub-
sequen ac ion, which educes his dissonance. People de el-
oped di e en s a egies o engage in immo al beha io o e-
sol e his in e nal con lic and dis essing s a e, pa icula ly
wi hou upda ing (and dep essing) hei mo al sel -image.
E ikson (1964) explains his mo i a ing o ce as he in-
insic need o people o ac acco ding o hei (mo al)
iden i y. Resea che s in e p e mo al iden i y, de ined as
“ he use o mo al alues o de ine he sel ” (Johns on e al.,
2013, p. 209), as a mode a o and mo i a ional d i e o ac
mo ally (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1993; E ikson, 1964).
The ollowing sec ion will in oduce di e en heo ies
ha in es iga e why people beha e immo ally.
2.1. Mo al Theo ies
2.1.1. Sel -Concep Main enance
Maza e al. (2008) p opose a heo y o sel -concep main-
enance. They a gue ha people y o balance main aining
an hones sel -concep and gaining om lying. Acco ding o
Maza e al. (2008), people would chea o a ce ain ex en as
long as hey do no need o upda e hei mo al sel -concep
(o being hones ). This comp omise allows hem o bene-
i om chea ing wi hou nega i ely impac ing hei mo al
sel -image. The au ho s also sugges ha people use di e -
en echniques o decide on his mo i a ional dilemma and
o de e mine he deg ee o which chea ing aligns wi h hei
mo al sel .
A powe ul echnique is, o ins ance, sel -se ing jus i i-
ca ion (Shal i e al., 2015). I sugges s ha people would y
o ind easons o ques ionable beha io o make i seem less
immo al when hei mo al sel -image is h ea ened. Shal i
e al. (2015) dis inguish be ween p e- iola ion jus i ica ion
(be o e he immo al ac ion) and pos - iola ion jus i ica ion
(a e he immo al ac ion).
P e- iola ion jus i ica ion excuses he immo al ac ion and
hus educes he h ea o he mo al sel -concep be o ehand
(Shal i e al., 2015). The e a e se e al s a egies o his
p e- iola ion jus i ica ion. Examples a e ambiguous ac ions,
al uis ic chea ing, and mo al licensing (Shal i e al., 2015).
Whene e he no ms and ules o a si ua ion a e ambigu-
ous, he ac o could in en ac s and easons o jus i y his2
1These e ms can be used in e changeably (Jo dan e al., 2015)
2Fo be e eadabili y, only he p onouns “he/him/his” a e used h ough-
ou his hesis
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984968
ac ions. I a lie does no cause ha m o o he people bu in-
s ead would help o bene i he ac o and o he people, i is
mo e likely o obse e chea ing (al uis ic chea ing) (E a &
Gneezy, 2012). Th ough mo al licensing, people jus i y hei
bad beha io wi h hei ini ial good ac ions (Me i e al.,
2010; Shal i e al., 2015). In con as , pos - iola ion jus i i-
ca ion is a ool o jus i y immo al beha io a e he ac ion has
al eady been conduc ed. This could be, o ins ance, h ough
(pa ially) con essing o dis ancing hemsel es om hei ac-
ion by looking a o he s’ immo al beha io (Shal i e al.,
2015).
People gene ally y o main ain o e en enhance hei
mo al sel -image (Jo dan e al., 2015; Maza e al., 2008;
Shal i e al., 2015). They do his by beha ing mo ally o
biasing hei cogni i e pe cep ion wi h examples like sel -
se ing jus i ica ions (Monin & Jo dan, 2009). Monin and
Jo dan (2009) a gue ha people who alue mo ali y g ea ly
pay mo e a en ion o hei mo al sel -image, and de ia ions
om hei mo al sel -concep impac hei sel -wo h mo e
signi ican ly compa ed o people wi h a lowe impo ance on
being mo al. This mo al sel -image can also be in luenced by
p e ious and cu en si ua ions. A de ia ion om hei as-
pi ed le el mo i a es people o ake subsequen ac ions o e-
duce his dissonance (Co nelissen e al., 2013; Jo dan e al.,
2015). Monin and Jo dan (2009) e e o ha as beha io -
gene a ing powe . To p edic peoples’ beha io , hei indi id-
ual mo al sel -image, which luc ua es and de ia es o e ime
(Jo dan e al., 2015), mus be conside ed.
2.1.2. Mo al Balancing Model
The e a e wo con as ing app oaches when p edic ing
peoples’ mo al ac ions a e hey ha e ac ed mo ally o im-
mo ally. Ei he he ac o beha es consis en ly wi h his ini ial
ac ion, o he subsequen beha io is he opposi e o his p e-
ious ac ion (mo al balancing).
F eedman and F ase (1966) in oduced he Foo -In-The-
Doo -Technique, which is nowadays widely used in nego i-
a ion s a egies and a g ea example o consis en beha io .
They elabo a e ha people who al eady ag eed o do a small
a o we e mo e likely o ag ee o do a second, e en la ge
a o .
An example o consis en mo al beha io would be i a
man e u ns a los walle o he owne a e o e ing a sea
in public anspo o an elde ly woman. The nega i e case,
which s ill e lec s consis en beha io , would be ha he man
does no o e his sea o he elde ly woman and keeps he
walle as well.
Mullen and Monin (2016) a gue ha people show consis-
en beha io when hey ocus abs ac ly on alues and hei
ini ial beha io . In con as , people exhibi a balancing be-
ha io when hey hink mo e conc e ely abou hei ini ial
beha io and wha hey ha e accomplished wi h i . This al-
e na ing pa e n is desc ibed as mo al balancing. A e a
p e ious immo al ac ion, he ac o beha es mo ally in he
subsequen ac ion, o ice e sa.
This mo al balancing model was de eloped in 1990 by
he psychologis Mo decai Nisan. I s a es ha people con-
side p e ious beha io when making mo al decisions. Ac-
co ding o Nisan (1990), people y o balance hei cu en
mo al sel a ound a ixed pe sonal mo al s anda d (equilib-
ium). This pe sonal e e ence poin is essen ial o people as
hey cons an ly compa e hei cu en s a e wi h his sel -se
s anda d, which hey wan o main ain o e ime (Mille &
E on, 2010). Nisan (1990) assumes ha when hei mo al
s a us d ops below a pe sonal ole able le el, people will e-
ain om doing an immo al ac ion. Howe e , his sa is ac-
o y le el o mo ali y is lowe han he ideal le el, and hose
minimum equi emen s a e de e mined mainly by a pe son’s
mo al iden i y (Nisan, 1990).
Following his easoning, a pe son who ecen ly did
some hing immo al would ins ead choose an al uis ic ac-
ion in o de o compensa e o he p e iously gene a ed
de ici in his own mo al balance (mo al cleansing). A pe son
who is cu en ly in mo al su plus would be mo e likely o
pe o m a subsequen sel ish ac ion (mo al licensing) (Nisan,
1990). In o he wo ds, balancing happens when a mo al ini-
ial beha io leads o he opposi e in a subsequen beha io
(Jo dan e al., 2011; Mullen & Monin, 2016; Zhong e al.,
2010).
When balancing a p e ious ac ion, hese wo di ec ions
can be obse ed: mo al cleansing and mo al licensing.
Mo al Cleansing
Mo al cleansing (o mo al compensa ion) happens when
a p e ious immo al beha io causes a subsequen mo al be-
ha io (Mullen & Monin, 2016; Pe kins e al., 2024). This
can be explained by an analogy o a mo al bank accoun ,
he mo al c edi s model (Pe kins e al., 2024). I a pe son’s
me apho ical mo al bank accoun is in de ici , he wan s o e-
balance i wi h a subsequen mo al beha io (Nisan, 1990).
This could be done by pe o ming a mo ally good ac ion o e-
aining om immo al ac ions, such as chea ing (Co nelissen
e al., 2013). Con inuing wi h he p e ious example, a man
who did no o e his sea on he bus o an elde ly woman
would be mo e likely o e u n a los walle o i s owne o
compensa e o his de ici in his mo al balance. Resea che s
explain his e ec h ough people’s mo i a ion and willing-
ness o in es e o o epai hei sho alls (Jacobsen e al.,
2018).
Addi ionally, he e is s ong e idence ha people need
o physically cleanse hemsel es a e beha ing immo ally.
Zhong and Liljenquis (2006) show ha people who ecall an
immo al ac would be mo e likely o choose an isep ic wipes
compa ed o o he p oduc s. They explain ha he pa ici-
pan s need o wash away hei sins and cleanse hemsel es
a e hei mo al pu i y has been h ea ened.
Mo al Licensing
The mo al licensing e ec desc ibes he con as ing and
somewha coun e in ui i e obse a ion: Good p e ious be-
ha io leads o less posi i e o e en bad beha io . In o he
wo ds, people jus i y hei bad beha io wi h hei p e ious
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 969
good ac ion (Jacobsen e al., 2018; Me i e al., 2010).
Mo al licensing can be explained om wo di e en pe -
spec i es: he mo al c edi s model and he mo al c eden ials
model.
The mo al c edi s model explains he licensing e ec as
people accumula e c edi s in hei hypo he ical mo al bank
accoun when hey do some hing good. They can use hese
c edi s and “wi hd aw” hem o jus i y subsequen nega i e
beha io while main aining an o e all posi i e balance (E -
on & Monin, 2010; Me i e al., 2010; Mille & E on,
2010). Mo al licensing s a s wi h a su plus in he mo al bank
accoun and wi hd aws c edi s o allow people o pe o m a
nega i e ac ion (Pe kins e al., 2024).
The second explana ion, he mo al c eden ials model, ex-
plains he mo al licensing e ec wi h a di e en in e p e a-
ion o he subsequen beha io . Acco ding o Monin and
Mille (2001), people a e less likely o in e p e hei sub-
sequen beha io as immo al a e hey ha e pe o med an
ini ial mo al ac . Ins ead o ea ning a igh o pe o m his
immo al ac wi hou punishmen , he ini ial mo al beha io
has p o ided a lens h ough which he ollowing beha io is
in e p e ed di e en ly (Mullen & Monin, 2016). This p ocess
is mo e likely when he subsequen beha io is ambiguous
and can be in e p e ed posi i ely (Mullen & Monin, 2016).
Fo example, by ecommending a woman o one job, people
buil posi i e c eden ials as being someone wi hou p ejudice
and we e mo e willing o exp ess ha a man was be e sui ed
o a second job (Monin & Mille , 2001). In his expe imen
by Monin and Mille (2001), he second beha io was am-
biguous. I could be explained by illegi ima e o legi ima e
mo i es (sexism o p agma ism). The c eden ials o no be-
ing sexis , e.g., es ablished h ough ac i ely ecommending
a woman o he i s job, help o in e p e he second ac ion
posi i ely, e.g., a o ing a man o he second job, due o he
ac o ’s his o y, wi hou a ec ing he ac o ’s mo al sel -image
(Monin & Jo dan, 2009; Monin & Mille , 2001).
Bo h models explain ha a p e ious mo al ac ion can lead
o immo al o ques ionable beha io la e on. The key di -
e ence is ha in he mo al c edi s model, he ac o is ully
awa e o he second ac ion’s immo ali y bu decides o a -
o d his dec ease in his o e all mo al balance. In con as ,
in he mo al c eden ials model, he posi i e i s ac ion helps
o disambigua e and in e p e he second ac ion di e en ly
(Monin & Jo dan, 2009). To cla i y his ension be ween he
wo models, Monin and Jo dan (2009) sugges ha he mo al
c edi s model is a wo k in unambiguous cases, whe e he
meaning o he a ge beha io is clea ly in e p e ed as im-
mo al and una ec ed by he p e ious ac ion, while he mo al
c eden ials apply o ambiguous cases. Howe e , bo h mod-
els p edic he same beha io and suppo he impo ance o
acknowledging a dynamic mo al sel -image. These models
sugges ha ecen ac ions shape a pe son’s mo al sel -image
and in luence his u u e mo al beha io (Monin & Jo dan,
2009).
Mo al Sel -Image in he Mo al Balancing Model
The mo al c edi s model desc ibes a mechanism o peo-
ple o balance hei mo al o immo al beha io wi h an ac-
cumula ed o deple ed mo al bank accoun , e lec ing he in-
c ease o dec ease o he mo al sel -image, espec i ely (Me -
i e al., 2010; Zhong e al., 2010). This enables people o
epai hei mo al sel -image by compensa ing o hei sel -
ish ac ions a e wa d (mo al cleansing) (Pe kins e al., 2024;
Schlegelmilch & Simb unne , 2019) o using hei bols e ed
mo al sel -image ( om a p e ious ac ion) o pe o m a sub-
sequen immo al ac (mo al licensing) (Co nelissen e al.,
2013; E on & Monin, 2010; Monin & Jo dan, 2009; Nisan,
1990).
This emphasizes ha he mo al sel -image plays a cen-
al ole in mo al decision-making. I s disc epancies om
he ac o ’s pe sonal s anda d (equilib ium) mo i a e balanc-
ing beha io (Nisan, 1990). While he balancing could be
obse ed, and he e is empi ical e idence (Co nelissen e al.,
2013; Lee & Hsieh, 2013; Plone & Regne , 2013), measu -
ing he mo al sel -image is also impo an . Co nelissen e al.
(2013) i s a emp ed o measu e he mo al sel -image wi h
a scale o di e ences be ween he desi ed and he pe cei ed
mo al sel . Jo dan e al. (2015) de eloped his scale u he
o p o ide a ool ha ac i ely and explici ly measu es he
mo al sel -image. Howe e , he e is s ill li le empi ical e i-
dence o he de ia ions and luc ua ions in ime o he mo al
sel -image (Pe kins e al., 2024).
2.2. De ini ions
As he p e ious sec ion illus a ed, di e en heo ies y
o explain immo al beha io . Gi en he impo an ole o he
mo al sel , mo al psychology inc easingly shi ed i s ocus o
i o ex end mo al easoning and p edic beha io (Monin &
Jo dan, 2009). Be o e in oducing some measu emen me h-
ods, wo e ms mus be de ined acco dingly in he con ex o
he mo al sel : mo al iden i y and mo al sel -image.
2.2.1. Mo al Iden i y
Aquino and Reed (2002) de ine mo al iden i y “as a sel -
concep ion o ganized a ound a se o mo al ai s.” (p. 1424).
They sugges ha mo al iden i y is ela i ely s able o e ime
and iden i y wo dimensions: In e naliza ion and Symboliza-
ion. In e naliza ion desc ibes how impo an i is o a pe -
son o ha e (nine) mo al ai s: “ca ing, compassiona e, ai ,
iendly, gene ous, help ul, ha dwo king, hones , and kind.”
(Aquino & Reed, 2002, p. 1426). Symboliza ion desc ibes
he deg ee o which a pe son wan s o be seen as mo al
o demons a e hese ai s h ough hei ac ions o o he s
(Aquino & Reed, 2002). The esea che s p opose ha peo-
ple beha e mo ally when hey assess a speci ic mo al ai as
essen ial o hei sel -concep . Mo al iden i y should, he e-
o e, be a mo i a ional d i e o ac ing consis en ly (Aquino
& Reed, 2002) and is he basis o mo al mo i a ion (E ikson,
1964; Nisan, 1990).
To measu e mo al iden i y ac i ely, Aquino and Reed
(2002) asked pa icipan s o a e how impo an i is o
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984970
hem o possess hese ai s (In e naliza ion) and i hey
pa icipa e in ac i i ies (e.g., hobbies), wea clo hes o buy
p oduc s ha iden i y hem as ha ing hese cha ac e is ics
(Symboliza ion) (Aquino & Reed, 2002).
2.2.2. Mo al Sel -Image
Jo dan e al. (2015) in oduced he concep o he mo al
sel -image o explain how he sel -pe cep ion o he indi id-
ual’s mo ali y luc ua es. They de ine he mo al sel -image as
he malleable and dynamic mo al sel -concep .
A pe son’s mo al sel -image can be desc ibed as he an-
swe o he ques ion “’How mo al am I?’” (Monin & Jo dan,
2009, p. 347). This e lec s exac ly how mo ally indi iduals
see hemsel es a any poin in ime. The mo al sel -image
is pa o he dynamic wo king sel -concep , he malleable
pa o he sel (Jo dan e al., 2015). I is comple ely sub-
jec i e and only measu es how mo al pe sons pe cei e hem-
sel es (Jo dan e al., 2015). Monin and Jo dan (2009) high-
ligh ha indi iduals can cons an ly show di e ences in hei
mo al sel -image, as i can be lowe ed o bols e ed h ough
p e ious ac ions, which mo i a es subsequen beha io . The
esea che s ag eed ha he mo al sel -image has a beha io -
gene a ing powe (Jo dan e al., 2015; Monin & Jo dan,
2009).
Due o he lack o p e ious empi ical measu emen me h-
ods, Jo dan e al. (2015) in oduced an explici nine-poin
Like scale o measu e he mo al sel -image as highly con-
nec ed o he ai s o a ypical mo al pe son (based on he
ai s in oduced by Aquino and Reed (2002)). This elab-
o a ed scale has been used as an explici mo al sel -image
measu e in p e ious esea ch (Fe guson, 2018) o in es iga e
he con e gen alidi y, which “ e lec s he ex en o which wo
measu es cap u e a common cons uc .” (Ca lson & He dman,
2012, p. 18).
2.3. Measu emen Me hods
2.3.1. Explici s. Implici Measu es
In o de o unde s and, p edic , and con ol human be-
ha io , psychologis s ha e been ying o measu e people’s
cogni i e p ocesses, a i udes, and sel -image (de Houwe ,
2006).
A s aigh o wa d app oach is o conduc a su ey and ac-
i ely ask pa icipan s abou hei opinions owa d a si ua ion
o an objec . This explici me hod is easy o conduc , com-
p ehensible, and easily measu ed (de Houwe , 2006). The
mos common app oach o measu ing he mo al iden i y o
he mo al sel -image is le ing pa icipan s a e di e en pe -
sonali y ai s on a Like scale. This app oach assesses how
impo an hese pe sonali y ai s a e o hem (mo al iden-
i y) (Aquino & Reed, 2002) o how much hey a e al eady
ul illing some cha ac e is ics compa ed o he pe son hey
wan o be (mo al sel -image) (Jo dan e al., 2015). How-
e e , despi e hei wide use (Asendo p e al., 2002), hese
su eys migh be subjec o imp ession managemen (Paul-
hus, 1984), which means ha pa icipan s include answe s
o be seen in a a o able ligh . When being asked, people a e
in luenced by conce ns abou hei sel -p esen a ion (Dohe y
& Schlenke , 1991; Schnabel e al., 2007) and social desi -
abili y (C owne & Ma lowe, 1960), which could incen i ize
hem o gi e socially con o m answe s o he in e iewe . Ad-
di ionally, hese su eys a e limi ed o he in ospec i e pe -
sonali y and migh no e lec a pe son’s en i e pe sonali y
(Schnabel e al., 2007).
Because o hese disad an ages, new implici measu es
ha e been de eloped. Ini ially in oduced in social psy-
chology, implici measu es a e now widely applied ac oss
di e en disciplines and commonly used in psychology (de
Houwe e al., 2009). Bu wha is an implici measu e ex-
ac ly? de Houwe (2006) sugges s using he synonym au-
oma ic when explaining implici e ec s. A p ocess can be
called au oma ic when i s ill ope a es, al hough he pa ic-
ipan s a e unawa e o esul s, s imulus, o p ocedu e, do
no ha e a speci ic goal, o do no in es many cogni i e e-
sou ces (de Houwe , 2006). Following his a gumen a ion,
he same should apply o an implici measu e. This mea-
su e in ends o ge an immedia e (au oma ic) esponse om
people wi hou hem being awa e o i o in ol ing hei cog-
ni i e hinking. Such an implici o indi ec measu emen
me hod could be used o measu e a pe son’s unconscious a -
i ude (Ba els & Schoen ade, 2022; Schnabel e al., 2007).
2.3.2. Implici Associa ion Tes (IAT)
As a way o a oid biases o explici measu emen , G een-
wald e al. de eloped he Implici Associa ion Tes (IAT) in
1998. This es aims o measu e he ela i e implici associa-
ion s eng h o wo con as ing concep s ( a ge ca ego ies)
(e.g., FLOWER-INSECT) and PLEASANT-UNPLEASANT3
(e alua ion a ibu e) (G eenwald e al., 1998)).
In hei ini ial expe imen , all pa icipan s should e-
ac by p essing an assigned key on he le o igh . In
di e en blocks, a a ge ca ego y and an a ibu e a e as-
signed o one key. Fo example, he le key is assigned o
FLOWER +PLEASANT, whe eas he igh key is assigned
o INSECT +UNPLEASANT. Whene e a s imulus (ei he
a FLOWER, an INSECT, a PLEASANT, o an UNPLEASANT
wo d) appea s on he sc een, he pa icipan should p ess
he assigned key (G eenwald e al., 1998). In o he wo ds,
he s imuli should be classi ied in o ou mu ually exclusi e
ca ego ies (FLOWER, INSECT, PLEASANT, o UNPLEASANT)
(G eenwald e al., 1998; Schimmack, 2021). Pa icipan s a e
equi ed o dis inguish be ween wo ds e e ing o INSECT
+FLOWER and wo ds e e ing o PLEASANT +UNPLEAS-
ANT wo ds. Fo ins ance, wi h he assigned keys desc ibed
abo e, he s imuli ulip o happy should be assigned o he
le key (FLOWER +PLEASANT), whe eas wasp o o en
should be assigned o he igh key (INSECT +UNPLEAS-
ANT) (G eenwald e al., 1998). A e he i s combined ask
o disc imina ion be ween he a ge ca ego ies and e alu-
a ion a ibu es, a second block wi h a e e sed combined
3The ca ego ies ( a ge ca ego ies and e alua i e a ibu es) a e w i en
in capi al le e s.
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 971
ask was conduc ed. In his e e sed combined ask, one key
was assigned o INSECT +PLEASANT, and he o he key was
assigned o FLOWER +UNPLEASANT.
I is undamen ally assumed ha pa icipan s’ esponse
ime is as e when he associa ion be ween he a ge ca -
ego y and he e alua i e a ibu e is s onge (de Houwe ,
2006; de Houwe , 2001; G eenwald e al., 1998; Johns on
e al., 2013). This means ha he pai ing FLOWER +PLEAS-
ANT should be easie compa ed o he INSECT +PLEAS-
ANT pai ing i he associa ion be ween FLOWER and PLEAS-
ANT wo ds is s onge (de Houwe , 2006; de Houwe , 2001;
G eenwald e al., 1998; Johns on e al., 2013). Wi h his
expe imen , G eenwald e al. (1998) p o ided signi ican e-
sul s demons a ing ha he incompa ible combina ion o IN-
SECT +PLEASANT was mo e challenging o con i m, and
pa icipan s had longe esponse imes compa ed o he com-
pa ible combina ion o FLOWER +PLEASANT. The au ho s
explain his e ec wi h a s onge associa ion and amilia -
i y be ween FLOWER +PLEASANT wo ds and han be ween
INSECT +PLEASANT wo ds, indica ing a mo e posi i e a -
i ude owa d FLOWERS han INSECTS (G eenwald e al.,
1998).
While he IAT was qui e e olu iona y, se new s anda ds,
and o e ed new oppo uni ies, c i icism abou he IAT and
implici measu es, in gene al, needs o be add essed. The e
a e conce ns abou i s cons uc alidi y (Schimmack, 2021),
i s capabili y o p edic beha io (Ba els & Schoen ade,
2022; B owns ein e al., 2020), and i s empo al ins abili y
(B owns ein e al., 2020; Schimmack, 2021).
Schimmack (2021) aises conce ns ha he e is no con-
sensus abou wha he IAT measu es and ha i is di icul
o compa e i i measu es some hing di e en han explici
measu es. This p oblem has been ecognized by he dual
a i udes model (Wilson e al., 2000) (also known as he
double dissocia ion model (Pe ugini, 2005)), which clea ly
dis inguishes implici and explici a i udes in o wo sys ems
(Wilson e al., 2000). Acco ding o his model, implici mea-
su es p edic impulsi e, spon aneous, and au oma ic beha -
io , while explici measu es p edic con olled and conscious
beha io (Wilson e al., 2000). In ag eemen wi h he dou-
ble dissocia ion model, Johns on e al. (2013) sugges ha
implici and explici a i udes can only be measu ed wi h im-
plici o explici measu emen me hods, espec i ely.
The con as ing pe spec i e desc ibes an addi i e iew,
whe e bo h ypes o a i ude desc ibe a “di e en po ion
o a iance in he same c i e ion” (Pe ugini, 2005, p. 29).
Fazio and Olson (2003) a gue ha bo h measu es assess he
same cons uc and explain a po en ial di e ence be ween
he measu emen me hods wi h pa icipan s’ delibe a i e
con ol s a egies.
The IAT and o he implici measu emen me hods can add
p edic i e insigh s o sel - epo measu es (B owns ein e al.,
2020) and in es iga e he implici mo al sel -image. Consid-
e ing he conce ns abou he beha io p edic abili y o he
IAT, he e a e se e al s udies abou p edic ions o o ing be-
ha io wi h he IAT. Fo example, F iese e al. (2007) suc-
cess ully p edic ed he o ing beha io and a i udes o he
Ge man pa liamen a y elec ions in 2002. They used a single-
a ge IAT, whe e one key was assigned o an e alua i e a -
ibu e and he a ge ca ego y, while he second key was
assigned only o he opposing a ibu e. This single- a ge
IAT yielded excellen alidi y in p edic ing o ing beha io
(F iese e al., 2007).
2.3.3. Go/No-Go Associa ion Task (GNAT)
To expand he use o implici measu emen me hods and
he Implici Associa ion Tes (IAT), a new me hod was de-
eloped by Nosek and Banaji (2001). They in oduced he
Go/No-Go Associa ion Task (GNAT), which mainly ocuses
on he e o a e as he dependen a iable o measu e he
s eng h o implici associa ions (G eenwald e al., 1998;
Nosek & Banaji, 2001).
Unlike he p e iously known implici me hods, in he
GNAT, only a single concep ( a ge ca ego y /e.g., ME) is
e alua ed conside ing one a ibu e dimension (e alua i e
a ibu e /e.g., GOOD) (Basse & Dabbs, 2005; Fe guson,
2018; Nosek & Banaji, 2001). The GNAT does no need
wo con as ing concep s ( wo a ge ca ego ies); hence, i
is mo e lexible and can e eal new aspec s o social cogni-
ion. Ano he di e ence is ha only one esponse (key) is
equi ed o he GNAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001), simpli ying
he expe imen al se up.
Du ing he ask, a a ge s imulus (signal i em) o a dis-
ac e s imulus (noise i em) is p esen ed on he sc een o
some milliseconds. Following he expe imen al design and
example o Fe guson (2018) o he GNAT, when a s imulus
wo d ha is simila o ei he he a ibu e (e.g., GOOD) o he
a ge ca ego y (e.g., ME) is shown, he pa icipan should
p ess he space ba (o any key) o gi e a Go esponse. On
he con a y, when he wo d on he cen e o he sc een does
no ma ch he a ibu e o he a ge ca ego y (=dis ac o ),
no esponse (No-Go) is equi ed, and he pa icipan should
e ain om p essing any key.
Acco ding o Nosek and Banaji (2001), he s eng h o
associa ion in he GNAT is de e mined by how well s imuli
wo ds associa ed wi h he a ge ca ego y and he a ibu e
( o example, ME +GOOD) a e dis inguished om dis ac o
i ems un ela ed o hese concep s. The au ho s sugges ha
he sensi i i y be ween he pai ing condi ions (in his exam-
ple, ME +GOOD o ME +BAD) illus a es he s eng h o he
associa ion be ween he a ge ca ego y and he e alua i e
a ibu e (G eenwald e al., 1998; Nosek & Banaji, 2001).
In gene al, he as e and/o he ewe e o s (and he e o e
easie ) he esponse, he s onge he associa ion. G eenwald
e al. (1998) and Nosek and Banaji (2001) a gue ha bo h
e o a es and a e age esponse imes can p o ide in o ma-
ion abou ask pe o mance due o a speed-accu acy ade-
o . Ne e heless, mos implici measu es ocus solely on e-
sponse imes “as he dependen a iable and he e o e may lose
ele an in o ma ion con ained in e o a es.” (Nosek & Ba-
naji, 2001, p. 628).
P e ious esea ch in psychology has used he GNAT o in-
es iga e di e en implici a i udes. Fo example, implici
spide ea associa ions (Teachman, 2007), implici bias in
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984972
ph asing d ug addic ion (Ash o d e al., 2019), and implici
a ac i eness belie s o people who a e cons an ly wo ying
abou hei physical appea ance (Buhlmann e al., 2011).
Those s udies p o ide signi ican insigh s in o he eliabil-
i y and alidi y o he GNAT. In hose applica ions, he e-
sea che s sugges ha he GNAT is an e ec i e ool o mea-
su ing in olun a y associa ions and migh help measu e im-
plici associa ions, especially since i does no equi e a com-
pa ison ca ego y on a second key (Buhlmann e al., 2011;
Teachman, 2007; Williams & Kau mann, 2012). Williams
and Kau mann (2012) speci ically in es iga ed he eliabil-
i y o he GNAT. They ecommend a minimum o 40 ials pe
block o minimally accep able eliabili y and a leas 80 i-
als pe block o good eliabili y. They a gue ha he GNAT
is a aluable ool wi h many ad an ages and should be used
in u he esea ch. (Williams & Kau mann, 2012). By omi -
ing a compa ison concep (unlike he IAT), he GNAT can
use dis ac o i ems mo e lexibly, allowing o a di ec as-
sessmen o he a i ude (Nosek & Banaji, 2001). “In addi-
ion, he GNAT may be less suscep ible o e o s in oduced by
e m alence and less biased by esponse c i e ia han eac ion
ime-based echniques.” (Bolde o e al., 2007, p. 354).
The con e gence be ween implici and explici pe sonal-
i y ai s was examined by Bolde o e al. (2007). They sup-
po he eliabili y and con e gen alidi y o he GNAT when
con olling he sys ema ic a iance o he GNAT. Howe e ,
as hei explici measu e was conduc ed be o e he implici
GNAT, i is possible ha his in la ed hei associa ions and,
hus, he co ela ion be ween bo h measu es (Bolde o e al.,
2007).
Un o una ely, su icien esea ch in he mo al domain,
including he GNAT, has no ye been conduc ed. P e ious
s udies ocused on p edic ions abou mo al beha io wi h im-
plici measu emen me hods, like he IAT (Pe ugini & Leone,
2009). Ano he s udy ied o measu e he mo al iden i y
wi h he IAT (Johns on e al., 2013). The only known publi-
ca ion o an applica ion o he GNAT o measu e he implici
mo al sel -image is a disse a ion by Fe guson (2018), who
ailed o show mo al balancing e ec s.
Implici measu es, such as he IAT and GNAT, can eas-
ily be implemen ed in o so wa e and be used as a po able
e sion on mobile de ices, hus o e coming he limi a ion o
equi ing a local compu e (Basse & Dabbs, 2005; Dabbs e
al., 2003). This p o ides se e al ad an ages. Fi s ly, i es s
pa icipan s in a mo e na u al se ing ou side a labo a o y
(Basse & Dabbs, 2005; Dabbs e al., 2003). This eal-li e
se ing could lowe he eeling o being obse ed du ing he
expe imen and lead o mo e hones and impulsi e answe s.
Secondly, Basse and Dabbs (2005) a gue ha po able e -
sions could be used o measu e malleable a i udes a di -
e en imes and impo an e en s. Thi dly, ha ing a mobile
and po able e sion o hese es s could help o each pop-
ula ions ha would usually no pa icipa e in labo a o y ex-
pe imen s. Fou hly, mo e people could pa icipa e because
he e o needed is much less, as hey a e no longe equi ed
o go o he labo a o y (Basse & Dabbs, 2005).
3. Me hodology
3.1. Resea ch Design
This bachelo ’s hesis aims o apply an exis ing im-
plici measu emen me hod, he Go/No-Go Associa ion Task
(GNAT), o measu e he pa icipan s’ implici mo al sel -
image and analyze hese esul s o a co ela ion wi h hei
explici mo al sel -image. I in ends o in es iga e he e ec-
i eness o he GNAT wi h he con e gen alidi y be ween
he implici and explici measu es. As explained in Chap-
e 2, mos o he p e ious esea ch o measu e he mo al
sel -image is no based on he GNAT (e.g., Johns on e al.,
2013; Pe ugini and Leone, 2009).
The unde lying pa ame e s o he pe o med expe imen
and he es se up we e as ollows:
3.1.1. Expe imen al Design
Objec i e & Ma e ial & G oups & Va iables
Objec i e: Measu e he implici mo al sel -image and an-
alyze he co ela ion wi h he explici mo al sel -image (con-
e gen alidi y).
Ma e ial and G oups: Inspi ed by Fe guson (2018), who
ailed o p o ide signi ican e idence o mo al balancing us-
ing he GNAT, he expe imen was ep oduced in g oup A us-
ing he exac same s imuli (six wo ds o GOOD/BAD and
ou wo ds o ME/OTHER) o be consis en wi h he e-
sea ch me hod. In g oup B, he lis o wo ds was ex ended
o po en ially s onge e ec s.
G oup A: These s imuli wo ds we e eplica ed om Fe -
guson (2018):
ME: me, I, my, mysel
OTHER: o he , o he s, hem, hey
GOOD: good, hones , ai h ul, modes , since e, al-
uis
BAD: bad, dishones , decep i e, p e en ious, a o-
gan , chea e
G oup B: The ex ended s imuli wo ds (a ibu es) we e
selec ed om di e en scien i ic pape s and measu ed in a
p e-s udy acco ding o hei e alua i e in ensi y (see Ap-
pendix V.I P e-S udy GOOD & BAD). This g oup used 20
s imuli wo ds o each a ibu e and 15 o each concep ca -
ego y (ME & OTHER). To be consis en wi h Fe guson (2018)
and he p e ious g oup A, he 40 a ibu e s imuli (57.14%)
and 30 concep ca ego y s imuli (42.86%) in ela ion o he
o al s imuli o 70 in g oup B was almos equal o he 12 a -
ibu e s imuli (60%) and 8 concep ca ego y s imuli (40%)
ini ially in oduced by Fe guson (2018).
The used s imuli wo ds in g oup B we e:
ME: me, I, my, mysel , mine, sel , pe sonally, one-
sel , pe son, in insic, own, indi idual, ego, inne
essence, inne sel
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 973
Table 1: Possible ou comes o he Go/No-Go Associa ion Task, inspi ed by “T ial o yes-no expe imen ” in Macmillan (2002)
Response
Go No-Go
S imulus Signal ( a ge i em) Hi ◦Miss ×
Noise (dis ac o i em) False Ala m ×Co ec Rejec ion ◦
OTHER: o he , o he s, hem, hey, hei , hem-
sel es, hei s, his, him, he , anybody, anyone, hose
people, pe sons, he indi iduals
GOOD: ca ing, ai , compassiona e, iendly, ha d-
wo king, gene ous, help ul, kind, hones , ai h ul,
al uis , modes , since e, genuine, joy ul, pa ien ,
g a e ul, loyal, o gi ing, espec ul
BAD: hos ile, un ai , lazy, unhelp ul, u hless,
sel ish, e il, b u al, ha e ul, ang y, impa ien ,
bad, dishones , decep i e, p e en ious, a ogan ,
chea e , dis espec ul, disloyal, egocen ic
Va iables: The s imuli wo d lis s (g oup A o B) se ed
as independen a iables. The dependen a iables we e Hi -
/False-Ala m a es.
Blocks & T ials & S imuli
The GNAT was di ided in o wo blocks. The a ge ca e-
go y ME was pai ed wi h he a ibu e GOOD in he s a ing
block. In he second block, he same a ge ca ego y, ME, was
pai ed wi h he opposi e a ibu e, BAD.
Each block comp ised a o al o 96 ials o g oup A o
86 ials o g oup B. Bo h blocks s a ed wi h 16 p ac ice i-
als (no conside ed in he analysis), ollowed by a eminde
sc een, be o e p oceeding o he 80 c i ical ials (conside ed
in he analysis) o g oup A o 70 c i ical ials o g oup B.
A ial s a ed when a s imulus wo d om one o he ca e-
go ies (ME, OTHER, GOOD, BAD) eme ged on he sc een. I
ended when he wo d disappea ed. As a cons an eminde
o he cu en combina ion (pai ing) in each block, labels o
he a ge ca ego y (ME) and he a ibu e (GOOD o BAD)
emained on he sc een’s uppe le and igh co ne s. The
labels and s imuli i ems we e displayed in black on agains
a whi e sc een.
The pa icipan s we e ad ised o ei he (1) gi e a Go e-
sponse by quickly p essing he space ba i he s imulus wo d
displayed could be ca ego ized in o one o he wo labeled
ca ego ies (signal i em) o (2) e ain om p essing any key
(No-Go esponse) o wo ds ha could no be ca ego ized
(noise i ems). The s imulus wo d appea ed in he cen e
o he sc een and emained isible un il he esponse dead-
line was eached o a key was p essed. The subsequen ial
s a ed when he pa icipan p essed he space ba o a e he
esponse ime an ou . Like Nosek and Banaji (2001), he op-
posing ca ego y (OTHER) o he al e na e a ibu e se ed as
dis ac e ials (noise). Fo example, when GOOD was he
signal, BAD was he noise, and ice e sa. A signal- o-noise
a io o 1:1 was held cons an o all ials and bo h g oups.
The 20 s imuli wo ds Fe guson (2018) used o he c i i-
cal ials in g oup A we e selec ed andomly. Each wo d was
epea ed ou imes o a o al o 80 ials, which was in he
ange o 50 o 80, yielding su icien and good eliabili y, as
Williams and Kau mann (2012) ecommended. Fo g oup B,
he s imuli i ems we e chosen andomly and selec ed wi h-
ou epe i ion om he ou ca ego ies (ME, OTHER, GOOD,
BAD) o each 70 ials. Wi hin bo h g oups, each block (pai -
ing) consis ed o an equal numbe o wo ds in o de o min-
imize lea ning e ec s, as was again ad ised by Williams and
Kau mann (2012). The c i ical ials used he comple e se o
s imuli wo ds, which we e selec ed andomly and appea ed
in andom o de . Addi ionally, o he wo d lis in g oup B, a
small-scale p e-s udy (Appendix V.I P e-S udy GOOD & BAD)
on he e alua i e in ensi y o hese wo ds was conduc ed be-
o ehand. This ensu ed ha he wo ds’ e alua i e in ensi y
was a) s ong enough o yield su icien esul s and b) simila
be ween he wo ds, which was s ongly sugges ed by Nosek
and Banaji (2001).
Response Deadline & Feedback
The pa icipan s had o ca ego ize he s imuli wo ds as
quickly and accu a ely as possible du ing he sho ime dis-
played on he sc een. The esponse deadline was cons an a
700 milliseconds (ms) ac oss all ials and blocks, ollowing
he ecommended ange o 500ms o 850ms by Nosek and
Banaji (2001). The in e s imulus in e al be ween wo ials
was held cons an a 500ms.
Du ing his in e s imulus in e al, immedia e eedback
on pe o mance accu acy was p o ided. T ials whe e signal
i ems we e accu a ely iden i ied (Hi ) o noise i ems we e
co ec ly igno ed (Co ec Rejec ion) we e eco ded as co -
ec esponses, indica ed by a g een “O” appea ing. T ials
we e ma ked as e o s when noise i ems we e mis akenly
iden i ied as signals (False Ala m) o signal i ems we e o e -
looked (Miss). Fo hese ials, a ed “X” was displayed in
he cen e o he sc een a e he s imulus i em disappea ed.
The possible ou comes and co esponding eedback a e isu-
alized in Table 1.
3.1.2. S a is ical Analysis
The s a is ical analysis o he GNAT was based on he
signal de ec ion heo y, i s in oduced by G een and Swe s
(1966), as ci ed in Macmillan (2002), and as p e ious expe -
imen s using he GNAT al eady ha e done (Fe guson, 2018;
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984980
o measu e mo al sel -image, and is he e a co ela ion be-
ween he ou comes o his me hod and he explici mo al
sel -image?” should be answe ed sepa a ely o bo h g oups.
G oup A has shown li le, e en nega i e, o no co ela ion be-
ween he wo measu es, which indica es an ine ec i e ap-
plica ion o he GNAT in measu ing he mo al sel -image. Fo
g oup B, he e is, in ac , a signi ican posi i e co ela ion
be ween he implici and explici measu es, indica ing an e -
ec i e applica ion because lea ning e ec s we e a oided by
using a ious s imuli wi hou epe i ions.
This hesis has closed he gap in p e ious esea ch, as
i has p o en ha he GNAT is an e ec i e ins umen o
measu ing he mo al sel -image i lea ning e ec s a e con-
side ed in he esea ch design. I sugges s u ilizing a ious
s imuli wo ds wi hou epe i ion ins ead o epea ing ewe
s imuli wo ds. This inding has highligh ed he ex ao di-
na y impo ance o he expe imen al design o yielding sig-
ni ican esul s. Howe e , he GNAT s ill has some limi a-
ions, and u he esea ch in es iga ing he GNAT’s abili y
o p edic beha io and con e gen alidi y is highly ecom-
mended, whe eas he i s esul s we e al eady qui e p omis-
ing. This hesis was he i s s udy conduc ed o assess he
con e gen alidi y o he GNAT o cap u ing he mo al sel -
image.
5.2. Limi a ion o Resul s & Sugges ions o Fu u e Resea ch
I is impo an o emphasize he limi a ions o his e-
sea ch, especially o enable u u e esea ch. Fi s o all, in-
es iga ing he co ela ion be ween explici and implici mea-
su es could be misleading and ambiguous due o a ious ex-
plana ions o bo h a i udes and missing consensus abou i s
signi icance. Acco ding o Pe ugini (2005), a low co ela-
ion could sugges insu icien con e gence alidi y be ween
he wo measu emen me hods. Howe e , i could also be
seen as e idence o he double dissocia ion, suppo ing he
heo y ha a dual sys em o a i udes exis s and ha hose
a i udes a e un ela ed. Ins ead, i migh be mo e exp essi e
o sepa a ely in es iga e he capabili y o bo h measu es o
p edic beha io (Pe ugini, 2005) and explo e his in u he
expe imen s. Valida ing he GNAT as a mo al sel -image mea-
su e acco ding o i s abili y o p edic beha io would p o ide
u he insigh s and could suppo i s use ulness (Pe ugini,
2005).
Ne e heless, Ca lson and He dman (2012) gene ally ad-
ised using measu es wi h con e gen alidi ies abo e 0.7
( >0.7) and a oiding hose below 0.5 ( <0.5). In he con-
ex o implici measu es and especially ega ding he mo al
sel -image, one migh ha e o de ia e om his sugges ion,
as he e a e a ious easons o he low co ela ion. Mo e
esea ch should be conduc ed o e iew hese ecommenda-
ions.
Fu u e esea ch could ex end he expe imen o e a
longe ime ame and ask pa icipan s abou hei mo al
sel -image be o e and a e speci ic mo al o immo al ac-
ions. Since he measu ed mo al sel -image is a snapsho
(in daily li e) and can de ia e in ime (Jo dan e al., 2015;
Monin & Jo dan, 2009), es s could be conduc ed a egula
in e als wi h he iden ical es g oup o analyze he anges o
a ia ion a ound hei ixed pe sonal e e ence, po en ially
ini ia ing mo al balancing beha io (Jo dan e al., 2015;
Nisan, 1990).
Rega ding he expe imen al design, u he in es iga ion
is needed abou he e ec o he block o de on he mo al
sel -image, as p e ious esea ch has al eady sugges ed ha i
migh ha e an impac (G eenwald e al., 1998,2003; Nosek
& Banaji, 2001). I would be in e es ing o see i a e e sed
o de o he blocks yields he same esul s and con e gen a-
lidi y. An ex ensi e expe imen should in es iga e he occu -
ence o lea ning e ec s due o inc eased amilia i y wi h he
p ocedu e and s imuli wo ds in he second block. This could
be done by changing he o de o he blocks ME +GOOD and
ME +BAD in di e en g oups.
