Abstract
The ethical frameworks of consequentialism and formalism predict moral awareness and behavior in individuals, but current measures either do not treat these frameworks as independent or lack sufficient theoretical underpinnings and statistical dependability. This paper presents the development and validation of a new scale to measure consequentialism and formalism that is well grounded in prior research. The Ethical Standards of Judgement Questionnaire (ESJQ) is validated via six studies (total n > 2400). Measurement items are developed in the first three studies, which also confirm the need to eliminate a unidimensional measure and evaluate these frameworks separately. The fourth study addresses discriminant validity and the two remaining studies provide insight into how consequentialism and formalism predict the degree to which behaviors are deemed acceptable by individuals in the context of consumer beliefs and religious beliefs. Suggested uses for the scale in both academia and organizations are presented.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In a separate test (n = 414), the ESJQ measures of formalism and consequentialism presented later in this paper also correlated with this validity check (r = − 0.295, p < 0.01 for formalism, r = 0.133, p < 0.01 for consequentialism).
The survey also included psychometric measures and moral dilemmas, but these questions appeared after the items discussed in this paper and are not relevant to the current research.
“For this study, and for most of the research we conduct, it is very important for us to know whether you tend to read the instructions you are given. If you are reading these instructions, please just skip the following question and proceed to the next page. What type of products experiences were you asked about in this study?” Respondents who did not skip the question were excluded.
Respondents were given the following attention check: “For this study, and for most of the research we conduct, it is very important for us to know whether you tend to read the instructions you are given. If you are reading these instructions, please just skip the following question and proceed to the next page.” Those that did not skip the subsequent question failed the check.
Abbreviations
- AVE:
-
Average variance extracted
- CFA:
-
Confirmatory factor analysis
- DUREL:
-
Duke university religious index
- EFA:
-
Exploratory factor analysis
- ESJQ:
-
Ethical standards of judgement questionnaire
- IR:
-
Internal religiosity
- MV-CES:
-
Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics scale
- MEP:
-
Managerial ethical profile
- MES:
-
Multidimensional ethics scale
- MEV:
-
Measure of ethical viewpoints
- MVP:
-
Managerial values profile
- NORA:
-
Non-organized religious activity
- ORA:
-
Organized religious activity
- SETA:
-
Survey of ethical theoretic aptitudes
References
Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., & Noel, T. W. (2007). The impact of individual ethics on reactions to potentially invasive HR practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2), 201–214.
Banerjee, K., Huebner, B., & Hauser, M. (2010). Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics and religion: A large-scale web-based study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3), 253–281.
Barak-Corren, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2017). Is saving lives your task or God’s? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 280–296.
Baron, J. (2017). Utilitarian vs. deontological reasoning (p. 137). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.
Brady, F. N. (1985). A Janus-Headed model of ethical theory: Looking two ways at Business/Society issues. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 568–576.
Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.
Burton, B., Dunn, C., & Goldsby, M. (2006). Moral pluralism in business ethics education: It is about time. Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 90–105.
Casali, Gian Luca (2011). Developing a multidimensional scale for ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 485–497.
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–234.
Decety, J., Cowell, J. M., Lee, K., Mahasneh, R., Malcolm-Smith, S., Selcuk, B., & Zhou, X. (2015). The negative association between religiousness and children’s altruism across the world. Current Biology, 25(22), 2951–2955.
Duke, A. A., & Bègue, L. (2015). The drunk utilitarian: Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas. Cognition, 134, 121–127.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5.
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144–1154.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic charasteristics and political preferences of MTurk participants. In Research and Politics (pp. 1–12). Abingdon: Routledge.
Hütter, M., Friesdorf, R., Armstrong, J. B., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2016). Understanding responses to moral dilemmas: Deontological inclinations, utilitarian inclinations, and general action tendencies. The social psychology of morality (pp. 91–110). Abingdon: Routledge.
Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78.
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446(7138), 908.
Kohlberg, L. (1979). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Kumar, K., Borycki, C., Nonis, S. A., & Yauger, C. (1991). The strategic decision framework: Effect on students’ business ethics. Journal of Education for Business, 67(2), 74–79.
Kumar, K., & Strandholm, K. (2002). American business education—effect on the ethical orientation of foreign students. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 345–350.
Letwin, C., Wo, D., Folger, R., Rice, D., Taylor, R., Richard, B., & Taylor, S. (2016). The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 743–755.
Love, E., Staton, M., & Rotman, J. D. (2015). Loyalty as a matter of principle: the influence of standards of judgment on customer loyalty. Marketing Letters, 1–14.
McMahon, J. M., & Harvey, R. J. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Reidenbach–Robin multidimensional ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1), 27–39.
Middleton, K. L., & Byus, K. (2004). The relationship between pre-charismatic leader emergence and ethical attitudes and behaviors: Hope for the future? Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 86.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn.
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2017). Utilitarian traits and the Janus-Headed model: Origins, meaning, and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3592-5.
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for political marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 19(12), 1079–1094.
Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177.
Piazza, J. (2012). “If You Love Me Keep My Commandments”: Religiosity increases preference for rule-based moral arguments. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22(4), 285–302.
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401–411.
Piazza, J., & Landy, J. F. (2013). “Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), 639.
Piazza, J., & Sousa, P. (2013). Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3), 334–342.
Rajczi, A. (2016). On the incoherence objection to rule-utilitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(4), 857–876.
Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 871–879.
Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of business ethics, 9(8), 639–653.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.
Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.
Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624.
Rotman, J. D., Khamitov, M., & Connors, S. (2018). Lie, Cheat, and Steal: How Harmful Brands Motivate Consumers to Act Unethically. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1002.
Sashkin, M., Rosenbach, W. E., & Sashkin, M. G. (1997) “Development of the power need and its expression in leadership and management with a focus on leader-follower relations.” Leadership as legacy: Proceedings of the twelfth scientific meeting of the AK Rice Institute. AK Rice Institute, Jupiter, FL.
Schminke, M. (1997). Gender differences in ethical frameworks and evaluation of others’ choices in ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 55–65.
Schminke, M. (2001). Considering the business in business ethics: An exploratory study of the influence of organizational size and structure on individual ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 375–390.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1190–1207.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2015. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/.
Smith, C. G., Šumilo, E., & Pauls Karnups, V. (2009). Moral judgment: A comparison of Latvian and US business persons. Baltic Journal of Management, 4(2), 188–205.
Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.
Walsh, R. T. G. (2015). Introduction to Ethics in Psychology: Historical and Philosophical Grounding. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(2), 69–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Authors A, Author B, and Author C declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Love, E., Salinas, T.C. & Rotman, J.D. The Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire: Development and Validation of Independent Measures of Formalism and Consequentialism. J Bus Ethics 161, 115–132 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3937-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3937-8