HOW ADVERTISING PRACTITIONERS VIEW ETHICS : Moral Muteness, Moral Myopia, and Moral Imagination

By Minette E. Drumwright, P. Murphy. 2004

251 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dc3f170800fd6e530a9ae3d82ea53ac801b6a0ed

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

1. Peter R. Darke
2. Linda Tuncay Zayer
3. Robin J. B. Ritchie
4. Catherine A. Coleman
5. Sergio Román
6. Bartosz W. Wojdynski
7. Isabel P. Riquelme

In Information Systems and Management

1. Linda Tuncay Zayer
2. Benjamin Sovacool
3. Catherine A. Coleman

In Social Psychology

1. Peter R. Darke
2. Linda Tuncay Zayer
3. Benjamin Sovacool
4. Robin J. B. Ritchie
5. Catherine A. Coleman

Citations in the corpus

• New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice (2017, background): “One study conducted in-depth interviews with senior corporate executives and found that they were plagued by “moral myopia,” a distortion of moral vision preventing ethical issues from coming into focus, and “moral muteness,” an inability to talk about ethical issues (Drumwright and Murphy 2004).”
• The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust (2007, background): “Recent work (Drumwright and Murphy 2004) suggests that though some advertisers are highly aware of ethical concerns, many are either unaware or intentionally dismissive of even relatively obvious ethical issues.”
• Advertising Professionals’ Perceptions of the Impact of Gender Portrayals on Men and Women: A Question of Ethics? (2015, methodology): “Despite its importance, few studies have focused on the ethical perspectives of advertising professionals beyond scenariobased ethical dilemmas—a point noted as well by Drumwright and Murphy (2004, 2009).”