When in es iga ing he con e gen alidi y, an addi ional
aspec is changing he o de o he explici ques ionnai e.
Asking pa icipan s explici ly abou hei mo al sel -image
be o e and a e he GNAT could examine po en ial p iming
e ec s (o bo h explici ques ionnai e and implici GNAT),
e en ually in la ing he co ela ion (Bolde o e al., 2007).
Fu he , including he ques ionnai e wice (be o e and a e
he GNAT) could p o ide insigh s in o how he indi idual’s
pe o mance in he GNAT changes he explici mo al sel -
image.
Addi ionally, i would make sense o expand his sample
and conduc he expe imen wi h mo e pa icipan s. Simple
de ia ions al eady g ea ly impac ed he coe icien s ob ained
in he cu en sample o 30 (g oup A) o 38 pa icipan s
(g oup B). Addi ionally, he une en size o bo h g oups aised
conce ns abou he compa ison. Mos pa icipan s we e na-
i e Ge man speake s (76.67% in g oup A and 76.32% in
g oup B), which di e en ia ed om p e ious expe imen s,
whe e only na i e English speake s we e asked o pe o m
he GNAT in English (Fe guson, 2018; Nosek & Banaji, 2001;
Williams & Kau mann, 2012). Repea ing he same expe i-
men in he i s language o each pa icipan could e en u-
ally p o ide mo e obus esul s, as he implici associa ion
could be much s onge , in es iga ing mo e “na u al” and
mo e accessible associa ions.
In addi ion, he po able na u e o he GNAT (Basse
& Dabbs, 2005), as conduc ed in his online expe imen ,
allowed o measu ing he mo al sel -image o pa icipan s
in e e yday li e. This se ing enabled pa icipan s o pe -
o m he expe imen in a amilia en i onmen , wi hou
manda o y semina s, away om an unpleasan and s ess-
ul (g aded) labo a o y a mosphe e, and whene e hey el
eady and com o able o p ocess he es . Pa icipan s we e
only ins uc ed o pe o m he es o suppo a bachelo ’s
hesis in assessing e o a es and eac ion imes when ca -
ego izing English wo ds wi hou elling hem he ue pu -
pose o his expe imen . This mo e elaxing en i onmen
migh ha e suppo ed less biased, unconscious esponses
and yielded eal-li e insigh s in o pa icipan s’ mo al sel -
image wi hou hem being awa e o i . Howe e , his could
also ha e led o pa icipan s no aking he es se iously
and gi ing less concen a ed esponses han in a con olled
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 981
labo a o y en i onmen , which made i ha de o compa e
he esul s wi h p e ious s udies.
Fu he mo e, he di e ences in esul s ob ained h ough
mobile and s a iona y de ices we e no in es iga ed due o
he limi ed scope o his bachelo ’s hesis and he small sam-
ple size. Examining his u he wi h a la ge sample is highly
ecommended, as he expe imen al Go esponse di e ed o
bo h e sions. Pa icipan s using ouch sc eens had o ap ex-
ac ly on he wo d, whe eas pa icipan s using lap ops had o
p ess he space ba .
Mo eo e , due o he limi ed scope o his bachelo ’s he-
sis and he pa ially expe ienced echnical disc epancies, a
de ailed analysis o he eac ion imes ( esponse la encies),
acco ding o Cohen (2013), was omi ed. An analysis ap-
plying he signal de ec ion heo y based on eac ion imes is
p oposed in Appendix V.IV Implici Mo al Sel -Image Sco e
Based on Reac ion Times. Howe e , an analysis based on
Cohen (2013) and he o en-used algo i hm de eloped by
G eenwald e al. (2003), elying on mean la encies and s an-
da d de ia ion o all eac ion imes, is s ongly ecommended
in he u u e as i could hold impo an insigh s and suppo
he GNAT’s alidi y by con i ming he esul s and co ela ions
ob ained.
5.3. Fu u e Implica ions
A e in oducing he IAT and he GNAT, a new ield o
esea ch opened up o assessing people’s implici a i udes.
This could no only be used o psychological counseling
(Asendo p e al., 2002) bu can also p o ide aluable and
hidden insigh s in o beha io al economics and o di e -
en economic s akeholde s, e.g., companies, employees, in-
es o s, and policymake s.
Companies could use implici measu es o gain deepe
insigh s in o hei s akeholde s and o p edic consume be-
ha io , especially when b inging his in o he con ex o he
mo al balancing heo y. They could exploi he knowledge
abou he compensa o y balancing beha io o people a e
an ini ial immo al ac . Fo example, companies could o -
e cus ome s he op ion o dona e o a p osocial cha i y a -
e a sel -cen e ed pu chase (e.g., a ca bon-in ensi e ligh
o aca ion), as adap ed om Schlegelmilch and Simb un-
ne (2019). This allows cus ome s o compensa e o a de-
c eased mo al accoun wi h a subsequen good ac ion (mo al
cleansing). Mo al licensing e ec s could be u ilized, o in-
s ance, by allowing people o demons a e mo al beha io
(e.g., dona ing o a cha i y) be o e o e ing hem a ca bon-
in ensi e ligh (adap ed om Schlegelmilch and Simb un-
ne (2019)). Bo h e ec s in luence he cus ome ’s pu chase
decision, gi ing hem a be e eeling a e balancing o jus-
i ying hei sel -cen e ed pu chase, po en ially leading o a
highe demand in he u u e. Addi ionally, “[i]mplemen ing
dona ion op ions in a web shop is an easy way o a company
o signal ha i is socially esponsible.“ (Schlegelmilch & Sim-
b unne , 2019, p. 551). In Ma ke ing, companies could clus-
e hei a ge g oup, as people wi h highe impo ance on
hei mo ali y ha e a highe incen i e o main ain hei mo al
sel -image and a e mo e likely o be in luenced by (nega i e)
de ia ions (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Monin & Jo dan, 2009).
I a pe son wi h a high impo ance on mo ali y pe o ms an
immo al ac , i has a la ge nega i e impac on his mo al sel -
image, and he is mo e likely o compensa e o i a e wa d
(Monin & Jo dan, 2009). This could be u ilized o pe sonal-
ized ad e isemen s, p icing, and in luencing people. As he
GNAT e eals deepe , unconscious a i udes and eelings o-
wa d b ands o p oduc s, i could be applied o mo e gene ic
and s a egic decisions, such as p oduc de elopmen p o-
cess, b and posi ioning, p icing, and imp o ed ma ke e-
sea ch.
Assessing he implici mo al sel -image may se e as an
e icien ool in he ec ui men p ocess (Asendo p e al.,
2002), po en ially e ealing he implici biases and a i udes
o bo h ec ui e s and p ospec i e employees. This could
be a help ul ins umen when selec ing employees as i , o
example, could examine he acco dance wi h company al-
ues. Kim (2003) disco e ed ha pa icipan s could success-
ully de elop s a egies o ake he esul s in an IAT when in-
s uc ed o eac slowe . Rema kably, his was no done spon-
aneously. This can a ec he a gumen o using implici
measu es, such as he IAT o GNAT, when selec ing employ-
ees, as hey could imp o e hei pe o mance i hey unde -
s ood he unde lying mechanism and did his es mo e han
once (Kim, 2003). Asendo p e al. (2002) aised conce ns
abou he e hical use o implici measu es as hey e eal pa -
icipan s’ in olun a y answe s and a e no unde hei own
con ol. This da a, he e o e, needs o be handled ca e ully,
and su icien da a secu i y should be implemen ed.
In es o s could use his measu e o unco e he implici
a i udes and mo ali y ai s o ounde s o companies’ op
managemen (e.g., CEO). They could assess he mo ali y o
hese manage s and d aw conclusions o hei in es men
decisions. Fo example, in es ing only in hones (o mo al)
ounde eams po en ially implies a anspa en and mo e
hones en i onmen , exchange o in o ma ion, and p ospec-
i e company success.
Policymake s could bene i om an e ec i e ool o mea-
su e peoples’ mo al sel -image and implici a i udes o un-
de s and hei conce ns and easonings. This could be ap-
plied o e ec i ely nudge hem owa d mo e sus ainable be-
ha io by implemen ing easonable es ic ions and policies.
Addi ionally, his could a ec elec ions and poli ics, as o e s
eel be e unde s ood by poli icians.
6. Conclusion
An e ec i e ool o measu e people’s mo al sel -image
p o ides aluable insigh s, ex ending he esea ch in be-
ha io al economics and mo al balancing (Maza & Zhong,
2010).
