In this research, we challenge the belief that positive signals of morality always increase job candidates’ appeal to interviewers. In four experiments with both experienced and novice interviewers, we find that signals of the candidates’ morality interact with the nature of the industry such that candidates who send signals of morality are less likely to be selected for jobs in a morally tainted industry, compared to neutral candidates. Moderated mediation analyses indicate that this effect is driven by a perceived lack of job fit (Experiments 1 and 2). Results of Experiment 3 indicate that this moderation effect is limited to candidates who signal morality—candidates applying for jobs in morally tainted industries who signal immorality do not enjoy a competitive advantage over moral or morally neutral candidates. Finally, the framing of the organization, that is, whether critical aspects of the organization are presented as more morally or economically oriented, within morally tainted industries helps mitigate the penalizing effects interviewers put on candidates who signal their morality—a moral frame eliminates this negative effect whereas an economic frame does not (Experiment 4). Together, these studies indicate that a job candidate's morality is a complicated and important quality that can profoundly affect his/her ratings of hireability.

中文翻译：

---

求职者在选择决策中表明其道德的好处和危险

在这项研究中，我们挑战了道德的积极信号总是会增加求职者对面试官的吸引力的信念。在有经验的面试官和新手面试官的四个实验中，我们发现候选人的道德信号与行业性质相互作用，因此发送道德信号的候选人较少与中立的候选人相比，他们更有可能被选为道德败坏的行业的工作。适度的中介分析表明，这种影响是由感知到的工作不匹配（实验 1 和 2）驱动的。实验 3 的结果表明，这种调节效应仅限于表现出道德的候选人——在有道德污点的行业申请工作、表现出不道德的候选人并不比道德或道德中立的候选人享有竞争优势。最后，组织的框架，即组织的关键方面是否更注重道德或经济，在道德污染的行业中有助于减轻面试官对表现出道德的候选人的惩罚效果——道德框架消除了这种负面影响效果，而经济框架则没有（实验 4）。