Does Disgust Increase Unethical Behavior? A Replication of Winterich, Mittal, and Morales (2014)

2020 ◽  
pp. 194855062094408
Author(s):  
Tamar Kugler ◽  
Charles N. Noussair ◽  
Denton Hatch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Behavior ◽  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
The Relationship

We consider the relationship between disgust and ethical behavior. Winterich, Mittal, and Morales report several experiments finding that disgust increases unethical behavior. We replicated three of their studies, using high-powered designs with a total of 1,239 participants, three different procedures to induce disgust, and three different measures of unethical behavior. We observe no effect of disgust on unethical behavior in any of the studies, supporting the contention that disgust has no effect on ethical decision making.

Examining Ethical Decision Making Behavior in E-Learning Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Richelle L. Oakley ◽  
Rahul Singh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Behavior ◽  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Situational Factors ◽  
The Social ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Decision Making Behavior

E-Learning has proliferated throughout the education sector in recent years. Unfortunately, an unintended and undesirable aspect of e-Learning is centered on unethical behavior exhibited by students engaged in technology-facilitated cheating. Interestingly, cheating in e-Learning systems occurs in the social context of the class. Using results from a qualitative field study, the authors investigate the socio-technical dimensions of ethical decision-making in e-Learning systems focusing on individual and situational factors. They developed propositions and provide an in-depth discussion of identified factors. Their findings provide the basis for researchers to develop testable propositions for further empirical investigations and provide insight for educators dealing with the unique challenges of the socio-technical dimensions of ethical behavior in e-Learning systems.

Guest Editors’ Introduction: On Understanding Ethical Behavior and Decision Making: A Behavioral Ethics Approach

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
David De Cremer ◽  
David M. Mayer ◽  
Marshall Schminke
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Behavior ◽  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Moral Awareness ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Behavioral Ethics ◽  
Scientific Approach ◽  
Social Scientific

AbstractBehavioral ethics is an emerging field that takes an empirical, social scientific approach to the study of business ethics. In this special issue, we include six articles that fall within the domain of behavioral ethics and that focus on three themes—moral awareness, ethical decision making, and reactions to unethical behavior. Each of the articles sheds additional light on the specific issues addressed. However, we hope this special issue will have an impact beyond that of the new insights offered in these articles, by stimulating even more research in this burgeoning field.

Care Ethics: A Concept in Search of a Framework

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erich H. Loewy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Care Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
The Other ◽  
Care Ethic ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper, I want to try to put what has been termed the “care ethics” into a different perspective. While I will discuss primarily the use of that ethic or that term as it applies to the healthcare setting in general and to the deliberation of consultants or the function of committees more specifically, what I have to say is meant to be applicable to the problem of using a notion like “caring” as a fundamental precept in ethical decision making. I will set out to examine the relationship between theoretical ethics, justice-based reasoning, and care-based reasoning and conclude by suggesting not only that all are part of a defensible solution when adjudicating individual cases, but that these three are linked and can, in fact, be mutually corrective. I will claim that using what has been called “the care ethic” alone is grossly insufficient for solving individual problems and that the term can (especially when used without a disciplined framework) be extremely dangerous. I will readily admit that while blindly using an approach based solely on theoretically derived principles is perhaps somewhat less dangerous, it is bound to be sterile, unsatisfying, and perhaps even cruel in individual situations. Care ethics, as I understand the concept, is basically a non- or truly an anti-intellectual kind of ethic in that it tries not only to value feeling over thought in deliberating problems of ethics, but indeed, would almost entirely substitute feeling for thought. Feeling when used to underwrite undisciplined and intuitive action without theory has no head and, therefore, no plan and no direction; theory eventuating in sterile rules and eventually resulting in action heedlessly based on such rules lacks humanity and heart. Neither one nor the other is complete in itself. There is no reason why we necessarily should be limited to choosing between these two extremes.

Understanding the Millennials’ Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Process: Assessing the Relationship Between Personal Values and Cognitive Moral Reasoning

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (8) ◽  
pp. 1671-1706 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Weber
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Personal Values ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Value Orientations ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Cognitive Moral Reasoning

Focusing on millennials, individuals born between 1980 and 2000 and representing the largest generational population in our history, this research seeks to understand their ethical decision-making processes by exploring the distinctive, yet interconnected, theories of personal values and cognitive moral reasoning. Utilizing a decision-making framework introduced in the 1990s, we discover that there is a statistically supported relationship between a millennial’s personal value orientation and stage of cognitive moral reasoning. Moreover, we discover a strong relationship between three of the four value orientations and a corresponding stage of cognitive moral reasoning. The theoretical and practical research implications of our discovery about millennials’ decision making are discussed.

The Evolution of Business Ethics to Business Law

2015 ◽  
pp. 145-162
Author(s):  
Ben Tran
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Business Ethics ◽  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Ethical Behavior ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Moral Awareness ◽  
Business Law

Ethics in business ethics and law in business law are not as ambiguous, rhetorical, and esoteric as practitioners portray. Excuses as such have subconsciously become a habitus platinum safeguard against all wrongdoing. The usage of the habitus platinum safeguard is to defuse the unethical and malpractice of practitioners due to the ambiguous, rhetorical, and esoteric factors of and related to ethics in business ethics and law in business law. The ethical decision-making process, from ethics to law, involves five basic steps: moral awareness, moral judgment, ethical behavior, ethical behavior theorizing, and (business) law.

Altruism as a pathway to unethical action

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-247
Author(s):  
Michael Babula ◽  
Max Tookey ◽  
Glenn Muschert ◽  
Mark Neal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Poor

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to answer the question, “Can particular types of altruism influence people to make unethical decisions?” The purpose of seeking to answer this question is to better understand those cases in personal, public and commercial life whereby a decision-maker is influenced by what is widely perceived to be a positive thing – altruism – to make unethical choices. Design/methodology/approach An experiment was designed to test the influence of different categories of altruism on decision-making about whether to find another guilty for a regulatory transgression. This involved the establishment and running of a student panel at a UK university, which was given the task of determining the guilt or otherwise of two students accused of plagiarism – one from a poor background; one from a rich background. Through a survey of both the decision-makers and their judgments, and by analyzing the data using t-tests and Mann–Whitney tests, the associations between different categories of altruism and the decisions made could be ascertained. Findings A total of 70.7% of the participants voted “not-guilty” for the poor student, whereas 68.3% voted “guilty” for the wealthy student. This indicated that self-interested, namely, egoistic altruism complemented by social and self-esteem needs gratification was significantly associated with violating foundational ethical principles. Originality/value This is the first study to be done that attempts to evaluate the relationships between different categories of altruism and ethical decision-making. The findings here challenge aggregating all forms of empathy together when exploring the antecedents of unethical behavior.

Teaching Behavioral Ethics: Overcoming the Key Impediments to Ethical Behavior

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Behavior ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Moral Awareness ◽  
Behavioral Ethics

To better understand the ethical decision-making process and why individuals fail to act ethically, the aim of this article is to explore what are seen as the key impediments to ethical behavior and their pedagogical implications. Using the ethical decision-making process proposed by Rest as an overarching framework, the article examines the following barriers to ethical decision making: improper framing, which can preclude moral awareness; cognitive biases and psychological tendencies, which can hinder reaching proper moral judgments; and moral rationalizations, which can obstruct moral judgments from being translated into moral intentions or ethical behavior. Next, pedagogical exercises and tools for teaching behavioral ethics and ethical decision making are provided. The article concludes with its implications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document