This hesis explo ed he e ec i eness o he GNAT by ex-
amining he con e gen alidi y be ween he GNAT and he
explici mo al sel -image ques ionnai e. I disco e ed ha
a lowe co ela ion be ween implici and explici measu es,
hus a lowe con e gen alidi y, was ob ained i a se o
only 20 s imuli wo ds we e epea ed ou imes in each block
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984982
(g oup A). This was explained by he pa icipan s’ lea ning e -
ec s h oughou he expe imen , dec easing he con e gen
alidi y and e ec i eness o he GNAT. Fo his eason, his
hesis pos ula es using di e en s imuli wi hou epe i ion
ins ead, o a oid lea ning e ec s. This app oach yielded a
highe con e gen alidi y (co ela ion) be ween implici and
explici measu es o he mo al sel -image, indica ing highe
e ec i eness o he GNAT (g oup B).
These indings a e c ucial o e ec i ely measu ing he
mo al sel -image, which is essen ial la e on o in es iga e
and unde s and i s changes when aiming o p edic mo al be-
ha io . This knowledge can be used o p ac ical applica ions
in beha io al economics, such as co po a e managemen o
policymaking.
Fu he mo e, his hesis con ibu es o esea ch wi h i s
expe imen al design and analysis o he GNAT, including
he adap ed exclusion c i e ia, a sample co ec ion (o all
pe ec esponse a es), and a i s a emp o analyze he
esul s based on eac ion imes (see Appendix V.IV Implici
Mo al Sel -Image Sco e Based on Reac ion Times). This o -
e s p omising app oaches o u u e esea ch, which should
pa icula ly ocus on a join analysis o eac ion imes and
esponse a es, expe imen al adjus men s o he GNAT (e.g.,
changing he block o de ), and measu ing he pa icipan ’s
mo al sel -image o e a longe ime ame. Fu he esea ch
is necessa y o alida e he powe o he GNAT o p edic
(e.g., consis en o balancing) beha io be o e b inging i
in o p ac ical use in consume beha io , o ins ance, by
nudging people owa d pu chasing a mo e expensi e bu
sus ainable p oduc .
Howe e , he GNAT yields p omising alidi y and insigh s
in o unde s anding people’s implici mo al sel -image and ac-
ions. This can be a powe ul ool in he u u e, especially
since i can be conduc ed en i ely online, which helps assess
he mo al sel -image in daily li e (ou side a labo a o y en i-
onmen ).
Nex ime you o de some hing online, use non- ecyclable
packaging, choose non-o ganic p oduc s, do no sepa a e
ood was e app op ia ely, o book a plane icke , emembe
he e ec o hese decisions on he en i onmen and ul i-
ma ely on you mo al sel -image, which in luences u u e
beha io .
Re e ences
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The sel -impo ance o mo al iden i y. Jou nal
o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,83(6), 1423–1440. h ps://d
oi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Asendo p , J. B., Banse, R., & Mücke, D. (2002). Double dissocia ion be-
ween implici and explici pe sonali y sel -concep : The case o
shy beha io . Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,83(2),
380–393. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.380
Ash o d, R. D., B own, A. M., & Cu is, B. (2019). The Language o Subs ance
Use and Reco e y: No el Use o he Go/No–Go Associa ion Task
o Measu e Implici Bias. Heal h Communica ion,34(11), 1296–
1302. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10410236.2018.1481709
Asue o, A. G., Sayago, A., & González, A. G. (2006). The Co ela ion Co-
e icien : An O e iew. C i ical Re iews in Analy ical Chemis y,
36(1), 41–59. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10408340500526766
Ba kan, R., Ayal, S., & A iely, D. (2015). E hical dissonance, jus i ica ions,
and mo al beha io . Cu en Opinion in Psychology,6, 157–161.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.001
Ba els, J. M., & Schoen ade, P. (2022). The Implici Associa ion Tes in In-
oduc o y Psychology Tex books: Blind Spo o Con o e sy. Psy-
chology Lea ning & Teaching,21(2), 113–125. h ps://doi.o g/1
0.1177/14757257211055200
Basse , J. F., & Dabbs, J. M. (2005). A po able e sion o he go/no-go
associa ion ask (GNAT). Beha io Resea ch Me hods,37(3), 506–
512. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03192721
Becke , G. S. (1968). C ime and Punishmen : An Economic App oach. Jou -
nal o Poli ical Economy,76(2), 169–217. h ps://doi.o g/10.10
86/259394
Blasi, A. (1993). The De elopmen o Iden i y: Some Implica ions o Mo al
Func ioning. In G. G. Noam & T. E. W en (Eds.), S udies in con-
empo a y Ge man social hough . Mo al sel : Wo king con e ence
: Re ised pape s (pp. 99–122). MIT P ess.
Bolde o, J. M., Rawlings, D., & Haslam, N. (2007). Con e gence be ween
GNAT-assessed implici and explici pe sonali y. Eu opean Jou nal
o Pe sonali y,21(3), 341–358. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/pe .622
B owns ein, M., Mad a, A., & Gaw onski, B. (2020). Unde s anding Implici
Bias: Pu ing he C i icism in o Pe spec i e. Paci ic Philosophical
Qua e ly,101(2), 276–307. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/papq.123
02
Buhlmann, U., Teachman, B. A., & Ka hmann, N. (2011). E alua ing im-
plici a ac i eness belie s in body dysmo phic diso de using he
Go/No-go Associa ion Task. Jou nal o Beha io The apy and Ex-
pe imen al Psychia y,42(2), 192–197. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016
/j.jb ep.2010.10.003
Ca lson, K. D., & He dman, A. O. (2012). Unde s anding he Impac o
Con e gen Validi y on Resea ch Resul s. O ganiza ional Resea ch
Me hods,15(1), 17–32. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/10944281103
92383
Chen, D. L., Schonge , M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oT ee—An open-sou ce
pla o m o labo a o y, online, and ield expe imen s. Jou nal o
Beha io al and Expe imen al Finance,9, 88–97. h ps://doi.o g
/10.1016/j.jbe .2015.12.001
Cohen, J. (2013). S a is ical Powe Analysis o he Beha io al Sciences. Rou -
ledge. h ps://doi.o g/10.4324/9780203771587
Co nelissen, G., Bashshu , M. R., Rode, J., & Le Menes el, M. (2013). Rules
o consequences? The ole o e hical mind-se s in mo al dynam-
ics. Psychological Science,24(4), 482–488. h ps://doi.o g/10.11
77/0956797612457376
C owne, D. P., & Ma lowe, D. (1960). A new scale o social desi abili y in-
dependen o psychopa hology. Jou nal o Consul ing Psychology,
24, 349–354. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/h0047358
Cunningham, W. A., P eache , K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implici a i ude
measu es: Consis ency, s abili y, and con e gen alidi y. Psycho-
logical Science,12(2), 163–170. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1467-
9280.00328
Dabbs, J. M., Basse , J. F., & Dyomina, N. V. (2003). The palm IAT: A po able
e sion o he implici associa ion ask. Beha io Resea ch Me h-
ods, Ins umen s, & Compu e s : A Jou nal o he Psychonomic So-
cie y, Inc,35(1), 90–95. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03195500
de Houwe , J. (2006). Wha a e Implici Measu es and Why a e We Using
Them? In R. Wie s & A. S acy (Eds.), Handbook o Implici Cog-
ni ion and Addic ion (pp. 11–28). SAGE Publica ions, Inc. h ps:
//doi.o g/10.4135/9781412976237.n2
de Houwe , J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Sp uy , A., & Moo s, A. (2009). Im-
plici measu es: A no ma i e analysis and e iew. Psychological
Bulle in,135(3), 347–368. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0014211
de Houwe , J. (2001). A S uc u al and P ocess Analysis o he Implici As-
socia ion Tes . Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology,37(6),
443–451. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/jesp.2000.1464
Dohe y, K., & Schlenke , B. R. (1991). Sel -Consciousness and S a egic
Sel -P esen a ion. Jou nal o Pe sonali y,59(1), 1–18. h ps://do
i.o g/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991. b00765.x
E on, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Le ing people o he hook: When do
good deeds excuse ansg essions? Pe sonali y & Social Psychology
Bulle in,36(12), 1618–1634. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0146167
210385922
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984 983
E a , S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Whi e Lies. Managemen Science,58(4), 723–
733. h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1449
E ikson, E. H. (1964). Insigh and esponsibili y: Lec u es on he e hical impli-
ca ions o psychoanaly ic insigh ([No on pbk. ed.]). W.W. No on.
Fah mei , L., Heumann, C., Küns le , R., Pigeo , I., & Tu z, G. (2016). S a is-
ik. Sp inge Be lin Heidelbe g. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-
662-50372-0
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implici measu es in social cogni ion.
Resea ch: Thei meaning and use. Annual Re iew o Psychology,
54, 297–327. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e .psych.54.10160
1.145225
Fe guson, R. (2018). How lexible is mo ali y? A es o he mo al c ed-
i s model o mo al balancing [Doc o al disse a ion, Aus alian
Ca holic Uni e si y].
