Predictors, consequence, and measurement of ethical judgments: Review and meta-analysis
227 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b3828645330fd963861d3c1c7224e19b5e9c354
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Neuroscience
In Information Systems and Management
In Safety Research
Citations in the corpus
- A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying (2014, background): “186–189) which provides a powerful test of effect size homogeneity and examines the between-study variance weighted for sample size (e.g., Brown and Lam, 2008; Pan and Sparks, 2012; Pan and Zinkan, 2006) was calculated.”
- The motivation and inhibition of breaking the rules: : Personal values structures predict unethicality (2015, background): “…studies in the last two decades, yet recent comprehensive reviews (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008; Treviño et al., 2006) and meta-analyses (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Pan & Sparks, 2012) have revealed several important conceptual and empirical gaps in the literature.”
- Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior:Scale Review, Development, and Validation (2016, unknown): “…environmentally concerned (Sandahl and Robertson, 1989), have stronger ethical beliefs (Dodge, Edwards, and Fullerton, 1996; Kim and Choi, 2003; Pan and Sparkes, 2012; Swaidan et al., 2003; Vitell, Singh, and Paolillo, 2007), demonstrate a stronger moral orientation (Pratt, Golding, and…”
- Women in the boardroom and their impact on climate change related disclosure (2017, background): “…theory explains how principals efficiently organise exchanges with agents by employing mechanisms - incentive alignment and monitoring - in appropriate combinations (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976) and also hold their organisations to higher ethical standards (Pan and Sparks 2012).”
- Does Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards Reduce Information Asymmetry in Equity Markets? * (2017, background): “…well established that women exhibit less overconfidence (Lundeberg et al., 1994), apply higher ethical standards in their decision making (e.g. Ambrose and Schminke, 1999; Pan and Sparks, 2012), are more conservative and more risk-adverse than men (e.g. Byrnes et al., 1999; Powell and Ansic, 1997).”
- Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity (2016, background): “A more recent stream of research examines female CEOs and Chairs, finding a positive relationship to performance (Peni 2014). standards (Pan and Sparks 2012).”