E. Sharon Mason’s research while affiliated with Brock University and other places

Some researchers interested in assessing moral reasoning among business practitioners or students have developed their own vignettes or scenarios set in business contexts, based on assumptions that the situations presented in the often-used Defining Issues Test (DIT) will somehow be inappropriate for these specific types of respondents. This paper is the first to examine in depth both the actual details contained in these business-oriented scenarios and empirical findings emerging from them. Among this paper's conclusions are: 1) assumptions underpinning the presumed superiority of business-oriented vignettes have yet to be tested; 2) the DIT possesses considerable advantages unavailable in alternative measures; 3) many business-oriented scenarios have underlying Dilemma themes that seem inherently ambiguous and thus of questionable relevance for assessing moral reasoning; 4) these scenarios have no obvious equivalent in the DIT and thus cannot definitively be placed under the umbrella of the latter's demonstrated construct validity; and 5) meaningful empirical findings have not clearly emerged from investigations using business-oriented vignettes. In light of these conclusions, we recommend that investigators interested in moral reasoning advance knowledge in a coherent and unified way by using the DIT that seems entirely appropriate for use among respondents with business experience or training. Although alternative measures may have value for assessing ethical judgments, evidence of their validity as a measure of moral reasoning is lacking. RUNNING HEAD: Moral Reasoning

Some researchers interested in assessing moral reasoning among business practitioners or students have developed their own vignettes or scenarios set in business contexts, based on assumptions that the situations presented in the often-used Defining Issues Test (DIT) will somehow be inappropriate for these specific types of respondents. This paper is the first to examine in depth both the actual details contained in these business-oriented scenarios and empirical findings emerging from them. Among this paper’s conclusions are: (1) assumptions underpinning the presumed superiority of business-oriented vignettes have yet to be tested; (2) the DIT possesses considerable advantages unavailable in alternative measures; (3) many business-oriented scenarios have underlying Dilemma themes that seem inherently ambiguous and thus of questionable relevance for assessing moral reasoning; (4) these scenarios have no obvious equivalent in the DIT and thus cannot definitively be placed under the umbrella of the latter’s demonstrated construct validity; and (5) meaningful empirical findings have not clearly emerged from investigations using business-oriented vignettes. In light of these conclusions, we recommend that investigators interested in moral reasoning advance knowledge in a coherent and unified way by using the DIT that seems entirely appropriate for use among respondents with business experience or training. Although alternative measures may have value for assessing ethical judgments, evidence of their validity as a measure of moral reasoning is lacking.

In Ethics Position Theory, relativism is the degree to which people believe that universal moral rules should not always be applied unwaveringly. Researchers often predict that highly relativistic individuals are characterized by questionable ethics given their ostensible self‐interested “anything goes” approach. Corroborating evidence for such predictions, however, remains elusive. This paper suggested that high relativists are perhaps not unethical, and reviewed four decades of relevant literature in order to clarify the meaning and implications of the relativism construct. The portrait of relativism that emerged is often contrary to prevalent expectations. Relativistic individuals seem tolerant of ambiguity, open to experience, non‐authoritarian, accepting of others with different backgrounds and lifestyles, and troubled by injustice. No persuasive evidence of questionable ethics is available. These findings have profound implications for managerial practice and suggest that highly relativistic employees may be among the most valuable. Future research grounded in an understanding of what relativism is rather than what it should be has the potential to allow a deeper understanding of this important construct to emerge. We also explore possible reasons why an inaccurate narrative about relativistic orientations may have emerged and persisted among both researchers and people generally.

Two distinct and perhaps mutually exclusive understandings of utilitarianism have emerged in the ethics literature. Utilitarianism is typically regarded as an approach to determine ethicality by focusing on whether or not actions produce the greater good, but has also been conceptualized as a set of traits to which individuals might be predisposed. This paper is designed to clarify the meaning and implications of such utilitarian traits as “results-oriented,” “innovative,” and “a winner.” Although the Janus-headed model of ethical theory from which these traits emerged had been acknowledged by its developer as possibly misrepresenting typical views of utilitarianism, much research using these traits appears to have been conducted without clear recognition of this. If the conceptual foundation underpinning hypothesis development is disconnected from the measure used to test them, then little support for relevant predictions should emerge. A review of the literature which featured utilitarian traits generally confirmed this. This paper also explored the origins and emergence of these traits and suggested that existing evidence that these measure utilitarian ethical predispositions is not especially persuasive. Understanding what utilitarian traits do not assess is critical in order for knowledge about this potentially useful measure to advance.

Moral reasoning typically relates unexpectedly weakly with both Machiavellianism and authoritarianism. Although researchers often explain this by pointing to apparent shortcomings in both the construct and the measure of moral reasoning, such explanations are questionable given the many instances of support for hypotheses involving moral reasoning using the same construct and measure. As these latter cannot only sometimes be flawed, we explored the possible influence of moral reasoning index choice on observed results by using multiple indices available in the Defining Issues Test (DIT). In a sample of 201 employed persons surveyed in 1998, with results reported for the first time, advanced moral reasoners tended to be neither Machiavellian nor authoritarian. However, the specific moral reasoning index employed was critical to detecting these hypothesized inverse relationships. Specifically, we proposed (and determined) that currently unavailable D scores would be the relevant index for examining inverse relationships with Machiavellianism and that P scores would be most appropriate in the context of inverse relationships with authoritarianism, particularly among persons inclined to utilize their characteristic moral reasoning (assessed with U scores). We extrapolate the conceptual logic underpinning such relationships, and suggest that appropriate index choice flows from this logic and is essential to hypothesis testing across a broad array of constructs. Future research could adopt this logic to examine relationships involving constructs with implications similar to those found in Machiavellianism and authoritarianism.

Knowledge about ethical judgments has not advanced appreciably after decades of research. Such research, however, has rarely addressed the possible importance of the content of such judgments; that is, the material appearing in the brief vignettes or scenarios on which survey respondents base their evaluations. Indeed, this content has seemed an afterthought in most investigations. This paper closely examined the vast array of vignettes that have appeared in relevant research in an effort to reduce this proliferation to a more concise set of overarching vignette themes. Six generic themes emerged from this process, labeled here as Dilemma, Classic, Conspiracy, Sophie’s Choice, Runaway Trolley, and Whistle Blowing. Each of these themes is characterized by a unique combination of four key factors that include the extent of protagonist personal benefit from relevant vignette activities and victim salience in vignette descriptions. Theme identification enabled inherent ambiguities in vignettes that threaten construct validity to come into sharp focus, provided clues regarding appropriate vignette construction, and may help to make sense of patterns of empirical findings that heretofore have seemed difficult to explain.

Investigations into ethical judgments generally seem fuzzy as to the relevant research domain. We first attempted to clarify the construct and determine domain parameters. This attempt required addressing difficulties associated with pinpointing relevant literature, most notably the varied nomenclature used to refer to ethical judgments (individual evaluations of actions’ ethicality). Given this variation in construct nomenclature and the difficulties it presented in identifying pertinent focal studies, we elected to focus on research that cited papers featuring prominent and often-used measures of ethical judgments (primarily, but not exclusively, the Multidimensional Ethics Scale). Our review of these studies indicated a preponderance of inferences and conclusions unwarranted by empirical evidence (likely attributable at least partly to inconsistent nomenclature). Moreover, ethical judgments related consistently to few respondent characteristics or any other variables, emergent relationships may not always be especially meaningful, and much research seems inclined to repetition of already verified findings. Although we concluded that knowledge about ethical judgments seems not to have advanced appreciably after decades of investigation, we suggested a possible path forward that focuses on the content of what is actually being judged as reflected in the myriad of vignettes used in the literature to elicit judgments.

Asceticism seems an “invisible” Protestant work ethic (PWE) dimension that has largely been ignored in research. This study, building directly on existing knowledge, investigated the possibility that deference to authority was central to asceticism and the possible ethical implications of this. In 3 samples of employed persons, results demonstrated that highly ascetic individuals were highly authoritarian, were low in advanced moral reasoning, and regarded ethically questionable activities benefiting organizations (but not individuals) as relatively acceptable. However, “hard workers,” another PWE dimension, regarded all ethically questionable activities as inappropriate, regardless of the beneficiary, and were less clearly authoritarian. Significant relationships involving the PWE may sometimes be undetectable when combining distinct dimensions, and asceticism merits attention as a distinct PWE component.

Bien que la responsabilite sociale institutionnelle ait de lointaines implications, peu de choses sont connues des caracteristiques des individus adoptant des modeles specifiques de croyances vis-a-vis de la responsabilite sociale. Dans cette etude, nous essayons d'integrer ces niveaux d'analyse en examinant les variables personnelles associees a la croyance traditionnaliste que la seule centralite du management legitime est la maximisation de la richesse de l'actionnaire (Friedman, 1970) Des hypotheses mettant en cause cinq variables differentes liees a l'etude de l'ethique furent developpees et testees dans trois groupes de questionnes a la fois employes et etudiants (N=423). Par rapport aux non-traditionnalistes, les traditionnalistes apparurent comme plus Machiaveliques, afficherent un modele en titre de sensibilite a la justice et regarderent les activites contestables sur le plan de l'ethique dans les conduites organisationnelles comme justifiees. Le fondement de la justification sembla etre que l'organisation, plus que soi-meme, tirera benefice de ces activites. La reponse a la question posee dans le titre de l'article apparait comme oui et non. Le profil emergeant des traditionnalistes a des implications dans l'actuelle conduite de reponse aux faits sociaux puisque ce sont des individus dans les organisations qui engagent les actions en rapport.

The concept of equity sensitivity suggests profound differences in individual notions of fairness, and distinguishes between 'benevolents' (givers) and 'entitleds' (takers). This study extended existing research by exploring the connections between equity sensitivity and business ethics variables. It unfolded in three phases and utilized samples of employed North American respondents. Entitleds tended to respond in less conventionally ethical ways than benevolents; for example, by being more Machiavellian. A proposed mode! depicting the relationships among the variables provided a good fit to the data In the first of these samples, and some of the findings were replicated in the second sample. A portrait of benevolence began to emerge that contradicted earlier conceptualizations. Benevolents seemed to hold disparaging views of others who lack strong work ethics, and to regard ethically dubious behaviours in which the employing organization could benefit as relatively acceptable. In a third sample, benevolence was surprisingly associated with right-wing authoritarianism. Implications for the conceptualization and etiology of benevolence were derived, and the assumption of homogeneity in concepts of what is fair and equitable was further challenged by the results.