Fes inge , L. (1957). A heo y o cogni i e dissonance ([Renewed 1985 by
au ho ]). S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
Fische , J., Dyball, R., Fazey, I., G oss, C., Do e s, S., Eh lich, P. R., B ulle,
R. J., Ch is ensen, C., & Bo den, R. J. (2012). Human beha -
io and sus ainabili y. F on ie s in Ecology and he En i onmen ,
10(3), 153–160. h ps://doi.o g/10.1890/110079
F eedman, J. L., & F ase , S. C. (1966). Compliance wi hou p essu e: The
oo -in- he-doo echnique. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psy-
chology,4(2), 195–202. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/h0023552
F iese, M., Bluemke, M., & Wänke, M. (2007). P edic ing o ing beha io
wi h implici a i ude measu es: The 2002 Ge man pa liamen a y
elec ion. Expe imen al Psychology,54(4), 247–255. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1027/1618-3169.54.4.247
G een, D. M., & Swe s, J. A. (1966). Signal de ec ion heo y and psy-
chophysics. Wiley New Yo k.
G eenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwa z, J. L. (1998). Measu ing indi-
idual di e ences in implici cogni ion: The implici associa ion
es . Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,74(6), 1464–
1480. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464
G eenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Unde s anding and
using he implici associa ion es : I. An imp o ed sco ing algo-
i hm. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,85(2), 197–
216. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
Jacobsen, C., Fosgaa d, T. R., & Pascual-Ezama, D. (2018). WHY DO WE
LIE? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE DISHONESTY LITERATURE.
Jou nal o Economic Su eys,32(2), 357–387. h ps://doi.o g/1
0.1111/joes.12204
Johns on, M. E., She man, A., & G usec, J. E. (2013). P edic ing mo al ou -
age and eligiosi y wi h an implici measu e o mo al iden i y.
Jou nal o Resea ch in Pe sonali y,47(3), 209–217. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1016/j.j p.2013.01.006
Jo dan, J., Leli eld, M. C., & Tenb unsel, A. E. (2015). The Mo al Sel -
Image Scale: Measu ing and Unde s anding he Malleabili y o
he Mo al Sel . F on ie s in Psychology,6, 1878. h ps://doi.o g
/10.3389/ psyg.2015.01878
Jo dan, J., Mullen, E., & Mu nighan, J. K. (2011). S i ing o he mo al sel :
The e ec s o ecalling pas mo al ac ions on u u e mo al beha -
io . Pe sonali y & Social Psychology Bulle in,37(5), 701–713. h p
s://doi.o g/10.1177/0146167211400208
Kadlec, H. (1999). S a is ical p ope ies o d′and βes ima es o signal de-
ec ion heo y. Psychological Me hods,4(1), 22–43. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.22
Kim, D. Y. (2003). Volun a y Con ollabili y o he Implici Associa ion Tes
(IAT). Social Psychology Qua e ly,66(1), 83. h ps://doi.o g/10
.2307/3090143
Lee, Y. H., & Hsieh, G. (2013). Does slack i ism hu ac i ism? P oceedings o
he SIGCHI Con e ence on Human Fac o s in Compu ing Sys ems,
811–820. h ps://doi.o g/10.1145/2470654.2470770
Macmillan, N. A. (2002). Signal De ec ion Theo y. In H. Pashle (Ed.),
S e ens’ Handbook o Expe imen al Psychology: Volume 4: Me hod-
ology in Expe imen al Psychology. THIRD EDITION (pp. 43–90).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/0471214426
.pas0402
Maza , N., Ami , O., & A iely, D. (2008). The Dishones y o Hones People:
A Theo y o Sel -Concep Main enance. Jou nal o Ma ke ing Re-
sea ch,45(6), 633–644. h ps://doi.o g/10.1509/jmk .45.6.633
Maza , N., & Zhong, C. B. (2010). Do g een p oduc s make us be e people?
Psychological Science,21(4), 494–498. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177
/0956797610363538
Melé, D., & Can ón, C. G. (2014). The Homo Economicus Model. In Human
Founda ions o Managemen (pp. 9–29). Palg a e Macmillan UK.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/9781137462619_2
Me i , A. C., E on, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Mo al Sel -Licensing: When
Being Good F ees Us o Be Bad. Social and Pe sonali y Psychology
Compass,4(5), 344–357. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1751-9004
.2010.00263.x
Mille , D. T., & E on, D. A. (2010). Chap e Th ee - Psychological License:
When i is Needed and How i Func ions. In Ad ances in Expe i-
men al Social Psychology (pp. 115–155, Vol. 43). Academic P ess.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8
Monin, B., & Jo dan, A. H. (2009). The Dynamic Mo al Sel : A Social
Psychological Pe spec i e. In Pe sonali y, Iden i y, and Cha ac e
(pp. 341–354). Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/10
.1017/CBO9780511627125.016
Monin, B., & Mille , D. T. (2001). Mo al c eden ials and he exp ession o
p ejudice. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,81(1), 33–
43. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
Mullen, E., & Monin, B. (2016). Consis ency Ve sus Licensing E ec s o Pas
Mo al Beha io . Annual Re iew o Psychology,67, 363–385. h ps
://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e -psych-010213-115120
Nisan, M. (1990). Mo al Balance: A Model o How People A i e a Mo al De-
cisions. In T. E. W en (Ed.), The Mo al Domain: Essays in he Ongo-
ing Discussion be ween Philosophy and he Social Sciences (pp. 283–
314). The MIT P ess.
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-Go Associa ion Task. Social
Cogni ion,19(6), 625–666. h ps://doi.o g/10.1521/soco.19.6
.625.20886
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-componen models o socially desi able espond-
ing. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,46(3), 598–609.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Pe kins, B. G., Podsako , N. P., & Welsh, D. T. (2024). Va iance in Vi ue: An
In eg a i e Re iew o In aindi idual (Un)E hical Beha io Re-
sea ch. Academy o Managemen Annals,18(1), 210–250. h ps:
//doi.o g/10.5465/annals.2022.0057
Pe ugini, M. (2005). P edic i e models o implici and explici a i udes. The
B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology,44(P 1), 29–45. h ps://doi
.o g/10.1348/014466604X23491
Pe ugini, M., & Leone, L. (2009). Implici sel -concep and mo al ac ion.
Jou nal o Resea ch in Pe sonali y,43(5), 747–754. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1016/j.j p.2009.03.015
Plone , M., & Regne , T. (2013). Sel -image and mo al balancing: An expe -
imen al analysis. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza ion,
93, 374–383. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.030
Sachde a, S., Ilie , R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning sain s and sain ly sin-
ne s: The pa adox o mo al sel - egula ion. Psychological Science,
20(4), 523–528. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02
326.x
Sachde a, S., Jo dan, J., & Maza , N. (2015). G een consume ism: mo al
mo i a ions o a sus ainable u u e. Cu en Opinion in Psychol-
ogy,6, 60–65. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.029
Schimmack, U. (2021). The Implici Associa ion Tes : A Me hod in Sea ch o
a Cons uc . Pe spec i es on Psychological Science : A Jou nal o he
Associa ion o Psychological Science,16(2), 396–414. h ps://do
i.o g/10.1177/1745691619863798
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Simb unne , P. (2019). Mo al licensing and mo al
cleansing applied o company-NGO collabo a ions in an online
con ex . Jou nal o Business Resea ch,95, 544–552. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1016/j.jbus es.2018.07.040
Schnabel, K., Asendo p , J., & G eenwald, A. (2007). Using Implici Associa-
ion Tes s o he Assessmen o Implici Pe sonali y Sel -Concep .
In G. J. Boyle, G. Ma hews, & H. Saklo ske (Eds.), Handbook o
Pe sonali y Theo y and Tes ing. SAGE Publica ions, Inc. h ps://d
oi.o g/10.4135/9781849200479.n24
Shal i, S., Gino, F., Ba kan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Sel -Se ing Jus i ica ions.
Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science,24(2), 125–130. h ps
://doi.o g/10.1177/0963721414553264
L. F. Bläße /Junio Managemen Science 10(4) (2025) 966-984984
Teachman, B. A. (2007). E alua ing implici spide ea associa ions using
he Go/No-go Associa ion Task. Jou nal o Beha io The apy and
Expe imen al Psychia y,38(2), 156–167. h ps://doi.o g/10.10
16/j.jb ep.2006.10.006
Williams, B. J., & Kau mann, L. M. (2012). Reliabili y o he Go/No Go As-
socia ion Task. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology,48(4),
879–891. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.001
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schoole , T. Y. (2000). A model o dual a i udes.
Psychological Re iew,107(1), 101–126. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037
/0033-295X.107.1.101
Zhong, C. B., Ku, G., Loun , R. B., & Mu nighan, J. K. (2010). Compensa o y
E hics. Jou nal o Business E hics,92(3), 323–339. h ps://doi.o
g/10.1007/s10551-009-0161-6
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquis , K. (2006). Washing away you sins: Th ea -
ened mo ali y and physical cleansing. Science (New Yo k, N.Y.),
313(5792), 1451–1452. h ps://doi.o g/10.1126/science.1130
726
