Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Construct a Measure of the Magnitude of Consequences Component of Moral Intensity

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

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to elaborate an empirically grounded mathematical model of the magnitude of consequences component of “moral intensity” (Jones, Academy of Management Review 16(2),366, 1991) that can be used to evaluate different ethical situations. The model is built using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1980) and empirical data from the legal profession. One contribution of our work is that it illustrates how AHP can be applied in the field of ethics. Following a review of the literature, we discuss the development of the model. We then illustrate how the model can be used to rank-order three well-known ethical reasoning cases in terms of the magnitude of consequences. The work concludes with implications for theory, practice, and future research. Specifically we discuss how this work extends the previous work by Collins (Journal of Business Ethics 8, 1, 1989) regarding the nature of harm variable. We also discuss the contribution this work makes in the development of ethical scenarios used to test hypotheses in the field of business ethics. Finally, we discuss how the model can be used for after-action review, contribute to organizational learning, train employees in ethical reasoning, and aid in the design and development of decision support systems that support ethical reasoning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Argyris, D. & Schon, C. (1978). Organizational Learning. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co (NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, N.: 2005, ‹The Design, Development and Analysis of a Multi Criteria Decision Support System Model: Performance Benchmarking of Small to Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprise (SME)’, Doctorate, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

  • Ahmad, N., G. R. Simons, and D. Berg: 2006, ‹The Integration of Analytical Hierarchy Process and Data Envelopment Analysis in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem’, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 5(2), 263–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L., Holland, P. & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from action: Imbedding more learning into the performance fast enough to make a difference. Organizational Dynamics, 27(4), 19–31. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(99)90027-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11, 228–230. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V. & Stewart, T.J.(2002), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, An Integrated Approach, Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chae, B., Paradice, D., Courtney, J.F., & Cagle, C.J. (2005). Incorporating an ethical perspective into problem formulation: implications for decision support systems design. Decision Support Systems, 40(2), 197–212. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, T.: 2006, ‹A Decision Making Model to Enhance Corporate Ethics/Business Ethics/Social Responsibility,’ Business Renaissance Quarterly Pasadena 1(3), 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, A. & Mee, S. (2000). Lim. “The effects of issue characteristics on the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(3), 255–269. doi:10.1023/A:1006392608396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo, E.U., Schoner, B., & Wedley, W.·C. (1999). Interpretation of criteria weights in multi-criteria decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering Journal, 37, 527–541. doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(00)00019-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, D. (1989). Organizational Harm, Legal Condemnation And Stakeholder Retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 1. doi:10.1007/BF00382011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgement. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A., N. B. Johnson and D. G. Ohmer: 1998, ‹Issue-Contingent Effects on Ethical Decision Making: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(4), 373–389. doi:10.1023/A:1005760606745

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, P.C., Davidson, R.A. & Schwartz, B.N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orienta tion on accountants’ ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101–121. doi:10.1023/A:1012261900281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 15. Dubinsky, A.J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83–107. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(89)90001-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janet M Dukerich, Mary J Waller, Elizabeth George, George P Huber. “Moral intensity and managerial problem solving. “Journal of Business Ethics 1 24.1 (2000): 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O.C., & Gresham, L.G. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96. doi:10.2307/1251618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G.R., Crown, D.F., & Spake, D.F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacobbe, R. W. and M. Segal: 2006, A Framework for the Evaluation of Marketing Research Practices. Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, San Antonio, TX, November 2006

  • Goldin, I. M., K. D. Ashley and R. L. Pinkus: 2001, Introducing PETE: Computer Support for Teaching Ethics. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, St. Louis, Missouri, United States. ICAIL ‹01 (ACM Press, New York, NY), pp. 94–98

  • Harrington, S.J. (1997). A test of a person–issue contingent model of ethical decision making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 363–375. doi:10.1023/A:1017900615637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S.J. (1986). A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5. doi:10.1177/027614678600600103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. (1991). “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An.” Academy of Management. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366. doi:10.2307/258867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Patricia C and Elm, Dawn R. (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. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000004594.61954.73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development. Worcester, MA, Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T., Ferrell, L. & Mansfield, P. (2000). A Review of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204. doi:10.1023/A:1006083612239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancherjee, K. and Sodan, A. C. 2004. Can computer tools support ethical decision making?. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 34, 2 (Sep. 2004), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B., & Dewe, P. (1997). An investigation of the components of moral intensity. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(5), 521–529. doi:10.1023/A:1017929418329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, D.R. & Pauli, K.P. (2002). The Role of Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision-making. Business & Society, 41(1), 84–117. doi:10.1177/0007650302041001006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, J.M., & Harvey, R.J. (2006). An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 381–404. doi:10.1007/s10551–006-0006-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, J. & Harvey, R. (2007). “The Effect of Moral Intensity on Ethical Judgment,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72(4), pages 335-357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millet, Ido (1998). “Ethical decision making using the analytic hierarchy process,” Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11): 1197-1204 August 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monga, M.: 2007, `Managers' Moral Reasoning: Evidence from Large Indian Manufacturing Organisations', Journal of Business Ethics 71(2), 179

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Sara A, McDonald, Robert A. “The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. “Journal of Business Ethics 14.9 (1995): 715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, L.: 1981, ‹Ethics Without the Sermon’, Harvard Business Review 59, 76–90

  • Prosser, W.L., & Keaton, W.P. Prosser and Keaton on the law of torts (5th edition), St. Paul: West, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph G P Paolillo, Scott J Vitell. “An empirical investigation of the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity factors on ethical decision making. “Journal of Business Ethics 1 35.1 (2002): 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York, Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 5. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., Thoma, S., Narvaez, D., & Bebeau, M. (1997). Alchemy and Beyond: Indexing the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 498–507. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S.J., & Bebeau, M.J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S.J., & Bebeau, M.J. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381. doi:10.1080/713679390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. (1980). “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” McGraw-Hill: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. (2000), Fundamentals of Decision-Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L., & Vargas, L.G.(1991). Prediction, Projection and Forecasting in Applications of the Analytical Hierarchy Process in economics, finance, politics, games and sports. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoner, B., E. U. Choo and W. C. Wedley: 1997, ‹A Comment on “Rank Disagreement: A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Methodologies”’, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 197–200. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1360(199707)6:4<197::AID-MCDA137>3.0. CO;2-6

  • Searing, D. R.: 1998, Harps Ethical Analysis Methodology Method Description Version 2.0.0 (Taknosys Software Corp.)

  • Senge, P. “The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization,” Doubleday/Currency, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafter, W.E. (2002). Effects of materiality, risk, and ethical perceptions on fraudulent reporting by financial executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 243–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Ming, Mitchell, Sarah, Turner, Julie. (1998). Consideration of moral intensity in ethicality judgments: Its relationship with whistle-blowing and need-for-cognition. Journal of Business Ethics 1 (17.5), 527–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. W.: 1999, ‹Designing a Decision Support System to Foster Ethical Reasoning’, working paper

  • Stein, E. W.: 2004, A Decision Support System to Support Ethical Reasoning (Decision Sciences Institute, Boston, MA) (abstract)

  • Stein, E. W.: 2005, The Ethix System: Supporting Ethical Decision Making Using IT. Northeast Conference of Decision Science Institute, Philadelphia, PA, March 2005

  • Trevino, L.K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management, Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601. doi:10.2307/258313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsalikis, J., Seaton, B. & Shepherd, P. (2008). Relative Importance Measurement of the Moral Intensity Dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 613–626. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9458-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J.: 1990, `Managers Moral Reasoning: Assessing their Responses to Three Moral Dilemmas', Human Relations 43(7), 687–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (1991). Adapting Kohlberg to Enhance the Assessment of Managers Moral Reasoning. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(3), 295–317. doi:10.2307/3857615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, James. (1996). Influences upon managerial moral decision making: Nature of the harm and magnitude of consequences. Human Relations 49.1, 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Division, School of Graduate Professional Studies, Penn State, Malvern, PA, U.S.A.

    Eric W. Stein

  2. School of Business and Management, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, U.A.E.

    Norita Ahmad

Authors
  1. Eric W. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norita Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric W. Stein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stein, E.W., Ahmad, N. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Construct a Measure of the Magnitude of Consequences Component of Moral Intensity. J Bus Ethics 89, 391–407 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0006-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0006-8

Key words

Search

Navigation