Skip to main content
Log in

Points of Reference and Individual Differences As Sources of Bias in Ethical Judgments

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors demonstrate that ethical judgments can be biased when previous judgments serve as a point of reference against which a current situation is judged. Scenarios describing ethical or unethical sales practices were used in an experiment to prime subjects who subsequently rated the ethics of an ethically ambiguous target scenario. The target tended to be rated as more ethical by subjects primed with unethical scenarios, and less ethical by subjects primed with ethical scenarios. This "contrast effect," however, is contingent upon individual differences. Specifically, subjects with high (versus low) needs for cognition are more likely to process and use the information presented in the priming scenarios as a point of reference against which to judge the target situation, and hence more prone to the contrastive bias. Implications for avoiding unintentional moral relativism in business decision-making are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bettman, J. R. and M. Sujan: 1987, ‘Effect of Framing on Evalutaion of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Experts and Novice Consumers’, Journal of Consumer Research 14, 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T. and R. E. Petty: 1982, ‘The Need for Cognition’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 116–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty and C. F. Kao: 1984, ‘The Efficient Assessment of the Need for Cognition’, Journal of Personality Assessment 48, 306–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A. and J. J. Kellaris: 1992, ‘Toward Understanding Marketing Students' Ethical Judgment of Controversial Personal Selling Practices’, Journal of Business Research 24( June), 313–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, A. J., E. N. Berkowitz and W. Budelius: 1980, ‘Ethical Problems of Field Sales Personnel’, MSU Business Topics 28(Summer), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, A. J., M. A. Jolson, R. E. Michaels, M. Kotabe and Ch. U. Lim: 1992, ‘Ethical Percpetion of Field Sales Personnel: An Empirical Assessment’, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 12(Fall), 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 49(Summer), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B.: 1983, ‘Predicting Frames’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helson, H.: 1964, Adaptation-Level Theory(Harper & Row, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. M., S. J. Sherman and R. H. Fazio: 1982, ‘On the Consequences of Priming: Assimilation and Contrast Effects’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19, 323–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. and L. Lurie: 1983, ‘Context, Categorization, and Recall: The “Change of Standard” Effect’, Cognition Psychology 15, 525–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. and C. Stangor: 1988, ‘A “Change of Standard” Perspective on the Relations Among Context, Judgment, and Memory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. and A. Z. Vasquez-Parraga: 1993, ‘Organizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics and Salesforce Supervision’, Journal of Marketing Research 30(February), 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 6(Spring), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky: 1984, ‘Choices, Values, and Frames’, American Psychologist 39, 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellaris, J. J., B. A. Boyle and R. F. Dahlstrom: 1994, ‘On the Framing and Situational Ethics’, Marketing Letters 5(1), 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G.: 1982, Design and Analysis-A Researcher's Handbook2/E (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P. and G. J. Gaeth: 1988, ‘How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product’, Journal of Consumer Research 15, 374–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manis, M. and G. Armstrong: 1971, ‘Contrast Effects in Verbal Output’, Journal of Experimental Cognitive Psychology 7, 381–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, B. J. S. Pauker, H. Sox Jr. and A. Tversky: 1982, ‘On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies’, New England Journal of Medicine 306, 1259–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A.: 1968, ‘The Relativism of Absolute Judgments’, Scientific American 219, 84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puto, C. P.: 1987, ‘The Framing of Buying Decisions’, Journal of Consumer Research 14(December), 301–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qualls, W. J. and C. P. Puto: 1989, ‘Organizational Climate and Decision Framing: An Integrated Approach to Analyzing Industrial Buying Decisions’, Journal of Marketing Research 26(May), 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P.: 1982, ‘The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidenced and Limitations’, Journal of Economic Literature 20, 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J., K. Ahlm and L. Berman: 1978, ‘Contrast Effects and Their Relationship to Subsquent Behavior’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 14, 340–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.: 1985, ‘Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice’, Marketing Science 4(Summer), 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. and E. J. Johnson: 1990, ‘Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice’, Management Science 36, 643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsalikis, J. and D. J. Fritsche: 1989, ‘Business Ethics: A Literature Review with a Focus on Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 695–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1981, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’, Science 185, 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern: 1944, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wotruba, T. R.: 1990, ‘A Comprhensive Framework for the Analysis of Ethical Behavior, with a Focus on Sales Organizations’, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 10(Spring), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyle, B.A., Dahlstrom, R.F. & Kellaris, J.J. Points of Reference and Individual Differences As Sources of Bias in Ethical Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 517–525 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017960518974

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017960518974

Keywords

Navigation