Advertisement

Opportunism is in the Eye of the Beholder: Antecedents of Subjective Opportunism Judgments

  • Andaç T. Arıkan
Original Paper

Abstract

Contractualist work in business ethics as well as in economic organization theory views opportunistic behaviors as problematic since they create economic harm and are often considered to violate ethical norms. Yet, much of the empirical literature on opportunism has adopted a rather simplistic definition of opportunistic behaviors as behaviors that violate formal and/or relational contracts and assumed that instances of opportunism can be unequivocally defined by simply referring to the content of contracts. The consequence of this assumption has been a disregard for factors other than the content of contracts that may influence whether exchange partners judge an unexpected behavior they face during exchange relationships as opportunistic or not. The present investigation explores the factors that shape exchange partners’ subjective opportunism judgments through two vignette-based laboratory experiments. Results from the first experiment, where subjects were asked to take the perspective of a harmed party, show that opportunism judgments are influenced by the type of the behavior, type of the causal account provided for the behavior, perceived type of the exchange, and personality traits of the actor making the judgment. The second experiment, in which subjects were asked to take the perspective of the transgressor, demonstrates the influence of perspective. In particular, victims are more likely to assess a given unexpected behavior as opportunistic than transgressors, and their judgments do not relate to the underlying factors in the same way as the victims’ judgments. I discuss implications in terms of the governance of interfirm exchange relationships.

Keywords

Opportunism Judgment Exchange Discrete Relational Active opportunism Passive opportunism Trust Causal account Attribution Big 5 Victim Transgressor 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Andaç T. Arıkan declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Achrol, R. S., & Gundlach, G. T. (1999). Legal and social safeguards against opportunism in exchange. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1988). Transaction costs as determinants of opportunism in integrated and independent sales forces. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 9(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyres, N., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Contract design as a firm capability: An integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1060–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagley, C. E. (2008). Winning legally: The value of legal astuteness. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bercovitz, J., Jap, S. D., & Nickerson, J. A. (2006). The antecedents and performance implications of cooperative exchange norms. Organization Science, 17(6), 724–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bower, G. H. (1991). Mood congruity of social judgments. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 31–53). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bresin, K., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). You are what you see and choose: Agreeableness and situation selection. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. R., Dev, C. S., & Lee, D. J. (2000). Managing marketing channel opportunism: The efficacy of alternative governance mechanisms. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. New York, NY: Routlege.Google Scholar
  12. De Graaf, G. (2006). The autonomy of the contracting partners: An argument for heuristic contractarian business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delaney, H. D., & Maxwell, S. E. (1981). On using analysis of covariance in repeated measures designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer, F. R., & Oh, S. (1987). Output sector munificence effects on the internal political-economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foss, N. J., & Weber, L. (2016). Moving opportunism to the back seat: Bounded rationality, costly conflict, and hierarchical forms. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J. A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science, 19(5), 688–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons—The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harmon, D. J., Kim, P. H., & Mayer, K. J. (2015). Breaking the letter vs. spirit of the law: How the interpretation of contract violations affects trust and the management of relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart, O. (1995). Firms, contracts, and financial structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkins, T. G., Wittmann, C. M., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of opportunism in buyer-supplier relations: Research synthesis and new frontiers. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(8), 895–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heugens, P. P., Kaptein, M., & van Oosterhout, J. H. (2004). Ties that grind? Corroborating a typology of social contracting problems. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heugens, P. P., van Oosterhout, J. H., & Kaptein, M. (2006). Foundations and applications for contractualist business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ho, V. T., Weingart, L. R., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Responses to broken promises: Does personality matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(2), 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Opportunism is not the only reason why firms exist: Why an explanatory emphasis on opportunism may mislead management strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(2), 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holmlund-Rytkönen, M., & Strandvik, T. (2005). Stress in business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under ex post opportunism. Management Science, 49(12), 1684–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jensen, J. M., Opland, R. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2010). Psychological contracts and counterproductive work behaviors: Employee responses to transactional and relational breach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. John, G. (1984). An empirical-investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory—Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kammrath, L. K., & Scholer, A. A. (2011). The Pollyanna myth: How highly agreeable people judge positive and negative relational acts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1172–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 894–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2012). Getting mad and getting even: Agreeableness and honesty-humility as predictors of revenge intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 596–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu, Y., Liu, T., & Li, Y. (2014). How to inhibit a partner’s strong and weak forms of opportunism: Impacts of network embeddedness and bilateral TSIs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lumineau, F., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). An empirical investigation of interorganizational opportunism and contracting mechanisms. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Luo, Y. (2006). Opportunism in inter-firm exchanges in emerging markets. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business—A preliminary-study. American Sociological Review, 28(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Macneil, I. R. (1980). The new social contract. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., Kon, T. W., Colley, A., & Linley, P. A. (2008). Personality predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half years after the transgression. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1088–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S. (2004). Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization Science, 15(4), 394–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1556–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013). Ethical judgments: What do we know, where do we go? Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 575–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ness, H. (2009). Governance, negotiations, and alliance dynamics: Explaining the evolution of relational practice. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Noguchi, K., Gohm, C. L., & Dalsky, D. J. (2006). Cognitive tendencies of focusing on positive and negative information. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 891–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Orvis, K. A., Dudley, N. M., & Cortina, J. M. (2008). Conscientiousness and reactions to psychological contract breach: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1183–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring—A game-theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 794–829.Google Scholar
  65. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Petty, R. E., Gleicher, F., & Baker, S. (1991). Multiple roles for affect in persuasion. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 181–200). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  67. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., & Ryu, S. M. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization Science, 19(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Provan, K. G., & Skinner, S. J. (1989). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 202–212.Google Scholar
  70. Puranam, P., & Vanneste, B. S. (2009). Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350–367.Google Scholar
  72. Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reuer, J. J., & Arino, A. (2007). Strategic alliance contracts: Dimensions and determinants of contract complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reuer, J. J., Tong, T. W., Tyler, B. B., & Arino, A. (2013). Executive preferences for governance modes and exchange partners: An information economics perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1104–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2012). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rokkan, A. I., Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2003). Specific investments in marketing relationships: Expropriation and bonding effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  79. Sackett, P. R., & Walmsley, P. T. (2014). Which personality attributes are most important in the workplace? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sakalaki, M., & Fousiani, K. (2012). About some personality misfortunes of opportunists: The negative correlation of economic defection with autonomy, agreeableness, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schwarz, N. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 289–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Seggie, S. H., Griffith, D. A., & Jap, S. D. (2013). Passive and active opportunism in interorganizational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 77(November), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shih, C. T., & Chuang, C. H. (2013). Individual differences, psychological contract breach, and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(1), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations—Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46(3), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sparks, J. R., & Pan, Y. (2010). Ethical judgments in business ethics research: Definition, and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  89. Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Oosterhout, J. H., Heugens, P. P., & Kaptein, M. (2006). The internal morality of contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1617–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wang, Q., Li, J. J., Ross, W. T., Jr., & Craighead, C. W. (2013). The interplay of drivers and deterrents of opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wang, X. H., & Yang, Z. L. (2013). Inter-firm opportunism: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and effect on performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(1–2), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weber, L., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Designing effective contracts: Exploring the influence of framing and expectations. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weber, L., & Mayer, K. (2014). Transaction cost economics and the cognitive perspective: Investigating the sources and governance of interpretive uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 344–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 129–146). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  98. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  99. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic-organization—The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1087–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zardkoohi, A., Harrison, J. S., & Josefy, M. A. (2017). Conflict and confluence: The multidimensionality of opportunism in principal–agent relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Programs, College of BusinessFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations