Using the PET assessment instrument to help students identify factors that could impede moral behavior
Journal of Business Ethics 77 (2):129 - 145 (2008)
|Abstract||We present an instrument developed to explain to students the concept of the personal ethical threshold (PET). The PET represents an individual’s susceptibility to situational pressure in his or her organization that makes moral behavior more personally difficult. Further, the PET varies according to the moral intensity of the issue at hand, such that individuals are less vulnerable to situational pressure for issues of high moral intensity, i.e., those with greater consequences for others. A higher PET reflects an individual’s greater likelihood of adhering to the morally correct path, even in the face of high situational pressures (personal costs) and low moral intensity (collective importance). PET questionnaires were completed by 506 students representing eight business schools throughout the United States. Relationships between respondents’ PET and their gender, age, and major field of study, as well as the geographical location of their school, are explored. Results indicate that older students have higher PETs and that students attending schools in the northeastern part of the United States have lower PETs. These findings are discussed. It is argued that the PET instrument can be used to help students identify organizational pressures and intrapersonal processes that can impede their moral behavior in organizations.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Autumn Fiester (2005). Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified? Hastings Center Report 35 (4):34-39.
B. S. Sridhar & Artegal Camburn (1993). Stages of Moral Development of Corporations. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (9):727 - 739.
Scott A. Wowra (2007). Moral Identities, Social Anxiety, and Academic Dishonesty Among American College Students. Ethics and Behavior 17 (3):303 – 321.
Jeremy J. Sierra & Michael R. Hyman (2008). Ethical Antecedents of Cheating Intentions: Evidence of Mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (1):51--66.
Patricia C. Kelley & Dawn 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):139-154.
Jacob Eisenberg * (2004). To Cheat or Not to Cheat: Effects of Moral Perspective and Situational Variables on Students' Attitudes. Journal of Moral Education 33 (2):163-178.
Karin Høst, Daniel Brugman, Louis Tavecchio & Leo Beem (1998). Students' Perception of the Moral Atmosphere in Secondary School and the Relationship Between Moral Competence and Moral Atmosphere. Journal of Moral Education 27 (1):47-70.
Jeanette Ng, Gregory P. White, Alina Lee & Andreas Moneta (2009). Design and Validation of a Novel New Instrument for Measuring the Effect of Moral Intensity on Accountants' Propensity to Manage Earnings. Journal of Business Ethics 84 (3):367 - 387.
Robert S. Stufflebeam & William P. Bechtel (1997). PET: Exploring the Myth and the Method. Philsophy of Science 64 (4):95-106.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #178,844 of 549,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?