Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 335–357 | Cite as

The Effect of Moral Intensity on Ethical Judgment



Following an extensive review of the moral intensity literature, this article reports the findings of two studies (one between-subjects, the other within-subject) that examined the effect of manipulated and perceived moral intensity on ethical judgment. In the between-subjects study participants judged actions taken in manipulated high moral intensity scenarios to be more unethical than the same actions taken in manipulated low moral intensity scenarios. Findings were mixed for the effect of perceived moral intensity. Both probable magnitude of consequences (a factor consisting of magnitude of consequences, probability of effect, and temporal immediacy) and social consensus had a significant effect; proximity did not. In the within-subject study manipulated moral intensity had a significant effect on ethical judgment, but perceived moral intensity did not. Regression of ethical judgment on age, gender, major, and the three perceived moral intensity factors was significant between-subjects, but not within-subject. Ethical judgment was found to be a more robust predictor of intention than perceived moral intensity using a within-subject design.


ethical decision making ethical judgment moral intensity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnett T. (2001). Dimensions of Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision Making: An Empirical Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31:1038–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazerman M. H., Loewenstein G. F., White S. B. (1992). Reversals of Preference in Allocation Decisions: Judging an Alternative Versus Choosing Among Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 37:220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazerman M. H., Moore D. A., Tenbrunsel A. E., Wade-Benzoni K. A., Blount S. (1999). Explaining how Preferences Change Across Joint Versus Separate Evaluation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 39:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, M. H.: 1980, Systextual Design, Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum M. H. (1982). Controversies in Psychological Measurement. In: Wegener B. (eds) Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 401–485Google Scholar
  6. Brass D. J., Butterfield K. K., Skaggs B. C. (1998) Relationships And Unethical Behavior: A Social Network Perspective. Academy of Management Review 23:14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterfield K. D., Treviño L. K., Weaver G. R. (2000). Moral Awareness In Business Organizations: Influences of Issue-Related and Social Context Factors. Human Relations 53:981–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins D. (1989). Organizational Harm, Legal Condemnation and Stakeholder Retaliation: A Typology, Research Agenda and Application. Journal of Business Ethics 8:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis M. A., Johnson N. B., Ohmer D. G. (1998). Issue-Contingent Effects on Ethical Decision Making: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics 17:373–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Decker W. H. (1994). Unethical Decisions and Attributions: Gains, Losses, and Concentration of Effect. Psychological Reports 75:1207–1214Google Scholar
  11. Dubinsky A. J., Loken B. (1989). Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Business Research 19:83–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenberg D., (1999). Eyeing the Competition. Time 153:58–60Google Scholar
  13. Ferrell O. C., Gresham L. G. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrell O. C., Gresham L. G., Fraedrich J. (1989). A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing. Journal of Macromarketing 11:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey B. F. (2000a). The Impact of Moral Intensity on Decision Making in a Business Context. Journal of Business Ethics 26:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frey B. F. (2000b). Investigating Moral Intensity with the World-Wide Web: A Look at Participant Reactions and a Comparison of Methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32:423–431Google Scholar
  17. Gioia D. A. (1992). Pinto Fires and Person Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics 11:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gullo, K.: 2002, Enron Approached White House. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.bernie.
  19. Hegarty W. H., Sims H. P. Jr. (1978). Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 63:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegarty W. H., Sims H. P. Jr. (1979). Organizational Philosophy, Policies, and Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho, D. (2003). MCI Blocked from New Government Contracts. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from news/6429267.htm
  22. Hsee C. K. (1998). Less Is Better: When Low-Value Options are Valued more Highly than High-Valued Options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsee C. K., Blount S, Loewenstein G. F., Bazerman M. H. (1999) Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125:576–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunt S. D., Vitell S. (1986). A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jansen E., Von Glinow M. A. (1985). Ethical Ambivalence and Organization Reward Systems. Academy of Management Review 10:814–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones C., Aronson E. (1973). Attribution of Fault to a Rape Victim as a Function of the Respectability of the Victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26:415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones G. E., Kavanagh M. J. (1996). An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making By Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16:366–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, T. M., V. L. Huber: 1992, Issue Contingency in Ethical Decision Making. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Business and Society, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman D., Miller D. T. (1986) Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93:136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McMahon J. M., Harvey R. J. (2006). An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct. Journal of Business Ethics 64:381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris S. A., McDonald R. A. (1995). The Role of Moral Intensity in Moral Judgments: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 14:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nowlis S. M., Simonson I. (1997). Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 34:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reidenbach R. E., Robin D. P. (1988). Some Initial Steps Toward Improving the Measurement of Ethical Evaluations of Marketing Activities. Journal of Business Ethics 7:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reidenbach R. E., Robin D. P. (1990). Toward The Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 9:639–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rest J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Ritov I. (2000). The Role of Expectations in Comparisons. Psychological Review 107:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singer M. S. (1996). The Role of Moral Intensity and Fairness Perception in Judgments of Ethicality: A Comparison of Managerial Professionals and the General Public. Journal of Business Ethics 15:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singer M. S. (1998). The Role of Subjective Concerns and Characteristics of the Moral Issue in Moral Considerations. British Journal of Psychology 89:663–679Google Scholar
  40. Singer M., Mitchell S., Turner J. (1998). Consideration of Moral Intensity in Ethicality Judgements: Its Relationship with Whistle-Blowing and Need-For-Cognition. Journal of Business Ethics 17:527–541Google Scholar
  41. Singer M. S., Singer A. E. (1997). Observer Judgements about Moral Agents’ Ethical Decisions: The Role of Scope of Justice and Moral Intensity. Journal of Business Ethics 16:473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singhapakdi A., Vitell S. J., Kraft K. L. (1996). Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making of Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Research 36:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stead W. E., Worrell D. L., Stead J. G. (1990). An Integrative Model For Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 9:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Street M. D., Douglas S. C., Geiger S. W., Martinko M. J. (2001) The Impact of Cognitive Expenditure on the Ethical Decision-Making Process: The Cognitive Elaboration Model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86:256–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor S. E., Thompson S. C. (1982). Stalking the Elusive “Vividness” Effect. Psychological Review 89:155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Treviño L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person–Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review 11:601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Treviño L. K., Nelson K. A. (2004). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to do it Right (3rd ed). Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  48. Treviño L. K., Youngblood S. A. (1990). Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis of Ethical Decision-Making Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 75:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsalikis J., Seaton B., Shepherd P. L. (2001). Relativism in Ethical Research: A Proposed Model and Mode of Inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics 32:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfson, H.: 1999, Johnson & Johnson First Sponsor to Drop Support for 2002 Games. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. E10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management and MarketingChristopher Newport UniversityNewport NewsU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations