Enhancing Moral Intensity: The Roles of Personal and ... · meaningful work provide for the employee’s physical welfare. In addition, Kant’s (1785/1964) alternate formulation

ABSTRACT. This research explored how (a) infor-mation regarding consequences and (b) personal infor-mation regarding the potential victim influencesperceptions of moral intensity and ethical behavioralintent. An experimental vignette research design wasused and 314 professional managers participated. Theresults of the study indicated that personal informa-tion impacted ethical behavioral intent through its

influence on perceptions of proximity. In contrast,consequential information’s impact depended on thepresence of personal information or prior knowledge.Implications for management and future ethicalresearch are discussed.

Introduction

In the current business environment, marked bydelegation and empowerment in the organiza-tion, deregulation and privatization in the publicsector, increasing diversity in society, and theblinding speed of technological change, individ-uals are given more latitude in decision-makingwith fewer guidelines to use for direction.Individuals, not organizations, are the criticalforce in determining a business’ ethical direction.Corporate scandals such as Enron, WorldCom,Tyco, and others demonstrate the need to inves-tigate ways to enhance the ethical decision-making of employees in organizations.

Recent studies have examined how the moralintensity of issues influences individuals’ ethicaldecision-making (Chia and Mee, 2000; Loe etal., 2000; May and Pauli, 2002; Weber, 1996).These studies often recommend that trainingprograms include information on the moralintensity of issues in order to enhance employees’ethical decision-making. However, little is stillknown about the most effective means fortraining and reinforcing employees’ ethicaldecision-making with such information (Adamset al., 1999).

The purpose of the research described belowis to address this concern by investigating what

Enhancing Moral Intensity:The Roles of Personal andConsequential Informationin Ethical Decision-Making

Journal of Business Ethics 50: 105–126, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Loy D. WatleyDouglas R. May

Loy D. Watley is Assistant Professor of BusinessAdministration and Economics at Nebraska WesleyanUniversity in Lincoln, Nebraska, teaching in the areasof business ethics, consumer behavior, and internationalmarketing. Prior to completing his Ph.D. inManagement from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Loy held both executive and managerial positions in privately held manufacturing businesses. His currentresearch interests include ethcis training, individual ethicalbehavior, consumer decision-making, and employee selection.

Douglas R. May is Associate Professor and Director of theProgram in Business, Ethics, and Society at theUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln. Doug received hisPh.D. in Business Administration from the Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. One of his currentresearch streams focuses on the roles that moral inten-sity and emotions play in ethical decision-making withinjob, environmental, information systems, and educationalcontexts. The second research stream explores the deter-minants and outcomes of experienced meaningfulness atwork. Doug’s articles have appeared in such journals asthe Academy of Management Journal, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Personnel Psychology,Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Journal of BusinessEthics, and Business and Society.

role the nature of information, such as that givenin training programs, might play in encouragingthe ethical behavior of employees. Specifically,this study presents an information-based modelof ethical decision-making (see Figure 1) for howinformation regarding consequences (i.e., con-sequential information) will increase the percep-tion that the consequences are significant (i.e.,perceived magnitude of consequences) and thelikelihood that individuals will intend to behaveethically. Similarly, the presence of personalinformation about those impacted by thedecision (i.e., personal information) will increasethe perception that the person is close to thedecision maker (i.e., perceived proximity) and thelikelihood that individuals will intend to behaveethically.

Managers generally agree that issues affectingemployees are the most significant ethical issues(Fusilier et al., 1996; Waters et al., 1986). In par-ticular, Fusilier et al. (1996) note that workplacesafety and health is the most critical ethical issuewithin the employee domain. Researchers inhuman resource management have also noted itsimportance (e.g., Guthrie and Olian, 1990; Mayand Schwoerer, 1994), yet little research in theethics area has examined employee health andsafety in relation to ethical decision-making.

While the raw numbers of occupationalinjuries and illnesses have been declining over thepast decade (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000,2001), musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) makeup an increasing percentage of workplace injuriesand illnesses (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001).In the recent repeal of OSHA’s new ergonomicstandards, the responsibility for managing MSDshas been delegated to a business community thatis “pitifully ignorant” of the issues (Stewart et al.,1996), making this an ideal moral issue toexamine.

This study offers several potential contribu-tions to our current understanding of ethicaldecision-making. First, it addresses the recent callfor more research in the areas of ethical intentand moral intensity (Loe et al., 2000; May andPauli, 2002). Second, this study examines theinformational determinants of moral intensitydimensions, something that has significant prac-tical benefits for organizations given that otherpotential determinants of moral intensity per-ceptions are quite difficult to change (e.g., per-sonality, organizational climate). Third, thisresearch objectively manipulates the amount andnature of the information provided which isconsistent with calls for more experimentalresearch in this area (Flannery and May, 2000;

106 Loy D. Watley and Douglas R. May

Figure 1. Information-based model of ethical decision-making.

Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Weber, 1992). Fourth,this study addresses the neglected and importanttopic of employee health and safety concerns.Finally, the participants in the research are pri-marily practicing managers who are likely toactually face such a problem in the workplace.

Ethical behavioral intent

On a practical level, improvements in ethicaldecision-making are meaningless unless overtaction is ultimately affected. Unfortunately,ethically charged behavior is difficult to observeand measure, because the act of observing ormeasuring will likely influence the behavior itself(Trevino, 1986). Thus, managers’ ethical behav-ioral intentions will be examined here since theyare the closest antecedent to ethical behaviors(e.g., Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Rest, 1986;Trevino, 1986). While the focus here is onemployee health in the workplace, research in theenvironmental domain has illustrated that inten-tions do significantly predict future behaviors(Taylor and Todd, 1997).

The assumption behind the current researchis that supervisory encouragement to seekmedical attention for an employee who is expe-riencing pain is more ethical than a lack of encour-agement. For example, a teleological, utilitarianperspective (Mill, 1863/1987) would comparethe total costs of encouragement (e.g. medicalexpenses and lost work time, which primarilyaccrue to the company) to the total benefits ofencouragement (e.g. prevention of a worseningdisability and employee satisfaction, which pri-marily accrue to the individual). This compar-ison would likely conclude that the small coststo the organization are outweighed by the pre-vention of a potentially serious health conditionto the employee.

A deontological perspective might draw onRoss’ (1930) prima facie duties of beneficence(helping others) and nonmaleficence (notinjuring others). A stronger case could be madefrom Bowie’s (1998) examination of a Kantiandefinition of meaningful work that requires thatmeaningful work provide for the employee’sphysical welfare. In addition, Kant’s (1785/1964)

alternate formulation of the categorical impera-tive, “Act so that you treat humanity . . . alwaysas an end and never as a means only” (p. 96),clearly prohibits managers from ignoringemployee health issues for the company’s benefit.In short, the more ethical decision is the one thatmore strongly encourages an employee to seekmedical attention. Below we outline the com-ponents of the theoretical framework proposedfor this study and develop the hypotheses thatlink different types of information and moralintensity perceptions to this focal ethical issue.

The role of information in decision-making

The foundation of the informational model ofethical decision-making is that individuals makedecisions for particular reasons. Sometimes thedecisions are important and the reasons are care-fully examined (i.e., high involvement decision-making). At other times the decisions are trivialand the rationale equally trivial (i.e. low involve-ment decision-making). Higher levels of involve-ment should result in stronger linkages in thefour stages of the ethical decision-making process(e.g. awareness-judgment-intent-behavior) since“individuals who form their attitudes after care-fully scrutinizing available evidence exhibitstronger attitude-behavior correlations than indi-viduals who . . . base their attitudes on relativelysuperficial external cues” (Ajzen, 1988, p. 70).

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)proposed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) suggeststhat the degree of thoughtful consideration is pri-marily based on two factors: available informa-tion and personal relevance. The ELM proposesthat two types of reasons are most prominent indecision-making. First, cognitive (i.e., rational,objective) reasons cause people to think a certainway and the nature of this “thinking” influencestheir decisions. These cognitive reasons primarilydeal with the objective situation and its conse-quences. Second, intuitive (i.e., emotional, sub-jective) reasons cause people to feel a certain wayand the nature of this “feeling” influences theirdecisions. These intuitive reasons primarily dealwith the relationship between the decision makerand those individuals affected by the decision.

Enhancing Moral Intensity 107

Rational and intuitive influences are comple-mentary in nature, not contradictory (Gaudineand Thorne, 2001). Audi (1997) clearly notedthe importance of both rational moral judgmentand emotions in ethical decision-making:

. . . if we expect people to be moral, we musteducate their desires, emotions, and sensibilities,not just their intellects. Once we do, however –and especially if we build on the empathy inhuman nature – then desires, emotions, and expe-riences, like (rational moral) judgments, canprovide normative reasons for action as well asmotivation to perform them” (p. 241).

Based on this introduction, below we explorethe role that two forms of information – conse-quential and personal – play in the ethicaldecision-making process.

Consequential information and ethical decision-making

Research in business ethics has recognized thepotential role that consequential information mayplay in models of ethical decision-making (Ferrelland Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986;Tsalikis et al., 2001). Empirical research tendsto support the influence of such information. Forexample, information regarding consequences hasbeen shown to be particularly powerful inshaping behavior (Fritzsche, 1988; Fritzscheand Becker, 1984) both when the consequencesaffect the decision maker (Laczniak andInderrieden, 1987) and when the consequencesaffect others (Forsyth and Nye, 1990; Wittmer,1992). In addition, individuals tend to use com-munication styles geared towards uncoveringinformation when resolving moral conflict(French and Albright, 1998). Based on thisextant research, it is expected that informationon the consequences of a decision maker’s actionshould be associated with more ethical intentionsfor the employee health issue studied here. Thus,the first hypothesis of the study is offeredbelow:

H1: Consequential information will be positivelyrelated to ethical behavioral intent.

Personal information and ethical decision-making

Personal information and the emotions associatedwith it should also take on a significant role inethical decision-making. Research has generallyoverlooked how information about the victiminfluences ethical decisions (Tsalikis et al., 2001).Nussbaum (1990) promotes the ethical value ofemotions, encouraging the use of personal infor-mation – even fictitious personal information –to extend our own personal experiences: “Wehave never lived enough. Our experience is,without fiction, too confined and too parochial.Literature extends it, making us reflect and feelabout what might otherwise be too distant forfeeling” (p. 47).

A wide variety of psychological and moraltheories suggest that personal information canaffect emotions and subsequent decision-making.For example, balance theory (Heider, 1946)suggests that if personal information helps us seeindividuals as holding similar values or attitudes,we will be more likely to make judgmentsin their favor. Moral development scholars(Kohlberg, 1976; Rest, 1986) similarly empha-size the importance of role-taking opportunities(a method for enhancing personal connection)in improving cognitive moral developmentand judgment. Furthermore, Bandura’s (1999)Theory of Moral Disengagement proposes thatpersonal information (regardless of personalrelevance) inhibits the process of dehumanizingindividuals and creates an obstacle to unethicalbehavior. Most recently, Gaudine and Thorne(2001) have proposed that the emotions that arisefrom such personal information may influenceeach stage of the ethical decision-making process(awareness, judgment, intention, and behavior).For instance, these authors argue that emotionalarousal may provide the energy necessary for anindividual to act consistently with his/her moralintentions.

Empirical research has generally verified theconnection between personal information,emotions, and decision-making. For example,in a study examining bystander interventionSchwartz (1977) found that one of the factorsthat influenced the intention to help otherswas the arousal of emotion. Rest similarly noted


that “a social situation can arouse strong feelingsbefore extensive cognitive encoding” can itselfinfluence ethical decision-making (1986, p. 6).

Based on the above discussion, informationthat alters the perceived relationship between thedecision-maker and those affected should subse-quently influence the ethical decision-makingprocess. Therefore, the second major hypothesisof the study is offered below:

H2: Personal information will be positively relatedto ethical behavioral intent.

Perceptions of moral intensity and ethical decision-making

A synthesized model of ethical decision-makingproposed that ethical decision-making is influ-enced at each stage by the characteristics of theissue or its “moral intensity” ( Jones, 1991), con-ceptualized to have six dimensions. First, magni-tude of consequences suggests an issue will be moreintense if the consequences are more, rather thanless, serious. Second, social consensus suggests anissue will be more intense if society agrees on themorality (or immorality) of the issue than if thereis widespread disagreement. Third, the probabilityof effect suggests that an issue will be more intenseif the consequences are likely, rather thanunlikely. Fourth, temporal immediacy maintains thatan issue will be more intense if the consequencesoccur sooner, rather than later. Fifth, proximityof effect proposes that an issue will be more intenseif the consequences affect those close or similarto the decision maker, rather than those who aredistant or different. Finally, concentration of effectsuggests that an issue will be more intense iffewer individuals bear the brunt of the conse-quences, as opposed to the same consequencesbeing broadly distributed.

Magnitude of consequences. Most of the studies thatreview the research on moral intensity (Chia andMee, 2000; Frey, 2000; May and Pauli, 2002)have found that magnitude of consequences isone of the most significant dimensions of moralintensity in influencing ethical decision-making.For example, in one of the first studies to

examine all six dimensions of moral intensity,Morris and McDonald (1995) concluded thatmagnitude of consequences and social consensus“consistently were significant predictors of moraljudgment” (p. 724). This conclusion was but-tressed by Singhapakdi and his colleagues whoseresearch on moral intensity collapsed the sixdimensions into two: potential harm (which wasdominated by magnitude of consequences) andsocial pressure (which included social consensusand proximity) (Singhapakdi et al., 1996). Mostrecently, May and Pauli’s (2002) research foundthat another combined scale, “probable magni-tude of harm,” influenced each of first threestages of the ethical decision-making process(moral recognition, moral evaluation, and moralintention).

While both magnitude of consequences andsocial consensus appear important in individuals’ethical decision-making, several conceptual andmeasurement problems exist with the dimensionof social consensus. First, the type of norm thatis often manipulated in research may not bethe appropriate salient norm for an individualsubject. Second, social consensus has sometimesbeen implied from manipulations of magnitudeof consequences, a method criticized bySinghapakdi et al. (1999a). Third, operational-izing social consensus by measuring perceptions ofsocial consensus allows it to be confused withindividual uncertainty (Waters et al., 1986), indi-vidual ethical ideology or judgment (Flory et al.,1992), or subjective norms (Ajzen, 1988).Because of the difficulties in measuring socialconsensus and the ease with which it is confusedwith other constructs, social consensus will notbe investigated in this study.

Based on the discussion above, our focus inthis research is on magnitude of consequencesand its relation to consequential information.Previous research and theory in the ethics areahas supported the importance of consequences(Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell,1986). Indeed, Dubinsky and Loken (1989)built a decision-making model on the evaluationof consequences and Jones and Ryan (1997)included moral approbation to specifically inves-tigate how people process information related topotential consequences.


Most research on ethical decision-makingmanipulates the objective consequences in ascenario and assumes a corresponding change inmoral intensity perceptions. Only two studies(Davis et al., 1998; Weber, 1996) reportedperceptions of magnitude of consequences toverify that the experimental manipulations weresuccessful. Few research studies also actually testwhether the ethical decision-making processholds as theorized (May and Pauli, 2002). Thatis, in terms of the research framework exploredhere, does magnitude of consequences explain therelation between consequential information andethical behavioral intent? One goal of this researchis to address this very question. To this end, thethird hypothesis of the study is offered below:

H3: Perceptions of the magnitude of consequenceswill mediate the relationship between conse-quential information and ethical behavioralintent.

Proximity. Research reviews have generally over-looked the potential role of proximity in ethicaldecision-making even though proximity enjoyssignificant theoretical support (Collins, 1989;Hunt and Vitell, 1986), and unlike concentrationof effect, temporal immediacy, and probabilityof effect, proximity has been widely investigatedwith few non-significant results.

Some research on proximity has uncovered arelationship with ethical decision-making in spiteof measuring only very general notions of prox-imity, perhaps muting proximity’s influence whencompared to more personal forms of the prox-imity construct. Others have used a measure ofproximity that also attempted to measure ethicaljudgment (Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Singhapakdiet al., 1999a), leading proximity to have a weak,but still significant effect. Mixing manipulationsin different scenarios and ineffective manipula-tions have also created problems in research (Chiaand Mee, 2000; Morris and McDonald, 1995).In spite of these issues, proximity has been shownto influence ethical decision-making, albeit notto the degree of magnitude of consequences orsocial consensus (Chia and Mee, 2000; Morrisand McDonald, 1995; Singer et al., 1998;Singhapakdi et al., 1996).

As discussed above, research suggests thatpersonal information is related to componentsof the ethical decision-making process (Wittmer,1992). Specifically, Wittmer found that whenpersonal information was added to a scenario,subjects were more able to recognize the ethicalnature of an issue. Thus, Wittmer’s researchexamined the effects of personal information onmoral recognition, but not on how it influencedindividuals’ perceptions of the proximity dimen-sion of moral intensity, two distinct constructsin the ethical decision-making process (May andPauli, 2002).

The research conducted here contributes tothis existing research by examining the role thatpersonal information plays in determining indi-viduals’ perceptions of moral intensity (i.e., prox-imity) and how these proximity perceptions maymediate the relation between this personal infor-mation and ethical intentions. Based on the dis-cussion above, the final hypothesis of the studyis offered below:

H4: Perceptions of proximity will mediate the rela-tionship between personal information andethical behavioral intent.

Methods

Research design

This study investigated the impact of conse-quential and personal information on ethicalbehavioral intent using vignettes in an experi-mental, fully-crossed factorial research design.Vignettes were chosen because they allow thesituation to remain controlled while the variablesof interest are manipulated. Not only arevignettes by far the most common way to gatherinformation in ethical decision-making research(Randall and Gibson, 1990; Tsalikis et al., 2001;Weber, 1992), but they also allow researchers tostandardize the experimental context for partic-ipants, reduce impression management bias, andclosely approximate the situation (Alexander andBecker, 1978). The approach used generallyfollows Tsalikis et al.’s (2001) research model ofethical behavior where the participants “observe”


and evaluate the impact of an action on thevictim presented in a scenario.

The vignette that the participants in this studyexamined was an ethical dilemma focusing onemployee health and safety, specifically, carpaltunnel syndrome. Participants were asked to placethemselves in a position of authority regardingactions that could be taken to prevent the con-dition (see Appendix). Initial versions of thevignette were reviewed by safety and medicalprofessionals for technical accuracy and ethicalcomplexity. Consistent with Weber’s (1992)recommendation of using scenarios that manip-ulate critical variables, this study used a singlevignette with experimental variations betweenparticipants, eliminating potential problemsrelated to order effects in studies with multiplescenarios. The two independent variables, con-sequential information and personal information,were randomly distributed to participants in thefour variations. Each research participant receivedonly one form of the scenario.

Participants

A random sample of 2000 was taken from across-section of the American ManagementAssociation membership file. 314 were completedand 87 (4.4 percent) were returned as undeliv-erable yielding a 16.4 percent response rate. Thisis within the range of response rates typicallyobserved for surveys from this type of population(Singhapakdi et al., 1999a). The response rate wasparticularly encouraging given the length of thesurvey, the sensitive nature of ethical issues, andrecently increased suspicions regarding unso-licited mail (Foust, 2001).

We chose to sample the members of the AMAfrom a wide variety of occupations and indus-tries for two primary reasons. First, we sought toalign the sample with an issue they are likely toexperience in their jobs (Fredrickson, 1986;Weber, 1992). Carpal tunnel syndrome is a con-dition that can occur in either manufacturing orservice organizations and in both blue-collar andwhite-collar occupations. Many managers areresponsible for safety issues either by themselvesor through cooperation with a health and safety

professional. Thus, a wide variety of managerswill potentially have exposure to this issue.Second, while the use of a diverse sample doesmake it more difficult to detect experimentaleffects (Lipsey, 1990), the Model of DeliberateSampling for Heterogeneity (Cook andCampbell, 1979) suggests that external validityis enhanced if effects are detectable.

Procedures

Pilot study. A systematic random sample of 200was selected from the larger sample of 2000.Special emphasis was given in this pilot to testingthe manipulation checks, verifying Cronbachalphas, and preliminary examination of thehypothesized relations. A t-test of the means forthe personal information manipulation checkrevealed that the personal information manipu-lation was effective (t(30) = 2.89, p < 0.01).Similarly, a t-test for the means of the conse-quential information manipulation check demon-strated that the consequential informationmanipulation was also effective (t(30) = 3.79,p < 0.01).

Main study. In both the pilot and main study, apacket was sent to potential participants with acover letter, the vignette, questionnaire items,and a return envelope. The cover letter brieflyexplained the importance of the research, assuredthe anonymity of the subjects, and encouragedthe individual to complete and return the instru-ment promptly. A follow-up postcard remindedindividuals to return the survey as quickly aspossible.

Measures

Consequential and personal information. The twoindependent variables, consequential informationand personal information, were each manipulatedin the vignettes themselves (see Appendix).Consistent with Wittmer’s (1992) manipulationapproach, variations with high consequentialinformation included details regarding the con-sequences of carpal tunnel syndrome, whilevariations with low consequential information


omitted these details. Variations with highpersonal information referred to the target indi-vidual by name and included informationregarding previous personal interactions, whilevariations with low personal information referredto the target individual by position and notedthat the manager knew relatively little about theindividual.

Magnitude of consequences. To assess perceptionsof the magnitude of consequences, three itemswere adapted from previous studies (Singer, 1996;Singhapakdi et al., 1999a; Valentine and Barnett,2001) (alpha = 0.85): “Pat’s decision could haveprevented a severe health problem; If Pat didnothing, the potential consequences could beserious; Pat’s actions may have prevented signif-icant harm” (1 = Disagree strongly; 7 = Agreestrongly).

Proximity. Three statements were used to tapJones’ (1991) conceptualizations of social,physical, and psychological proximity (alpha =0.78): Social proximity was assessed with: “Patprobably views the secretary as a friend”(Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Singhapakdi et al.,1999a); physical proximity with: “Pat and thesecretary probably interact quite a bit during theday;” and psychological proximity with: “Patprobably has very little in common with the sec-retary (reverse-scored)” (Valentine and Barnett,2001).

Ethical behavioral intent. Consistent with Huntand Vitell’s (1986) methodology, we askedparticipants to express the likelihood that theywould perform as the manager did in thescenario. Specifically, ethical behavioral intentwas measured by asking subjects to agree ordisagree (on a 7-point scale) with three state-ments adapted from May and Pauli (2002) (alpha= 0.95): “As the department manager, I wouldinsist that the secretary make an appointment tosee the company doctor this week; I would notinsist that the secretary make an appointment tosee the company doctor this week, if I were thedepartment manager (reverse-scored); It is likelyI would insist that the secretary make an appoint-ment to see the company doctor this week.”

Control variables. We controlled for a number ofvariables thought to potentially influence theresults of the study. First, methodological reviewsof ethics research have advocated using social desirability as a control variable (Randall andGibson, 1990; Weber, 1992). This study followsPaulhus’ (1989) suggestion to use the ImpressionManagement subscale of the Balanced Inventoryof Desirable Responding (BIDR). Consistentwith other studies (Flannery and May, 2000;Trevino et al., 1998), we used a shortened, ten-item instrument to reduce respondent fatigue(alpha = 0.66). We also attempted to reducesocial desirability effects by maintaining subjectanonymity and using self-administered question-naires. Second, participants’ prior knowledge ofwork place safety and carpal tunnel syndromeissues might influence a participant’s responses.Prior knowledge was measured with one item:“I know quite a bit about carpal tunnel syndrome(e. g., its causes, symptoms, and remedies)” (1 =Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).” Third,participants’ experience with a colleague with awork-related injury/illness was assessed with the fol-lowing item: “Have you worked closely withsomeone who experienced a work-related injuryor illness?” (0 = no; 1 = yes). Finally, otherpotential control variables in the ethical decision-making literature include demographics such asage and gender (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Loeet al., 2000). Since research findings on thesevariables are mixed, we ran analyses with andwithout age and gender as controls. Given thatthese two variables did not impact the results, wechose not to include them in our discussionbelow.

Manipulation checks. To verify that the experi-mental survey manipulations of consequential andpersonal information were effective, a check foreach manipulation was included in the survey.Similar items were separated by other items inthe survey to reduce consistency effects. The con-sequential information manipulation check includedthree items (alpha = 0.82): “The scenario con-tained information regarding possible conse-quences to the secretary; The potential impactof Pat’s decision on the secretary was specifiedin the scenario; The scenario provided informa-


tion regarding what might happen to the secre-tary.” The personal information manipulationcheck included three items (alpha = 0.80):“Information about the secretary’s personal back-ground was provided in the scenario; Thescenario contained information about the secre-tary as a person; The scenario contained personalinformation regarding the secretary.”

Results

Descriptive statistics

The mean, standard deviation, and intercorrela-tions among the variables in the study are shownin Table I. The correlations between the vari-ables demonstrate that two of the control vari-ables, prior knowledge and having a colleaguewith a work-related illness/injury, were signifi-cantly related to ethical behavioral intent. Whilethe social desirability measure, impression man-

agement, was not significantly related to ethicalbehavioral intent, it was significantly related toperceptions of proximity. Therefore, these threevariables were used as control variables in theregression analyses discussed below.

Manipulation checks

Analysis of variance analyses were conductedto demonstrate that the manipulations weresuccessful. Consistent with expectations, thepersonal information manipulation significantlyexplained variation in the personal informationmanipulation check (F(9,304) = 9.88, p < 0.01),but not the consequential information manipu-lation check (F(9,304) = 1.22, p = n.s.).Similarly, the consequential information manip-ulation significantly explained variation in theconsequential information manipulation check(F(9,304) = 27.72, p < 0.01), but not thepersonal information manipulation check


TABLE IDescriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the variablesa

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Control variables

1. Prior knowledge 4.59 1.59 (–)2. Colleague with work-related 2. illness/injuryb 0.58 0.49 –0.30 (–)3. Impression management1 0.40 0.24 –0.07 –0.04 –(0.66)

Independent variables

4. Personal informationb 0.47 0.50 –0.03 –0.08 –0.11 (–)5. Consequential informationb 0.52 0.50 –0.06 –0.01 –0.02 –0.05 (–)

Mediating variables

6. Proximity 4.05 1.55 –0.06 –0.04 –0.14 –0.70 –0.04 (0.78)7. Magnitude of consequences 4.98 1.29 –0.15 –0.05 –0.03 –0.14 –0.12 (0.25) (0.85)

Dependent variable

8. Ethical behavioral intent 4.56 1.88 –0.17 –0.11 –0.00 –0.22 –0.01 (0.27) (0.66) (0.95)

Notes:1. a All correlations 0.11 and above are significant at p < 0.05.2. b Variables are on a scale of 0 to 1. All other items are on a scale of 1 to 7.3. Chronbach alphas listed on the diagonal.

(F(9,304) = 1.40, p = n.s.). These analysessuggest the manipulations were both successfuland mutually exclusive in their effects.

Non-response bias

A number of analyses were conducted to deter-mine whether any response bias was present inthe study. First, a chi-square test revealed that theversion of the scenario did not impact theresponse rate (

χ2(3, N = 314) = 2.81, p = n.s.).Second, analyses did reveal that the samplediffered from the overall population (as reportedby AMA) in sex, education, and age. Specifically,our sample included a higher percentage of: (a)men (56 vs. 48 percent) (z(313) = 2.84, p <0.01); (b) highly educated individuals (76.1percent with a college degree vs. 43 percent)(z(313) = 2.50, p < 0.01); and (c) older indi-viduals (61.8 percent between ages of 26–45vs. 73 percent) (z(313) = –4.47, p < 0.01).However, since none of these variables had asignificant relation with ethical behavioral intent,these sample differences should have relativelylittle impact on the generalizability of thefindings.

In addition, we examined whether late respon-ders to our survey differed from early respon-ders based on the idea that late responders arethought to be more like non-respondents (e.g.,Armstrong and Overton, 1977). These supple-mental analyses revealed that the early (i.e., first25%) and late responders (i.e., last 25%) did notdiffer on any of the variables included in thestudy, suggesting that non-response bias did notplausibly play a significant role in our research.

Hierarchical regression analyses

Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 proposed that conse-quential information would be positively relatedto ethical behavioral intent. Hierarchical regres-sion analyses were conducted that first enteredthe three control variables (i.e., prior knowledge,colleague with an injury/illness, and impressionmanagement) and then the independent variable(i.e., consequential information) (see Table II).

Consequential information did not explain asignificant amount of variance in ethical behav-ioral intent beyond the control variables (DR2 =0.00, F(3, 310) = 0.00, p = n.s.). Thus,Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 proposed that personalinformation would be positively related to ethicalbehavioral intent. The hierarchical regressionresults in Table II do demonstrate that personalinformation had a significant positive relationshipto ethical behavioral intent after the control vari-ables (DR2 = 0.05, F(3, 310) = 17.17, p < 0.01).Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported in the data.

Mediation analyses

The test for the mediation hypotheses(Hypotheses 3 and 4) was conducted using thefour-step mediation analysis proposed by Baronand Kenny (1986). First, there should be a sig-nificant relationship between each independentvariable (i.e., consequential or personal informa-tion) and the dependent variable (i.e., ethicalbehavioral intent). Second, there should be a sig-nificant relationship between each independentvariable (i.e., consequential or personal informa-tion) and the proposed mediator (i.e., perceptionsof magnitude of consequences or proximity).Third, there should be a significant relationshipbetween each mediator (i.e., magnitude of con-sequences or proximity) and the dependentvariable (i.e., ethical behavioral intent). Finally,after the control variables and mediator areentered into the equation, the significant rela-tionship between the independent and dependentvariable should be reduced (partial mediation)or eliminated (full mediation).

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 proposed that per-ceptions of the magnitude of consequenceswould mediate the relationship between conse-quential information and ethical behavioralintent. First, as demonstrated in Table II, no rela-tionship was found between consequential infor-mation and ethical behavioral intent (DR2 =0.00, F(3, 310) = 0.00, p = n.s.). Second, con-sequential information was only marginally



TA

BL

E I

IT

he e

ffec

ts o

f co

nseq

uent

ial

info

rmat

ion,

per

sona

l in

form

atio

n, m

agni

tude

of

cons

eque

nces

, an

d pr

oxim

ity

on e

thic

al b

ehav

iora

l in

tent

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

Eth

ical

beh

avio

ral

inte

nt

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s

Con

sequ

enti

alPe

rson

alM

agni

tude

of

Pro

xim

ity

info

rmat

ion

info

rmat

ion

cons

eque

nces

Step

Var

iabl

eβ

R2

∆R2

βR

2∆R

2β

R2

∆R2

βR

2∆R

2

1P

rior

kno

wle

dge

–0.1

5

*0.

15**

0.05

**0.

16**

Col

leag

ue i

njur

y/ill

ness

–0.0

7*0.

09**

0.07

**0.

08**

Impr

essi

on m

anag

emen

t–0

.02*

0.03

*0.

03*

0.01

**0.

03**

0.03

**0.

01**

0.03

*0.

03**

0.02

**0.

03**

0.03

**2

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

–0.0

0*0.

03*

0.00

*0.

23**

0.08

**0.

05**

0.65

**0.

45*

0.42

**0.

29**

0.11

**0.

08**

Not

es:

1.

β=

Sta

ndar

dize

d be

tas

afte

r al

l va

riab

les

are

in t

he e

quat

ion.

2.

R2

= T

otal

var

ianc

e ex

plai

ned.

3.

∆R2

= C

hang

e in

R-s

quar

ed.

4.

† *=

p<

0.1

0.4.

**

= p

< 0

.05.

4.

**=

p<

0.0

1.

related to perceptions of the magnitude of con-sequences (DR2 = 0.01, F(4, 309) = 2.80, p <0.10) (see Table III) after accounting for thecontrol variables. Third, a positive relationshipbetween perceptions of the magnitude of conse-quences and ethical behavioral intent was found(DR2 = 0.42, F(3,310) = 232.65, p < 0.05) (seeright side of Table II). However, since no initialsignificant relation was present between conse-quential information and ethical behavioralintent, there was no possibility that magnitude ofconsequences could mediate this relation (seeBaron and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, Hypothesis3 was not supported.

Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 proposed that per-ceptions of proximity would mediate the rela-tionship between personal information andethical behavioral intent. First, as demonstratedin Table II, a positive relationship was foundbetween personal information and ethical behav-ioral intent (DR2 = 0.05, F(3, 310) = 17.17,p < 0.01). Second, a significant relation existedbetween the personal information manipulationand perceptions of proximity (DR2 = 0.47,F(4, 309) = 283.86, p < 0.01) (see the left sideof Table IV). Third, a positive relationshipbetween perceptions of proximity and ethical

behavioral intent was found (DR2 = 0.08,F(4, 309) = 28.67, p < 0.01) (see right side ofTable II). Fourth, when the control variables andmediator were both included in the regressionequation, the effect of personal informationon ethical behavioral intent was reduced to non-significance (DR2 = 0.00, F(5, 308) = 0.84, p =n.s.) (see the right side of Table IV). Thus,Hypothesis 4 was supported since perceptions ofproximity fully mediated the relationship betweenpersonal information and ethical behavioralintent.

Supplementary analyses: The roles of prior knowledge and personal information

Given the somewhat surprising lack of supportfor a significant relation between consequentialinformation and ethical behavioral intent(Hypothesis 1), we investigated a number oftheoretically plausible alternatives for why thisrelation failed to emerge. Specifically, we inves-tigated the roles that prior knowledge andpersonal information played in helping under-stand the relations in our research data.

Prior knowledge. First, we postulated that theimpact of consequential information on ethicalbehavioral intentions might be influenced byindividual or contextual factors. We theorizedthat perhaps such consequential informationmatters most to those who already have someprior knowledge about an ethical issue such ascarpal tunnel syndrome. These individuals mightbe more sensitive to the content of consequen-tial information. Thus, we explored whetherprior knowledge moderated the relation betweenconsequential information and ethical behavioralintent. To this end, a hierarchical regressionanalysis was conducted that first centered theindependent and moderating variables aroundtheir means to reduce multicollinearity in thefinal equation (Aiken and West, 1991). Thefindings in Table V demonstrated that the rela-tionship between consequential information andethical behavioral intent was indeed moderatedby perceived prior knowledge (DR2 = 0.02,F(5, 308) = 5.19, p < 0.05). Graphical repre-


TABLE IIIThe effect of consequential information on

magnitude of consequences

Dependent variable: Magnitude of consequences

Step Variable β R2 ∆R2

1 Prior knowledge –0.14*Colleague injury/illness –0.01*Impression management –0.04* 0.02†i 0.03†

2 Consequential information –0.11†i 0.03* 0.01†

Notes:1. β = Standardized betas after all variables are in the

equation.2. R2 = Total variance explained.3. ∆R2 = Change in R-squared.4. †* = p < 0.10.

** = p < 0.05.** = p < 0.01.

sentation of this relation (see Figure 2) indicatedthat those with prior knowledge intended to actmore ethically when given more consequentialinformation (5.08) as opposed to less conse-quential information (4.61). Somewhat surpris-ingly, those with low prior knowledge decreasedtheir ethical intentions when given more conse-quential information (4.50 to 4.01, respectively).This suggests that such individuals with littleknowledge about carpal tunnel syndrome mayactually resist or discount information regardingthe seriousness of the illness.

Personal information. Second, we theorized thatthe relation between consequential informationand ethical behavioral intentions might also beinfluenced by the personal information availableto the decision maker. That is, consequentialinformation may matter more when you havelittle personal information about an individualthrough interpersonal interactions and matter lesswhen you already know much about a person.Supplemental hierarchical regression analyseswere again conducted, but these analyses did not


TABLE IVThe effect of personal information on proximity and ethical behavioral intent (controlling for proximity)

Independent variable: Personal information

Dependent variables

Perceptions of proximity Ethical behavioral intent

Step Variable β R2 ∆R2 Step Variable β R2 ∆R2

1 Prior knowledge –0.05** 1 Prior knowledge 0.16**Colleague injury/illness –0.03** Colleague injury/illness 0.08**Impression management –0.06** 0.02†* 0.02†* Impression management 0.02**

Proximity 0.25** 0.11** 0.11**2 Personal information –0.69** 0.49** 0.47** 2 Personal information 0.05** 0.12** 0.00**

Notes:1. β = standardized betas after all variables are in the equation.2. R2 = total variance explained.3. ∆R2 = change in R-squared.4. †* = p < 0.10.

** = p < 0.05.** = p < 0.01.

TABLE VThe moderating effect of perceived prior knowledge

on the relationship between consequential information and ethical behavioral intent

Dependent variable: Ethical behavioral intent

Step Variable β R2 ∆R2

1 Colleague injury/illness –0.07*Impression management –0.02*Consequential information –0.00*Prior knowledge –0.16* 0.03** 0.03*

2 Consequential information× Prior knowledge –0.13* 0.05** 0.02*

Notes:1. β = Standardized betas after all variables are in the

equation.2. R2 = Total variance explained.3. ∆R2 = Change in R-squared.4. †* = p < 0.10.

** = p < 0.05.** = p < 0.01.

support this proposed relation. Personal infor-mation did not significantly moderate the rela-tionship between consequential information andethical behavioral intent (DR2 = 0.00, F(6, 307)= 0.90, p = n.s.) (see Table VI). However,personal information did moderate the relation-ship between consequential information and

magnitude of consequences (DR2 = 0.01,F(5, 308) = 4.31, p < 0.05). Perceptions of themagnitude of consequences increased for thosewith little personal information about the targetfrom 4.49 to 5.08, respectively, as consequentialinformation was enhanced (see Figure 3).However, for those with much personal infor-


TABLE VIThe moderating effect of personal information on the relationship between consequential information and ethicalbehavioral intent and on the relationship between consequential information and magnitude of consequences

Dependent variables

Ethical behavioral intent Magnitude of consequences

Step Variable β R2 ∆R2 Step Variable β R2 ∆R2

1 Prior knowledge –0.17** 1 Prior knowledge –0.11**Colleague injury/illness –0.33** Colleague injury/illness –0.04**Impression management –0.07** Impression management –0.14**Consequential information –0.03** Consequential information–0.30**Personal information –0.85** 0.08**0.08* Personal information –0.38** 0.06** 0.06**

2 Consequential information 2 Consequential informationX Personal information –0.39** 0.09**0.00* X Personal information –0.59** 0.07** 0.01**

Notes:1. β = Standardized betas after all variables are in the equation.2. R2 = Total variance explained.3. ∆R2 = Change in R-squared.4. †* = p < 0.10; ** = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.

Figure 2. The moderating effect of perceived prior knowledge on the relationship between consequentialinformation and ethical behavioral intent.

mation, perceptions of magnitude of conse-quences were not influenced at all when theywere given additional consequential information(5.16 and 5.16, respectively).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigatethe impact of information on moral intensityperceptions and, subsequently, on ethical inten-tions. Overall, the study found that personalinformation about those affected by a decisioninfluenced the decision maker’s perceptionsof his/her closeness to the target individualsas well as his/her intention to act ethically.Furthermore, perceptions of proximity explainedthe relation between personal information andethical intentions. In contrast, informationregarding consequences influenced the decisionmaker’s perception that the consequences weresignificant only when personal information wasnot available. Further, consequential informationpositively influenced the decision maker’s inten-tion to behave ethically only when s/he had priorknowledge of the ethical issue.

Personal information

Consistent with expectations, the results of thisstudy demonstrated that personal informationpositively influenced ethical behavioral inten-

tions. Personal information explained five percentof the variation in ethical behavioral intentbeyond that explained by the control variables.While this may not seem like a substantial per-centage, ethical behavioral intent rose from 4.2on a 7-point scale in the low personal informa-tion condition to 5.0 in the high personal infor-mation condition, resulting in a medium effectsize of 0.43.

These results confirm extant research thatpersonal information influences decision-making(Ajzen, 1988; Nisbett and Ross, 1980), but clar-ifies that such information not only affectselements of the decision-making process (e.g.,proximity perceptions), but also the behavioralintentions that emerge from the process. Previousethics research has shown a relationship betweenpersonal information and ethical sensitivity(Wittmer, 1992), the initial component of manyethical decision-making models (cf. Jones, 1991;May and Pauli, 2002). The current researchextends these findings by demonstrating a linkagebetween personal information and ethical behav-ioral intentions. As such, this research helpedanswer the call by researchers (Davidson et al.,1985) to identify the determinants of behavioralintent as a way to understand human behavior.While this research treated personal informationas a dichotomous variable (low/high), there mayalso be a threshold level for the impact ofpersonal information such that above a certainpoint information has little influence on an indi-


Figure 3. The moderating effect of personal information on the relationship between consequential informa-tion and magnitude of consequences.

vidual’s ethical intentions. Future research shouldexplore the impact of more refined degrees ofpersonal information on ethical intentions.

Proximity

Perceptions of proximity were expected tomediate the relationship between personal infor-mation and ethical behavioral intent. Thisresearch found that perceptions of proximity fullymediated this relationship, indicating thatpersonal information influences ethical intentionsonly through perceptions of the target’s prox-imity. While previous research has connectedpersonal information to perceptions of proximity(Davis et al., 1998; Oldham et al., 1986) andproximity to ethical decision-making (Singer etal., 1998; Wittmer, 1992), the results of this studycontribute to this extant literature by examiningthese relations through a formal test of media-tion. Consistent with Davidson et al.’s (1985) callto identify the determinants of behavioral intentas a way to understand human behavior, thisresearch not only identifies personal informationand proximity as two determinants, it also clar-ifies their relationship to intent.

Given that past research has established thelinkage of personal information to ethical sensi-tivity (i.e., moral recognition) and the currentresearch extended this to moral intensity per-ceptions (i.e., proximity) and ethical intentions,future research may wish to explore the role ofpersonal information in influencing the moralevaluation/judgment component of the ethicaldecision-making process (May and Pauli, 2002;Rest, 1986).

Previous research has also found that similarityin circumstances and gender influenced ethicaldecision-making (Ross and Robertson, 2000;Singhapakdi et al., 1999b; Lunsford, 2000). Thisstudy extends those findings to include social andphysical proximity. Specifically, the vignette inthis study used personal information based onsocial, psychological, and physical similarity asthe means for influencing proximity. Jones (1991)also suggested that proximity is affected bycultural similarity. Future research shouldcompare different types of proximity (social,

cultural, physical, and psychological) to seewhich has the strongest impact and, therefore,which type of personal information should bepresented to decision makers faced with ethicaldilemmas.

Consequential information

The presence of consequential information waspredicted to positively influence ethical behav-ioral intent, a relationship not supported by theresults of this study. While it is possible thatindividuals are oblivious to consequential infor-mation when making ethical decisions, that con-clusion would be inconsistent with much ofethical philosophy (Mill, 1987/1963; Rachels,1993) and empirical research (Forsyth and Nye,1990; Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987).

The supplementary finding that prior knowl-edge moderated the influence of consequentialinformation on ethical behavioral intentions clar-ifies the initial findings of this study. As notedearlier, individuals with high levels of priorknowledge were positively influenced by conse-quential information. However, individuals withlow levels of prior knowledge actually had reducedlevels of ethical behavioral intent when presentedwith consequential information. It is possible thatsuch individuals are actively discounting theinformation because of prior ignorance aboutcarpal tunnel syndrome. Future research shouldexamine the role that the type of prior knowl-edge plays in determining the relation betweenconsequential information and an individual’sethical behavioral intentions. Prior knowledgethat is contradictory to the consequential infor-mation presented may be particularly interestingfor future researchers to investigate.

The supplementary analyses also found thatpersonal information moderated the influence ofconsequential information on perceptions of themagnitude of consequences. As noted above,consequential information had little impact onmagnitude of consequences for individuals whoreceived much personal information. In contrast,individuals who were exposed to the lowpersonal information condition were positivelyinfluenced by consequential information.


Overall, these supplementary results seem tosuggest that consequential information has itsgreatest positive impact on the ethical decisionmaking process under conditions of muchprevious knowledge about the issue or lack ofpersonal information about the target. Suchfindings have significant implications for thedesign and implementation of training programsin ethics (see discussion below). Future researchshould consider examining the relative effective-ness of training programs on the behavioralintentions of managers taking into account theirprior knowledge of the ethical issue and knowl-edge of the constituencies involved (e.g., com-munity members).

Magnitude of consequences

Perceptions of the magnitude of consequenceswere predicted to mediate the relationshipbetween consequential information and ethicalbehavioral intent. The results of this study foundthat while the perceptions of the magnitude ofconsequences influenced ethical behavioral intent,consequential information did not. Consequentialinformation was marginally related to perceptionsof magnitude of consequences and this effect wasstrengthened when individuals had relatively littlepersonal information about the target.

The connection between the perceptions ofmagnitude of consequences and ethical behav-ioral intent replicates one of the most consistentfindings in moral intensity research: magnitudeof consequences is not only significant, but it isthe most significant dimension of moral intensityin influencing ethical decision-making (Chia andMee, 2000; Frey, 2000; May and Pauli, 2002).

Somewhat perplexing then is the lack ofmediation by magnitude of consequences for theproposed relations in the theoretical framework.While the supplementary results indicated thatthe relation between consequential informationand ethical behavioral intent was moderated byprior knowledge, this moderation did not occurfor the consequential information-magnitudeof consequences relation. Second, personalinformation moderated the relation betweenconsequential information and magnitude of

consequences, but it did not significantly influ-ence the relation between consequential infor-mation and ethical behavioral intent. Given theseresults, magnitude of consequences could not bean effective mediator of the moderated forms ofthe consequential information-ethical behavioralintent relations. Apparently, the objective con-sequential manipulation acts through some othermechanism than magnitude of consequences. Asa starting point, future research should investi-gate the relation of such information to the otherdimensions of moral intensity.

There were also significant correlationsbetween the perceptions of the magnitude ofconsequences and the proximity/personal infor-mation variables, implying that consequences areseen as more severe as proximity increases, con-sistent with Moberg and Seabright (2000) whostated that “harm to others triggers moral per-ception only if the object of the harm is amember of one’s moral community” (p. 851).This relation is also congruent with previousstudies that have found both (a) high intercorre-lations among the components of moral inten-sity and (b) that the components collapse intoone or two factors (Dukerich et al., 2000; Frey,2000; May and Pauli, 2002; Singhapakdi et al.,1996). It may be that in a low-proximity situa-tion, other components, such as perceptions ofmagnitude of consequences, may be subdued,while in a high-proximity situation those com-ponents are activated. Future research needs toclarify the relationship between the componentsof moral intensity in different contexts.

Implications for management

If the ethical behavior of individuals is to bemanaged, more attention must be given tounderstanding how people make ethical decisions(Davidson et al., 1985) by identifying and ana-lyzing the factors that influence ethical behavior(Ajzen, 1988). Managers can then determine themost effective way of training and rewardingethical behavior (Adams et al., 1999). This studyhas attempted to contribute to answering thesequestions posed by previous researchers by exam-ining ethical intent and moral intensity (Loe et


al., 2000) through improved operationalizationsof moral intensity using an experimental design(Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Weber, 1992).

The results of this study suggest that if amanager wants to encourage ethical behavior,s/he should provide personal information aboutthe individuals who will be affected. While suchknowledge does increase the complexity of therequired decision, it can be beneficial to theethicality of that decision. One way for decision-makers to be exposed to personal information isto have more interaction with those potentiallyaffected. Executives contemplating layoffs shouldinteract with those who will be affected. Thelayoffs may still occur, but the exchange ofpersonal information may make the process ofthe layoff more compassionate. Sales managersshould talk with salespeople and customers;human resource managers should get to knowfront-line managers and their employees; pur-chasing managers and purchasing agents shouldunderstand their vendors and customers. Themore an individual decision-maker can under-stand who his/her decisions will impact, the lesslikely he or she is to dehumanize the potentialvictims and make unethical decisions.

The results also confirm that ethical behavioris enhanced when an individual perceives that theconsequences are serious. Although this studywas unable to substantiate the effects of providingconsequential information, the supplementaryanalysis provided some evidence that conse-quential information is positively related toethical behavioral intent for individuals withsome prior knowledge of an issue. Therefore,reinforcing the knowledge of an individual withsome exposure to an ethical situation should bean effective way of encouraging more ethicaldecisions. However, managers should be cautiousabout supplying information to those with littleexposure to a given ethical issue as it may beimportant to first discern the individuals’ naivepositions on ambiguous ethical issues.

Strengths and limitations

Methodological strengths. The quality of businessethics research has improved dramatically in the

past decade thanks to the methodologicalcritiques of Randall and Gibson (1990) andWeber (1992). The strengths of this study drawdirectly from the recommendations of thosereviews. First, the subjects are from a large,random sample of real managers in a wide varietyof industries and organizations with significantheterogeneity in gender, age, experience, edu-cation, and occupation. This diversity supportsbroader generalization than if the sample wasmore homogeneous. Second, the use of a fully-crossed factorial design avoids the commonproblems associated with mixing manipulations(particularly in the moral intensity literature),allowing for more direct testing of a priorihypotheses by having multiple versions of a singlevignette. Third, the instrument was developedwith advice from practicing health and safetyprofessionals and then pre-tested on a sampledrawn from the target population. Fourth, pro-cedures to improve the response rate, such asanonymity, a self-addressed, stamped envelope,and a reminder postcard were used. Finally, thedata were examined in terms of potential non-response bias, manipulation checks, reliability,and the analyses were rigorous in terms of usingcontrol variables (e.g., social desirability) andBaron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for media-tion analyses.

Theoretical strengths. Theoretically, this studyexhibits several strengths. First, the study is builton a strong theoretical foundation grounded inclassical philosophy, organizational behavior, mar-keting, psychology, sociology, and communica-tion. Ethical behavior was defined up front in thisstudy and defended from a normative philo-sophical basis. Second, it is one of the first tostudy the objective determinants of moral inten-sity perceptions and then use them as explana-tory variables of ethical behavioral intentions.Third, since manipulating organizational or indi-vidual factors is difficult in practice, this studyemphasized factors that managers can more easilyinfluence – the amount and type of informationprovided to employees.

Limitations. As with any research, this study doeshave limitations. First, Weber (1992) suggested


selecting preexisting scenarios that have been pre-viously tested so that the results of new researchcan be more easily compared with previousresearch. While well-constructed, validated sce-narios are available in a variety of areas, previousethics research has not used scenarios that dealwith employee safety and health issues. This studydeveloped a new scenario and attempted toovercome this limitation by including practi-tioners in its development and then extensivelypre-testing the instrument.

Second, while the experimental nature of thescenario manipulations allows us to have moreconfidence in the causal linkage between thetypes of information provided and the moralintensity and ethical intention variables, themediation analyses were performed using twovariables gathered at the same point in time (i.e.,moral intensity and ethical intentions). Thus, themediation by proximity of the personal infor-mation-ethical behavioral intention relationshould be interpreted with caution. While itis consistent with the theoretical frameworkproposed, future research should attempt tomeasure these variables at separate points in time.

Third, the use a single hypothetical scenariolimits the generalizability of the results toemployee health and safety issues (i.e., carpaltunnel syndrome). Future research is needed toexamine the effects of personal and consequen-tial information using different ethical issues.

Fourth, the random sample of managers fromdifferent geographic areas, industries, and occu-pations provides some assurance that the resultsmay be applied more widely. While rigorousnon-response analyses did detect some differencesin gender, education, and age from the AMAgeneral population, none of these variables weresignificantly related to ethical behavioral inten-tion. This suggests that the results of this ethicsresearch can still be cautiously generalized to thispopulation of diverse managers. Finally, since thesample consisted of approximately ten percentof individuals who categorized their industryas “education,” we conducted supplementaryanalyses to examine whether the survey responsesbetween those in education vs. business indus-tries. These analyses demonstrated no differencesbetween the educators and non-educators on any

of the variables in the study suggesting that theresults may generalize across both groups ofmanagers.

Conclusion

Business ethics is an important topic. Everyday individuals are put in a position of makingdifficult ethical decisions and the current businessenvironment forces more responsibility on theindividual while providing fewer guidelines.For managers who really want to encourageethical behavior in their organizations, the ideasin this study should prove to be a useful startingpoint. For researchers who want to know more,there are significant questions still waiting foranswers.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented atthe 2003 Academy of Management Meeting inSeattle, Washington. The authors wish to thankthe members of the AMA who participated inthe study.

Appendix

Scenario and manipulations

Pat Hanson is the Department Manager in an orga-nization very similar to yours. Last Monday morning,Pat overheard (LP: no name; HP: Linda) a secretaryin the department, talking about “tingling andnumbness in her fingers” and how her hand felt weakwhen she tried to open a jar over the weekend.

Pat knows that this condition can be causedeither by the near-constant typing that dominates thesecretary’s time at work or by the gardening andweeding she’s been doing at home (LP: Even thoughthe secretary has been with the company for fiveyears, Pat has never worked closely with her anddoesn’t know much about her; HP: Linda and herhusband Scott have two preschool children and livein Pat’s neighborhood. She has always been veryhelpful during the five years she has worked in thedepartment).

(HC: Without attention, Pat knows that this


problem could escalate to the point where surgerywould be required. An incision would be made onthe inside of the wrist to allow for more space forthe swollen nerves. Recovery from surgery is mod-erately painful and would include physical therapyand restricted work duty for several months. Somepatients never completely recover; LC: Informationon surgery omitted).

After thinking about it, Pat insists that (LP: thesecretary; HP: Linda) make an appointment to see thecompany doctor this week.

Manipulations are noted as follows:

HP: high personal informationLP: low personal informationHC: high consequential informationLC: low consequential information

References

Adams, J. S., A. Tashchian and T. H. Shore: 1999,‘Frequency, Recall, and Usefulness of Undergrad-uate Ethics Education’, Teaching Business Ethics 3,241–253.

Aiken, L. and S. West: 1991, Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Sage, Newbury).

Ajzen, I.: 1988, Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior(Dorsey, Chicago).

Alexander, C. S. and H. J. Becker: 1978, ‘The Useof Vignettes in Survey Research’, Public OpinionQuarterly 42, 93–104.

Armstrong, J. S. and T. S. Overton: 1977, ‘EstimatingNonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys’, Journal ofMarketing Research 14, 396–402.

Audi, R.: 1997, Moral Knowledge and Ethical Character(Oxford, New York).

Bandura, A.: 1999, ‘Moral Disengagement in thePerpetration of Inhumanities’, Personality and SocialPsychology Review 33, 193–209.

Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny: 1986, ‘TheModerator-mediator Variable Distinction in SocialPsychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, andStatistical Considerations’, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 51, 1173–1182.

Bowie, N. E.: 1998, ‘A Kantian Theory ofMeaningful Work’, Journal of Business Ethics 17,1083–1092.

Bureau of Labor Statistics: 12 December 2000,‘Census of Fatal Occupational InjuriesSummary’, Safety and Health Statistics, Retrieved 12April 2001 from the World Wide Web:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics: 28 March 2001, ‘Lost-worktime Injuries and Illnesses: Characteristics andResulting Time Away from Work, 1999’, Safetyand Health Statistics, Retrieved 12 April 2001from the World Wide Web: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.nr0.htm.

Chia, A. and L. S. Mee: 2000, ‘The Effects of IssueCharacteristics on the Recognition of MoralIssues’, Journal of Business Ethics 27, 255–269.

Collins, D.: 1989, ‘Organizational Harm, LegalCondemnation, and Stakeholder Retaliation: ATypology, Research Agenda, and Applications’,Journal of Business Ethics 8, 1–13.

Cook, T. D. and D. T. Campbell: 1979, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for FieldSettings (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston).

Davis, M. A., N. B. Johnson and D. G. Ohmer: 1998,‘Issue-Contingent Effects on Ethical Decision-Making: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17, 373–389.

Davidson, A. R., S. Yantis, M. Norwood and D. E.Montano: 1985, ‘Amount of Information aboutthe Attitude Object and Attitude-Behavior Con-sistency’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49, 1184–1198.

Dubinsky, A. J. and B. Loken, B: 1989, ‘AnalyzingEthical Decision Making in Marketing’, Journal ofBusiness Research 19, 83–107.

Dukerich, J. M., M. J. Waller, E. George and G. P.Huber: 2000, ‘Moral Intensity and ManagerialProblem Solving’, Journal of Business Ethics 24,29–38.

Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contin-gency Framework for Understanding EthicalDecision-Making in Marketing’, Journal ofMarketing, 49, 87–96.

Flannery, B. L. and D. R. May: 2000, ‘EnvironmentalEthical Decision-Making in the U.S. Metal-Finishing Industry’, Academy of Management Journal43, 642–662.

Flory, S. M., T. J. Phillips Jr., R. E. Reidenbach andD. P. Robin: 1992, ‘A Multidimensional Analysisof Selected Ethical Issues in Accounting’,Accounting Review 67, 284–302.

Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘EthicalDecision-Making: A Review of the EmpiricalLiterature’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.

Forsyth, D. R. and J. L. Nye: 1990, ‘Personal MoralPhilosophies and Moral Choice’, Journal of Researchin Personality 24, 398–414.

Foust, D.: 2001, A Hit to the Mail is a Hit to theEconomy, Retrieved 14 March 2002 from the


World Wide Web:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_47/b3758052.htm.

Frederickson, J. W.: 1986, ‘An Exploratory Approachto Measuring Perceptions of Strategic DecisionProcess Constructs’, Strategic Management Journal 7,473–483.

French, W. and D. Albright: 1998, ‘Resolving a MoralConflict through Discourse’, Journal of BusinessEthics 17, 177–194.

Frey, B. F.: 2000, ‘The Impact of Moral Intensity onDecision-Making in a Business Context’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 26, 181–195.

Fritzsche, D. J.: 1988, ‘An Examination of MarketingEthics: Role of the Decision Maker, Consequencesof the Decision, Management Position, and Sexof the Respondent’, Journal of Macromarketing 8,29–39.

Fritzsche, D. J. and H. Becker: 1984, ‘LinkingManagement Behavior to Ethical Philosophy: AnEmpirical Investigation’, Academy of ManagementJournal 27, 166–175.

Fusilier, M. R., C. D. Aby Jr., J. K. Worley and S.Elliott: 1996, ‘Perceived Seriousness of BusinessEthics Issues’, Business and Professional Ethics Journal15, 67–78.

Gaudine, A. and L. Thorne: 2001, ‘Emotion andEthical Decision-Making in Organizations’, Journalof Business Ethics 31, 175–187.

Guthrie, J. P. and J. D. Olian: 1990, ‘UsingPsychological Constructs to Improve Health andSafety: The HRM Niche’, in K. Rowland andG. Ferris (eds.), Research in Personnel and HumanResource Management, Vol. 8 ( JAI Press, Greenwich,CT), pp. 141–201.

Heider, F.: 1946, ‘Attitudes and CognitiveOrganizations’, The Journal of Psychology 21,107–112.

Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theoryof Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 6,5–16.

Jones, T. M.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision-Making byIndividuals in Organizations: An Issue-ContingentModel’, Academy of Management Review 16,366–395.

Jones, T. M. and L. V. Ryan: 1997, ‘The Linkbetween Ethical Judgment and Action inOrganizations: A Moral Approbations Approach’,Organization Science 8, 663–680.

Kant, I.: 1964/1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic ofMorals (Harper, New York).

Kohlberg, L.: 1976, ‘Moral Stages and Moralization:The Cognitive-Development Approach’, in T.Lickona (ed.), Moral Development and Behavior:

Theory, Research and Social Issues (Holt, Rinehartand Winston, New York), pp. 31–53.

Laczniak, G. R. and E. J. Inderrieden: 1987, ‘TheInfluence of Stated Organizational Concerns uponEthical Decision-Making’, Journal of Business Ethics6, 297–307.

Lipsey, M. W.: 1990. Design Sensitivity: Statistical Powerfor Experimental Research (Sage, Newbury Park,CA).

Loe, T. W., L. Ferrell and P. Mansfield: 2000, ‘AReview of Empirical Studies Assessing EthicalDecision-Making in Business’, Journal of BusinessEthics 25, 185–204.

Lunsford, D. L.: 2000, ‘Ethical Judgments: DoesGender Matter?’ Teaching Business Ethics 4, 1–22.

May, D. R. and K. P. Pauli: 2002, ‘The Role of MoralIntensity in Ethical Decision-Making: A Reviewand Investigation of Moral Recognition,Evaluation, and Intention’, Business and Society 41,84–117.

May, D. R. and C. E. Schwoerer: 1994, ‘EmployeeHealth by Design: Using Employee InvolvementTeams in Ergonomic Job Redesign’, PersonnelPsychology 47, 861–876.

Mill, J. S.: 1987/1863, Utilitarianism (Prometheus,Amherst, NY).

Moberg, D. J. and M. A. Seabright: 2000, ‘TheDevelopment of Moral Imagination’, Business EthicsQuarterly 10, 845–884.

Morris, S. A. and R. A. McDonald: 1995, ‘The Roleof Moral Intensity in Moral Judgments: AnEmpirical Investigation’, Journal of Business Ethics14, 715–726.

Nisbett, R. and L. Ross: 1980, Human Inference:Strategies and Shortcomings in Social Judgment(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NY).

Nussbaum, M. C.: 1990, Love’s Knowledge: Essays onPhilosophy and Literature (Oxford, New York).

Oldham, G. R., C. T. Kulik, L. P. Stepina and M. L.Ambrose: 1986, ‘Relations between SituationalFactors and the Comparative Referents Used byEmployees’, Academy of Management Journal 29,599–608.

Paulhus, D. L.: 1989, ‘Measurement and Control ofResponse Bias’, in J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver andL. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Social-PsychologicalAttitudes (Academic Press, New York), pp. 17–59.

Petty, R. E. and J. T. Cacioppo: 1986, Communicationand Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes toAttitude Change (Springer-Verlag, New York).

Rachels, J.: 1993, The Elements of Moral Philosophy(McGraw-Hill, New York).

Randall, D. M. and A. M. Gibson: 1990,


‘Methodology in Business Ethics Research: AReview and Critical Assessment’, Journal of BusinessEthics 9, 457–471.

Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances inResearch and Theory (Praeger, New York).

Ross, W. D.: 1930, The Right and the Good(Clarendon, Oxford).

Ross, W. T. Jr. and D. C. Robertson: 2000, ‘Lying:The Impact of Decision Context’, Business EthicsQuarterly 10, 409–440.

Schwartz, S. H.: 1977, ‘Normative Influences onAltruism’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 (AcademicPress, New York), pp. 221–279.

Singer, M. S.: 1996, ‘The Role of Moral Intensityand Fairness Perception in Judgments of Ethicality:A Comparison of Managerial Professionals andthe General Public’, Journal of Business Ethics 15,469–474.

Singer, M. S. Mitchell and J. Turner: 1998,‘Consideration of Moral Intensity in EthicalityJudgments: Its Relationship with Whistle Blowingand Need-for-Cognition’, Journal of Business Ethics17, 527–541.

Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell and G. R. Franke: 1999a,‘Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Effectsof Perceived Moral Intensity and Personal MoralPhilosophies’, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 27, 19–36.

Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell and K. L. Kraft: 1996,‘Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Makingof Marketing Professionals’, Journal of BusinessResearch 36, 245–255.

Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell, C. P. Rao and D. L.Kurtz: 1999b, ‘Ethics Gap: Comparing Marketerswith Consumers on Important Determinants ofEthical Decision-Making’, Journal of Business Ethics21, 317–328.

Stewart, W. H., D. E. Ledgerwood and R. C. May:1996, ‘Educating Business Schools About Safetyand Health is No Accident’, Journal of BusinessEthics 15, 919–926.

Taylor, S. and P. Todd: 1997, ‘Understandingthe Determinants of Consumer CompostingBehavior’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27,602–628.

Trevino, L. K.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision-Making inOrganizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist

Model’, Academy of Management Review 11,601–617.

Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. I. McCabe:1998, ‘The Ethical Context in Organizations:Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors’,Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 447–476.

Tsalikis, J., B. Seaton and P. L. Shepard: 2001,‘Relativism in Ethical Research: A ProposedModel and Mode of Inquiry’, Journal of BusinessEthics 32(3), 231–246.

Valentine, S. and T. Barnett: August 2001, ‘Issue-Related and Situational Influences on EthicalJudgments and Behavioral Intentions: An EmpiricalStudy’, Paper presented at the Academy ofManagement, Washington, DC.

Waters, J. A., F. Bird and P. D. Chant: 1986, ‘EverydayMoral Issues Experienced by Managers’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 5, 373–384.

Weber, J.: 1992, ‘Scenarios in Business EthicsResearch: Review, Critical Assessment, andRecommendations’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2,138–159.

Weber, J.: 1996, ‘Influences upon Managerial MoralDecision-Making: Nature of the Harm andMagnitude of Consequences’, Human Relations 49,1–22.

Wittmer, D. P.: 1992, ‘Ethical Sensitivity andManagerial Decision-Making: An Experiment’,Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2, 443–462.

Loy D. WatleyDepartment of Business Administration

& Economics,Nebraska Wesleyan University,

5000 Saint Paul Avenue,Lincoln, NE 68504-3704,

U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

Douglas R. MayDepartment of Management,

University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Lincoln, NE 68588-0491,

U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

Enhancing Moral Intensity: The Roles of Personal and ... · meaningful work provide for the employee’s physical welfare. In addition, Kant’s (1785/1964) alternate formulation