Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Business Ethics Quarterly
  4. Volume 20 Issue 1
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 20 - Issue 1 - January 2010

Contents

Editorial

  • From the Editor
  • Gary R. Weaver
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, p. v
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Special Issue Behavioral Ethics: A New Empirical Perspective on Business Ethics Research

  • Leaving a Legacy: Intergenerational Allocations of Benefits and Burdens
  • Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni, Harris Sondak, Adam D. Galinsky
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. 7-34
  • View abstract

    In six experiments, we investigated the role of resource valence in intergenerational attitudes and allocations. We found that, compared to benefits, allocating burdens intergenerationally increased concern with one’s legacy, heightened ethical concerns, intensified moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame), and led to feelings of greater responsibility for and affinity with future generations. We argue that, because of greater concern with legacies and the associated moral implications of one’s decisions, allocating burdens leads to greater intergenerational generosity as compared to benefits. Our data provide support for this effect across a range of contexts. Our results also indicate that the differential effect of benefits versus burdens in intergenerational contexts depends on the presence of two important structural characteristics that help enact concerns about legacies, including (1) future impact of decisions, and (2) a self-other tradeoff. Overall, our findings highlight how considering resource valence brings to the fore a number of key psychological characteristics of intergenerational decisions—especially as they relate to legacies and ethics.

  • How Personality and Moral Identity Relate to Individuals’ Ethical Ideology
  • Brent McFerran, Karl Aquino, Michelle Duffy
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. 35-56
  • View abstract

    Two studies tested the relationship between three facets of personality—conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience—as well as moral identity, on individuals’ ethical ideology. Study 1 showed that moral personality and the centrality of moral identity to the self were associated with a more principled (versus expedient) ethical ideology in a sample of female speech therapists. Study 2 replicated these findings in a sample of male and female college students, and showed that ideology mediated the relationship between personality, moral identity, and two organizationally relevant outcomes: organizational citizenship behavior and the propensity to morally disengage. Implications for business ethics are discussed.

  • The Price of Equality: Suboptimal Resource Allocations across Social Categories
  • Stephen M. Garcia, Max H. Bazerman, Shirli Kopelman, Avishalom Tor, Dale T. Miller
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. 75-88
  • View abstract

    This paper explores the influence of social categories on the perceived trade-off between a relatively bad but equal distribution of resources between two parties and a profit maximizing yet unequal one. Studies 1 and 2 showed that people prefer to maximize profits when interacting within their social category, but chose not to maximize individual and joint profits when interacting across social categories. Study 3 demonstrated that outside observers, who were not members of the focal social categories, also were less likely to maximize profits when resources were distributed across social category lines. Study 4 showed that the transaction utility of maximizing profits required greater compensation when resources were distributed across, in contrast to within social categories. We discuss the ethical implications of these decision making biases in the context of organizations.

  • Extending the Deontic Model of Justice: Moral Self-Regulation in Third-Party Responses to Injustice
  • Deborah E. Rupp, Chris M. Bell
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. 89-106
  • View abstract

    The deontic model of justice and ethical behavior proposes that people care about justice simply for the sake of justice. This is an important consideration for business ethics because it implies that justice and ethical behavior are naturally occurring phenomena independent of system controls or individual self-interest. To date, research on the deontic model and third-party reactions to injustice has focused primarily on individuals’ tendency to punish transgressors. This research has revealed that witnesses to injustice will consider sacrificing their own resources if it is the only way to sanction an observed transgressor. In this paper we seek to extend this model by arguing that punishment may not be the only “deontic” reaction, and that in fact, third-party observers of injustice may engage in moral self-regulation that would lead them to conclude that the most ethical response is to do nothing. We provide preliminary evidence for our propositions using voiced cognitions data collected during a resource allocation task. Results indicate that deonance may be more complex than originally thought, and previous tests of the model conservative in nature.

Book Reviews

Other

Front matter

  • BEQ volume 20 issue 1 Cover and Front matter
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. f1-f6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Back matter

  • BEQ volume 20 issue 1 Cover and Back matter
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015, pp. b1-b3
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation