Psycholegal Aspects of Organizational Behavior: Assessing and Controlling Risk

  • Alan J. Tomkins
  • Bart Victor
  • Robert Adler

Abstract

“THE LIMITS OF RISK: FROM APPLES TO TERRORISM, GOVERNMENTS TRY TO ANSWER HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH,” blared the headline in a frontpage story in the New York Times (Dionne, 1989). The newspaper article reported on several incidents, all occurring within a few months of one another, that posed dilemmas for government and corporate officials concerning what to do about potential risks. In each case, organizational assessments of risk were made, and actions were, or were not, taken. In the aftermath of their decisions, governmental and corporate officials were subject to intense public and press scrutiny.

Keywords

Organizational Behavior Organizational Context Governmental Regulation Corporate Behavior Corporate Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronson, E. (1966) The psychology of insufficient justification. In S. Feldman (Ed.), Cognitive consistency: Motivational antecedents and behavioral consequences (pp. 115–136). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, M.H., & Neale, M.A. (1986). Heuristics in negotiation: Limitations to effective dispute resolution. In H.R. Arkes & K.R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decisionmaking: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 311–321). NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed.). (1968). St Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, A. (1989, April 3). New data on warnings expands Pan Am cases. The National Law Journal, p. 15.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable risk? Making decisions in a toxic environment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clinard, M.B., & Yeager, P.C. (1980). Corporate crime. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Coffee, J.C. (1977). Beyond the shut-eyed sentry: Toward a theoretical view of corporate misconduct and an effective legal response. Virginia Law Review, 63, 1099–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coffee, J.C. (1981). “No soul to damn: No body to kick”: An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79, 386–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conference Report on the Toxic Substances Control Act. (1976). 94th Congress, 2nd Session (Rep. No. 94–1679). In Legislative history of the Toxic Substances Control Act (pp. 667–719). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Original work published 1976)Google Scholar
  10. Council on Environmental Quality Report. (1976). Toxic substances. In Legislative history of the Toxic Substances Control Act (pp. 755–788). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Original work published 1971)Google Scholar
  11. Cullen, F.T., Maakestad, W.J., & Cavender, G. (1987). Corporate crime under attack: The Ford Pinto case and beyond. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Dan-Cohen, M. (1985). Bureaucratic organizations and the theory of adjudication. Columbia Law Review, 85, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dan-Cohen, M. (1986). Rights, persons, and organizations: A legal theory for bureaucratic society. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, D.L. (1985). The “shotgun wedding” of science and law: Risk assessment and judicial review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 10, 67–109.Google Scholar
  15. DiMento, J.F. (1986). Environmental law and American business: Dilemmas of compliance. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  16. DiMento, J.F. (1989). Can social science explain organizational noncompliance with environmental law? Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dionne, E.J., Jr. (1989, March 19). The limits of risk: From apples to terrorism, governments try to answer how safe is safe enough. The New York Times (National Edition), pp. Al, A14.Google Scholar
  18. Dozier, J.B., & Miceli, M.P. (1985). Potential prediction of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10, 823–836.Google Scholar
  19. Edwards, W., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Cognitive illusions and their implications for the law. Southern California Law Review, 59, 225–276.Google Scholar
  20. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight J= foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds)., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 422–444). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L., & Keeney, R.L. (1981) Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In T. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. 117–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Forsyth, D.R. (1983). An introduction to group dynamics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  27. Freud, A. (1936). The ego and mechanisms of defense: The writings of Anna Freud (Vol. 2). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  28. Friedman, L.M. (1973). A history of American law. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  29. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  30. Gardiner, G. (1958). The purposes of criminal punishment. Modern Law Review, 21, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaynor, K. (1977). The Toxic Substances Control Act: A regulatory morass. Vanderbilt Law Review, 30, 1149–1195.Google Scholar
  32. Hans, V.P. (1989). The jury’s response to business and corporate wrongdoing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hans, V.P. (1990). Attitudes toward corporate responsibility: A psycholegal perspective. Nebraska Law Review, 69, 158–189.Google Scholar
  34. Hans, V.P., & Ermann, M.D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hans, V.P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hilts, P.J. (1989, March 27-April 2). The wrath of grapes: How the FDA halted a Chilean industry. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 33.Google Scholar
  39. Hochstedler, E. (Ed.). (1984). Corporations as criminals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Jackson, C.H., Morgan, C.P., & Paolillo, J.G.P. (1986). Organizational theory: A macro perspective for management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  42. Janis, I.L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Jasanoff, S. (1986). Risk management and political culture. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11, 143–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Kelman, H.C., & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kennedy, C. (1985). Criminal sentences for corporations: Alternative fining mechanisms. California Law Review, 73, 443–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development (pp. 498–582). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  53. Lavelle, M. (1988, October 10). Placing a price on human life. The National Law Journal, pp. 1, 28–29.Google Scholar
  54. MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wehrung, D.A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. March, J.G., & Shapira, Z. (1982). Behavioral decision theory and organizational decision theory. In G.R. Ungson & D.N. Braunstein (Eds.), Decision making: An interdisciplinary inquiry (pp. 92–115). Boston: Kent.Google Scholar
  56. March, J.G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 1404–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McNeil, B.J., Pauker, S.G., Sox, H.C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Melton, G.B. (1990). Law, science, and humanity: The normative foundation of social science in law. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mendeloff, J.M. (1988). The dilemma of toxic substance regulation: How overregulation causes underregulation at OSHA. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Miceli, M.P., & Near, J.P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Monahan, J., & Novaco, R.W. (1980). Corporate violence: A psychological analysis. In P.D. Lipsitt & B.D. Sales (Eds.), New directions in psy-cholegal research (pp. 3–25). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  62. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (1982). Risk and decision making: Perspectives and research. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  65. National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  66. Near, J.P., & Miceli, M.P. (1981). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Near, J.P., & Miceli, M.P. (1986). Retaliation against whistle-blowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Note. (1976). Decisionmaking models and the control of corporate crime. Yale Law Journal, 85, 1091–1129.Google Scholar
  69. O’Brien, D. (1987). What process is due? Courts and science-policy disputes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  70. Perrow, C.S. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  71. Pfeifer, J.E. (1990). Reviewing the empirical evidence on jury racism: Findings of discrimination or discriminatory findings? Nebraska Law Review, 69, 230–250.Google Scholar
  72. Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  73. Ranken, N.I. (1987). Conscientiousness and work roles. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 5, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robinson, J.C. (1987). Worker responses to workplace hazards. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 12, 665–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schräger, L.S., & Short, J.F. (1978). Toward a sociology of organizational crime. Social Problems, 25, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Short, J.F. (1990). Hazards, risks, and enterprise: Approaches to science, law, and social policy. Law and Society Review, 24, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sigler, J.A., & Murphy, J.E. (1988). Interactive corporate compliance: An alternative to regulatory compulsion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  78. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1981). Informing the public about the risks from ionizing radiation. Health Physics, 41, 589–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982a). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds)., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 463–489). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982b). Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), New directions f or methodology of social and behavioral science (No. 11): Question framing and response consistency (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  82. Smith, H.R., & Carroll, A.B. (1984). Organizational ethics: A stacked deck. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stone, C. (1975). Where the law ends: The social control of corporate behavior. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  84. Stoner, J.A.F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tomkins, A.J., & Ogloff, J.R.P. (1990). Training and career options in psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. §§2601–2629.Google Scholar
  87. Toxic Substances Control Act Policy Research Project. (1982). The Toxic Substances Control Act: Overview and evaluation. Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas.Google Scholar
  88. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science, 221, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Vairo, G. (1985). Multi-tort cases: Cause for more darkness on the subject, or a new role for federal common law? Fordham Law Review, 54, 167–224.Google Scholar
  93. Vaughan, D. (1982). Toward understanding unlawful organizational behavior. Michigan Law Review, 80, 1377–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Westin, A.F. (1981). What can and should be done to protect whistle blowers in industry. In A.F. Westin (Ed.), Whistle blowing! Loyalty and dissent in the corporation (pp. 131–168). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  95. Wheeler, D.D., & Janis, LL. (1980). A practical guide for making decisions. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan J. Tomkins
  • Bart Victor
  • Robert Adler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations