Abstract
There are several models that depict how and why individuals behave unethically; these models incorporate components such as the moral development of a person, the importance of an ethical issue, traits of the decision-maker, and the context of decision-making. Recently, there has been renewed interest in the role of emotion in ethical decision-making. We review the current literature on emotion and ethical decision-making and put forth a model, in which we argue that the dominant integral (anticipated) emotion related to a decision outcome determines whether the decision will be ethical or unethical. We further argue that, even in the case of nonconscious unethical decisions, the role of the related dominant emotion is critical. We, then, derive a few propositions.

Introduction
The influence of emotion on our thinking and decision-making has been long recognized. According to the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, moral judgments are not made through cognitive reasoning; rather, they arise as an “immediate feeling and finer

internal sense” (Hume, 1977/1960, p.2). Carrying this view forward, several scholars argued that emotion has a causal effect on behaviour (Loewenstein et al., 2001; Russell, 2003).

The experiential quality of emotion related to anticipated outcomes has been discussed in detail by Zeelenberg and Pieters (2006) while developing their ‘feeling-is-for-doing’ hypothesis. Drawing sustenance from James’ (1890/1990) Pragmatism lectures that emphasized “my thinking is first and last and always for the sake of my doing” (p.669), Zeelenberg and Pieters (2006) contended that emotion should serve a practical purpose in decision-making. Emotions are the primary motivational system for goal pursuit, and the experiential qualities of the integral emotion(such as anxiety about a planned theft) determine how people behave (Zeelenberg et al., 2008). Their concept is similar to that of Roseman et al. (1994) who articulated the motivational aspects of discrete emotions (fear leading to avoidance), terming them as emotivations.

The importance of experiential emotion in decision-making was also highlighted by Baumeister et al. (2007). They argued that emotion plays unconsciously the role of a feedback mechanism in decision-making. A previous action could have triggered an emotional reaction which leaves an ‘emotional residue’ in memory, cognitively interlaced with specific action-outcome. For instance, a conduct of harming a person would have evoked a strong feeling of guilt in an individual, which remains as an emotional residue moderating any future inclination to cause harm. At any decision-point, there could be many such active emotional residues that

are connected to anticipated decision outcomes, competing to influence behaviour.

In sum, the above theoretical positions indicate that contemplating a decision can evoke multiple emotions related to the decision, consciously or unconsciously, shaping how we behave.

Our Integral Emotion Model of Unethical Behaviour (Figure 1) builds on these concepts and further integrates the dual-process conscious and non conscious evaluations to explain different types of unethical behaviour (UB). When an individual contemplates an unethical action consciously, different integral emotions come into play. Integral emotions are those emotions which are rooted in decision outcomes (Lerner et al., 2015). For example, a person may feel anxiety when he attempts to steal (anxiety of detection and punishment). In contrast, incidental emotions are carryover emotions. For instance, the same thief may also feel a bout of sadness because of some personal tragedy that happened to him earlier, which is an incidental emotion.
The integral emotion can be generally classified as seeking avoidance or seeking approach. The individual may feel anxiety of possible detection of the planned UB and may also feel elevation from the anticipated gains of an unethical act. Each of these emotions have different experiential qualities that either persuade or dissuade the individual towards an unethical act. For instance, anxiety of detection can dissuade, whereas the elevated feeling of security while complying with the instruction of an unethical leader can persuade a person to act unethically. When there are such multiple anticipated emotions that are either persuasive or dissuasive (toward UB), the most dominant one should be giving the direction of action. We define dominant integral emotion as the most influential integral emotion among the

group of emotions acting on an individual who contemplates unethical action – the dominant integral emotion persuades or dissuades the individual from the intended UB.
Thus, we propose:

Proposition 1: At a decision point, employee’s dominant integral emotion guides action through its direction (persuading and dissuading).
Further, based on the dual-process theories of moral behaviour (Crockett, 2018; Cushman, 2013; Hirsh et al., 2018; Reynolds, 2006), we surmise that non conscious UB is also affected by integral emotion. In brief, the dual-process theories of morality suggest that an individual may respond automatically to certain stimuli that calls for UB (based on previous experiences or habits), whereas, certain other stimuli for UB are evaluated more consciously. For instance, when an employee accepts a bribe from a supplier in the first few instances, his/her consciousness is in a high arousal state where each branch of the decision tree is evaluated (monetary gains, the threat of detection). When this act becomes routine with consistent monetary gains and no detection, evaluation stops, and UB becomes automatic in a low arousal state of consciousness. Following the dual-process theory and the reasoning of Baumeister et al. (2007), we argue that the routinized automatic UB has a related dominant emotion residue that pops up at the decision-point, guiding action.
The following paragraphs elaborate on the types of dominant emotion and their relationship with UB. To delineate the possible mechanisms through which dominant emotion motivates or de-motivates UB, in this work, we discuss four different families of emotions: self-enhancing, self-harming, other-enhancing and other-harming emotions. We define self-enhancing emotions as those linked to one’s own cause either intrinsically or extrinsically such as a gain in wealth, power, safety and other factors that enhance an individual’s self-interest. We discuss elevation and pride in this category. Similarly, we

denote other-enhancing emotions as those linked to the causes that stem from the favourable treatment of others such as favouritism, peer support and social standing. We discuss gratitude, and shame in this category. Further, we define self-harming emotions as emotion related to potential harm towards oneself. We discuss the role of sadness and anxiety in this category. Finally, we denote other-harming emotion as the emotion associated with potential harm to others. We discuss anger and guilt in this group.

First, we look at how these moral emotions determine UB in the conscious and deliberate evaluative state.

Conscious state

Following dual-process theories, we envisage the conscious emotion-evaluation-process to be systematic, slow, and effortful. In this mode, we propose that the integral emotions related to the unethical decision culminate in a dominant integral emotion, translating into UB.

Self-enhancing emotions – Pride and Elevation

Mazar et al. (2008) found that though “honest people” commit minor ethical transgressions, they are dissuaded from committing major unethicality to experience the feeling associated with a positive self-concept. In individuals who have a high moral identity (a construct that denotes the importance of being moral to one’s identity), a feeling of pride predominates their thoughts and pushes away temptations for UB. Employees expressing pride are known to have a belief in their own capabilities and status (Tiedens et al., 2000). Employees may also desire to feel pride and self-esteem by not indulging in an unethical action, playing the role of

a dominant integral emotion acting against committing UB. Conversely, the expected reward from unethical action may evoke positive feelings of elevation (anticipated financial incentive, power and job safety); it is also associated with the satisfaction one achieves by pleasing a supportive supervisor. For instance, Machiavellians manipulate others for pro-self benefit and to experience power (Harrison et al., 2018), which gives an elevated feeling. Empirical studies reveal that elevated feeling associated with personal identification with transformational leaders is a cause of explicit UEB (Effelsberg et al., 2014). For instance, leaders such as Adolf Hitler motivated followers to undertake unethical actions in a feeling of elevation (Greenbaum et al., 2020). If the self-enhancing emotion of elevation dominates among the concoction of multiple integral affects, it acts as a persuading dominant emotion thereby motivating UB.

This leads to our propositions,

Proposition 2: While contemplating an unethical behaviour consciously, if individuals experience a dominant integral self-enhancing emotion of elevation due to anticipated gains in wealth, power and safety, they are more likely to behave unethically.

Proposition 3: While contemplating an unethical behaviour consciously, if individuals experience a dominant integral self-enhancing emotion of pride due to their moral identity centrality, they are more unlikely to behave unethically.

Self-harming emotions – Sadness and Anxiety

Sadness and its extreme form depression are known to increase preferences for highly risky options (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999). If sadness emerges as the dominant integral affect, it persuades or pushes the employee towards self harm. Depressed employees are known to engage in self-abuse, such as absenteeism, time theft, alcoholism, and substance abuse. Sadness and depression, therefore, persuade an employee toward self-harming unethical

behaviour. On the other hand, when there is a high anxiety of self-harm, for example, a threat of detection and punishment for the intended unethical behaviour, the employee may experience a dominant integral self-harming emotion which is dissuading. Anxiety is known to increase threat perception and is associated with self-interested and self-preservation behaviors (Kouchaki & Desai, 2015). Additionally, it signals one to reduce uncertainty, support low-risk actions and prompts risk-averse behaviors (George & Dane, 2016). Anxiety is known to induce self-defence mechanisms associated with flight response to psychologically protect oneself. Hence, the self-harming integral emotion of anxiety dissuades the employee from performing UB.

Thus, we propose,

Proposition 4: While contemplating an unethical behaviour consciously, if individuals experience a dominant integral self-harming emotion of sadness due to helplessness, they are more likely to behave unethically.

Proposition 5: While contemplating an unethical behaviour consciously, if individuals experience a dominant integral self-harming emotion of anxiety due to perceived threat of detection and punishment, they are more unlikely to behave unethically.

Table 1. Moral Emotions and Unethical Behaviour