Relative Importance Measurement of the Moral Intensity Dimensions
- 339 Downloads
The relative importance of the Jones’ [Jones, T. M.: 1991, Academy of Management Review 16(2), 366–395] six components of moral intensity was measured using a conjoint experimental design. The most important components influencing ethical perceptions were: probability of effect, magnitude of consequences, and temporal immediacy. Contrary to previous research, overall social consensus was not an important factor. However, consumers exhibit distinctly different patterns in ethical evaluation, and for approximately 15% of respondents social consensus was the most important dimension.
Keywordsconcentration of effect conjoint analysis magnitude of consequences moral intensity probability of effect proximity social consensus temporal immediacy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Adams D., E. Maine 1998, Business Ethics for the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
- Cavanaugh G. F. 1990, American Business Values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ciulla J. et al. 2006, Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Dukerich, J. M., M. J. Walker, E. George and G. P. Huber: 1993, `Moral Intensity in Group Problem Solving', Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- Hair J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, B. J. Grablowsky 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Jones, T. M. and V. L. Huber: 1992, ‹Issue Contingency in Ethical Decision Making’, in International Association for Business and Society Proceedings, pp. 156–166Google Scholar
- Milgram S. 1974, Obedience to Authority. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nehemkis P. 1975, Business Payoffs Abroad: Rhetoric and Reality. California Management Review 18(2): 5–20Google Scholar
- Rawls J. A. 1971, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
- Rest J. R. 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Stevens, G. E., W. D. Richardson and A. E. Abramowitz: 1989, ‹Perceptual Differences of Ethical Decision Situations Business vs. Law: A Difference of Opinion’, in Southern Management Association Proceedings, pp 199–201Google Scholar