Dimensions of Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision Making: An Empirical Study

By Tim Barnett. 2001

197 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems and Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/afafef817af33968576fe77a964b1a80ec6c291c

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 Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Role of Individual Variables, Organizational Variables and Moral Intensity Dimensions in Libyan Management Accountants’ Ethical Decision Making (2016, background): “Previous empirical research on temporal immediacy has been limited and yielded mixed results, with some studies finding that it has little or no association with the ethical decision-making process (Barnett 2001; Barnett and Valentine 2004) and others that it is associated significantly with ethical”
Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-making: An Empirical Examination of Undergraduate Accounting and Business Students (2009, background): “Studies based on older respondents showing magnitude of consequences as the most important dimension may indicate higher levels of moral reasoning for these respondents (Barnett, 2001).”
13 Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going (2008, background): “Moral awareness has been linked to judgment (eg, Singhapakdi et al, 1996 ), judgment has been linked to intention (eg, Barnett, 2001 ; Barnett et al, 1996 ; DeConinck & Lewis, 1997 ; Shafer et al, 2001 ; Wagner & Sanders, 2001 ), and intention has been linked to behavior (eg, Wagner & Sanders,”
The Impact of Perceived Ethical Culture of the Firm and Demographic Variables on Auditors’ Ethical Evaluation and Intention to Act Decisions (2010, background): “…and social consensus on the ethical decision process (Barnett and Valentine, 2004; Carlson et al., 2002) with significant relationships found between these components and both ethical evaluation (Barnett, 2001; Singer and Singer, 1997; Singhapakdi et al., 1996) and intention to act (Barnett, 2001).”
Gender Differences in Double Standards (2008, background): “As especially unethical ‘harmless’ actions lead to more positive attitudes compared to actions with harmful consequences (e.g. Barnett, 2001), it could be more easy for men to justify their own “harmless” actions, while similar corporate behaviour is evaluated as unethical.”
Issue contingencies and marketers' recognition of ethical issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions (2004, methodology): “…have found support for a relationship, with the magnitude of an action’s consequences and social consensus seeming to have the more consistent positive relationship with judgments that actions are unethical (Barnett, 2001; Harrington, 1997; Morris and McDonald, 1995; Singer and Singer, 1997).”
Impact of Ethical Leadership and Leader–Member Exchange on Whistle Blowing: The Moderating Impact of the Moral Intensity of the Issue (2011, background): “Many studies in the past have explored the impact of moral intensity on ethical decision making ( Barnett 2001; Davis et al. 1998; Morris and McDonald 1995; Singer 1996, 1998; Singer et al. 1998; Singer and Singer 1997; Tsalikis et al. 2001), and many studies (Barnett 2001; Barnett and Valentine 20”
The Influence of Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue on Moral Judgment, Moral Obligation, and Moral Intent (2008, background): “This is not overly surprising since the primary focus of the majority of research on MI has been at validating the existence of MI and its constituent dimensions and assessing their relative effects on ethical behavior and not on explicating the causal relationship between MI and the stages of the d”
The Impact of Ethical Ideologies, Moral Intensity, and Social Context on Sales-Based Ethical Reasoning (2011, methodology): “, Barnett, 2001; Barnett and Valentine, 2004; Carlson et al., 2002; Jones, 1991; Singhapakdi et al., 1996, 1999; Valentine et al., 2010). Previous research indeed supports the proposed connection between moral intensity and ethical reasoning. For instance, Singhapakdi et al. (1996) concluded that in”