Abstract
Given the potential dangers of unethical decisions in the workplace, it has become increasingly important for managers to hire, and promote into leadership positions, those who are morally inclined. Behavioral ethics research has contributed to this effort by examining an array of individual difference variables (e.g., locus of control) that play a role in morality. However, past research has focused mostly on direct causal effects and not so much on the processes (including mediation) through which different factors, especially those that are morality based, decrease unethical choices. The purpose of the current research is to examine the process, which includes both subconscious and conscious decision pathways, through which moral attentiveness curbs unethical decision making at the individual level. The findings of a study employing about 200 participants and a cheating task reveal that both accurate ethical prototypes and moral awareness of the situation decreased unethical decisions, and moral attentiveness was found to be positively related to both of these constructs. In addition, having accurate ethical prototypes was found to be a partial mediator between perceptual moral attentiveness and less cheating, while moral awareness was found to be a partial mediator between reflective moral attentiveness and less cheating. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Given the more sensitive nature of the study materials (i.e., asking participants about cheating and their ethical decisions), the data collection procedures were anonymous and personal identifiers (i.e., student ID numbers) could not be collected for each participant. Thus, the principal investigator asked participants to self-report their GPA (which could contain some errors) instead of being able to look up their “true” GPA with their student ID number.
Originally, 12 items were randomly selected from the initial 24-item measure. These 12 items had an acceptable reliability, α = .86, in a pilot study that was conducted on a separate sample of 175 undergraduate students. However, in the current study, a post hoc analysis of the results from an initial confirmatory factor analysis revealed that these 12 items had poor discriminant validity. In particular, these items had factor loadings across three dimensions and one of these dimensions did not make theoretical sense. For example, the four items that loaded on this dimension were “Lying to an instructor about illness, etc., when an exam or assignment is due”; “Failing to report grading errors when the professor has not approved ignoring errors in the student’s favor”; “Not contributing one’s fair share in a group project for which all the members will be given the same grade; “Visiting a professor after an exam with the sole intention of biasing one’s exam grade.” After careful theoretical consideration, these four items were removed from the adapted scale because they were not strongly associated with the dependent variable of cheating decision, especially in regard to the code of conduct at the university in which this data was collected.
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for helping me to more fully understand this limitation in research design.
References
Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender difference in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 591–597.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 108–1120.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 93–117). New York: Oxford University Press.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 3–51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bryant, P. (2009). Self-regulation and moral awareness among entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 505–518.
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, 981–1018.
Cameron, J. S., & Miller, D. T. (2009). Different ethical standards in gain versus loss frames. In D. de Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 91–106). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681–689.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 47–65.
Elm, D. R., & Radin, T. J. (2012). Ethical decision making: Special or no different? Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 313–329.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. The American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: A retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. Journal of General Psychology, 136, 153–176.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 191–203.
Gunia, B. C., Wang, L., Huang, L., Wang, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Contemplation and conversation: Subtle influences on moral decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 13–33.
Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. (2008). Handbook of consumer psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2011). Short horizons and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 298–310.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–56.
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A, Jr, & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
Jordan, J. (2009). A social cognition framework for examining moral awareness in managers and academics. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 237–258.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 104–121). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision-making. Business and Society, 41, 84–117.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.
Moors, A., & de Houwer, J. (2007). What is automaticity? An analysis of its component features and their interrelations. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 11–50). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 980–1001.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006a). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006b). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243.
Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1027–1041.
Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1610–1624.
Reynolds, S. J., Owens, B. P., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2012). Moral stress: Considering the nature and effects of managerial moral uncertainty. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 491–502.
Salvador, R., & Folger, R. (2009). Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 1–31.
Sparks, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62, 92–109.
Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 88–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2001). Power asymmetries and the ethical atmosphere in negotiations. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social Influences on Ethical Behavior in Organizations (pp. 201–216). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tenbrunsel, A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 545–607.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.
VanSandt, C. V., Shepard, J. M., & Zappe, S. M. (2006). An examination of the relationship between ethical work climate and moral awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 409–432.
Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 315–337.
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552.
Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2014). Conscience without cognition: The effects of subconscious priming on ethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 723–742.
Whitaker, B. G., & Godwin, L. N. (2013). The antecedents of moral imagination in the workplace: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 61–73.
Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 311–323.
Wurthmann, K. (2013). A social cognitive perspective on the relationships between ethics education, moral attentiveness, and PRESOR. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 131–153.
Zhong, C. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberate decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25.
Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13, 75–98.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the support I received from my dissertation committee members—Leanne Atwater, Steve Werner, Jim Phillips, and Lisa Penney—while working on this paper at the University of Houston. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support I received from the Jesse H. Jones Dissertation Completion Grant at the University of Houston in order to complete my empirical study. In addition, I would like to thank David Bright and Scott Taylor for helpful comments received on previous versions of this manuscript. I am also very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments throughout the review process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sturm, R.E. Decreasing Unethical Decisions: The Role of Morality-Based Individual Differences. J Bus Ethics 142, 37–57 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2787-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2787-x