Moral Rationalization and the Integration of Situational Factors and Psychological Processes in Immoral Behavior

By Jo-Ann Tsang. 2002

317 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems and Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/948b245e95027403da5232f3dcfc6d6450fc7609

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 Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

It’s okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games (2010, background): “To fuel this conscious moral rationalization (Tsang, 2002), users can actively recall that they are merely playing a game or that they are fighting for justice.”
Consumers’ Responses to Public Figures’ Transgression: Moral Reasoning Strategies and Implications for Endorsed Brands (2016, background): “excused and justified (Tsang 2002).”
The impact of moral identity on consumers’ green consumption tendency: The role of perceived responsibility for environmental damage (2018, background): “Second, we expect people whose moral identity is activated to be less likely to use moral rationalization strategies to reduce their perceived responsibility for environmental damage than those whose moral identity is not activated, where moral rationalization refers to the cognitive process that pe”
Doing It Purposely? Mediation of Moral Disengagement in the Relationship Between Illegitimate Tasks and Counterproductive Work Behavior (2021, background): “Prior research indicates that certain situational and psychological factors can result in failure of the self-regulatory system, allowing people to behave unethically without feeling shame or guilt (Bandura, 1999; Tsang, 2002).”
Cheating more when the spoils are split (2011, background): “One reason people do not cheat more frequently is that people have a need to see themselves as moral beings lest they suffer selfcondemnation (e.g., Gino et al., 2009; Tsang, 2002).”
Investigating When and Why Psychological Entitlement Predicts Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior (2019, background): “Furthermore, research has demonstrated that psychologically entitled individuals are disposed to attributional biases that allow them to reinterpret their immoral actions as being, in fact, moral (e.g., Tsang 2002) through a process known as moral rationalization.”
Four Motives for Community Involvement (2002, background): “Second, people may actively rationalize ( Tsang, in press ), convincing themselves that their moral principles do not apply either to the specific others whose interests conflict with their own (moral exclusion—Staub, 1990) or to the specific situation (moral disengagement—Bandura, 1991).”
Blind forces (2014, background): “However, as Tsang (2002) pointed out, situational features can trigger similarly strong motives, such as selfinterest, that conflict with one’s desire to appear moral.”
Does the External Monitoring Effect of Financial Analysts Deter Corporate Fraud in China? (2014, background): “2001), rationalizing decisions as important as corporate fraud is also expected to be influenced by the perceived economic costs and benefits to the firm (Hannan et al. 2006; Tsang 2002),”
Psychological Pathways to Fraud: Understanding and Preventing Fraud in Organizations (2011, methodology): “Many researchers argue that an individual will perform a cost benefit analysis when considering whether to perpetrate a fraud (Hannan et al., 2006; Tsang, 2002).”
When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors (2011, background): “Second, cognitive dissonance is important to consider as a consequence because of its potential role in attitude change subsequent to performing unethical behavior (Kelman and Baron 1974, Holland et al. 2002, Tsang 2002).”
Psychometric and Rationalization Accounts of the Religion‐Forgiveness Discrepancy (2005, background): “We call this process moral rationalization—the use of different cognitive methods to convince the self and others that one’s seemingly unethical actions actually fall within one’s valued moral standards (Tsang, 2002).”