Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 613–626 | Cite as

Relative Importance Measurement of the Moral Intensity Dimensions

  • John Tsalikis
  • Bruce Seaton
  • Philip Shepherd
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

concentration of effect conjoint analysis magnitude of consequences moral intensity probability of effect proximity social consensus temporal immediacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams D., E. Maine 1998, Business Ethics for the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  2. Addelman S. 1962, Orthogonal Main-Effects Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments. Technometrics 4(1): 21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akaah I. P., E. A. Riordan: 1989, Judgements of Marketing Professional about Ethical Issues in Marketing Research: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Marketing Research 26(1): 112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavanaugh G. F. 1990, American Business Values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Chia A., L. S. Mee 2000, The Effects of Issue Characteristics on the Recognition of Moral Issues. Journal of Business Ethics 27(3): 255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciulla J. et al. 2006, Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis M. A., N. B. Johnson, D. G. Ohmer 1998, Issue-Contingent Effects on Ethical Decision Making: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics 17(4): 373–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dukerich J. M., M. J. Waller, E. George, G. P. Huber 2000, Moral Intensity and Managerial Problem Solving. Journal of Business Ethics 24(1): 29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flannery B. L., D. R. May 2000, Environmental Ethical Decision Making in the U.S. Metal Finishing Industry. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 642–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsyth D. R. 1985, Individual Differences in Information Integration during Moral Judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1): 264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey B. F. 2000, The Impact of Moral Intensity on Decision Making in a Business Context. Journal of Business Ethics 26(3): 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fritzsche D. J., H. Becker 1983, Ethical Behavior and Marketing Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 2(4): 291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green P. E., V. Srinivasan 1990, Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing 54(4): 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hair J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, B. J. Grablowsky 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrington S. J. 1997, A Test of a Person-Issue Contingent Model of Ethical Decision Making in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 16(4): 363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Izraeli D. 1988, Ethical Beliefs and Behavior Among Managers: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 7(4): 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones T. M. 1991, Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 366–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kelley P. C., D. R. Elm 2003, The Effect of Context on Moral Intensity of Ethical Issues: Revising Jones’s Issue-Contingent Model. Journal of Business Ethics 48(2): 139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kidwell J. M., R. E. Stevens, A. L. Bethke 1987, Differences in the Ethical Perceptions Between Male and Female Managers: Myth or Reality. Journal of Business Ethics 6(6): 489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leitsch D. L. 2004, Differences in the Perceptions of Moral Intensity in the Moral Decision Process: An Empirical Examination of Accounting Students. Journal of Business Ethics 53(3): 313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. May D. R., K. P. Pauli 2002, The Role of Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision Making. Business and Society 41(1): 84–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McMahon J. M., R. J. Harvey 2006, An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct. Journal of Business Ethics 64(4): 381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milgram S. 1974, Obedience to Authority. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris S. A., R. A. McDonald 1995, The Role of Moral Intensity in Moral Judgements: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 14(9): 715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nehemkis P. 1975, Business Payoffs Abroad: Rhetoric and Reality. California Management Review 18(2): 5–20Google Scholar
  28. Rawls J. A. 1971, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Rest J. R. 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Schminke M. 1997, Gender Differences in Ethical Frameworks and Evaluation of Others’ Choices in Ethical Dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics 16(1): 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw T. R. 2003, The Moral Intensity of Privacy: An Empirical Study of Webmasters’ Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics 46(4): 301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepherd P., J. Tsalikis, B. Seaton 2002, An Inquiry into the Ethical Perceptions of Sub-Cultural Groups in the U.S.: Hispanics vs. Anglos. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(2): 130–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singer M. S. 1996, The Role of Moral Intensity and Fairness Perception in Judgements of Ethicality: A Comparison of Managerial Professionals and the General Public. Journal of Business Ethics 15(4): 469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singer M. S., A. E. Singer 1997, Observer Judgements about Moral Agents’ Ethical Decisions: The Role of Scope of Justice and Moral Intensity. Journal of Business Ethics 16(5): 473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singhapakdi A., S. J. Vitell, K. L. Kraft 1996, Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-making of Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Research 36(3): 245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stevenson T. H., C. D. Bodkin 1998, A Cross-National Comparison of University Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Ethics and Acceptability of Sales Practices. Journal of Business Ethics 17(1): 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Tsalikis J., B. Seaton 2007, Business Ethics Index: USA 2006. Journal of Business Ethics 72(2): 163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber J. 1990, ‹Managers’ Moral Reasoning: Assessing their Responses in Three Moral Dilemmas. Human Relations 43(7): 687–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber J. 1996, Influences upon Managerial Moral Decision Making: Nature of the Harm and Magnitude of Consequences. Human Relations 49(1): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zey-Ferrell M. K., O. C. Ferrell 1982, Role-set Configuration and Opportunity as Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organizations. Human Relations 35(7):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MarketingFlorida International UniversityMiamiU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Management and International BusinessFlorida International UniversityMiamiU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations