No Harm, No Foul: The Outcome Bias in Ethical Judgments

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Nameless + harmless = blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior (2010, background): “As noted by Gino et al. (2009), the law believes that outcomes are relevant to rational punishment decisions.”
Deconstructing intent to reconstruct morality (2015, background): “First, a person is held to be punishable and blameworthy largely to the extent that they are causally responsible for a harm [32–34]; second, the magnitude of punishment and blame typically scales with the degree of harm caused [35,36].”
Intermediation Reduces Punishment (and Reward) (2011, unknown): “However, Table 1 shows that subjects on average punish direct 15See Gino et al (2008) and Cushman et al (2009) for clean demonstrations of outcome bias actions more harshly (Table 14 in the appendix furthers this point through frequencies).”
Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty (2012, background): “…prior work on social norms (Cialdini et al., 1990; Cialdini & Trost, 1998) and social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1982), Gino et al. (2009) explained that the degree to which people are influenced by social norms of dishonesty depends, to some extent, on the…”