Skip to main content
Log in

The Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire: Development and Validation of Independent Measures of Formalism and Consequentialism

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casali, Gian Luca (2011). Developing a multidimensional scale for ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 485–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, A. A., & Bègue, L. (2015). The drunk utilitarian: Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas. Cognition, 134, 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1979). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for political marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 19(12), 1079–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, J., & Sousa, P. (2013). Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3), 334–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajczi, A. (2016). On the incoherence objection to rule-utilitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(4), 857–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, R. T. G. (2015). Introduction to Ethics in Psychology: Historical and Philosophical Grounding. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(2), 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ed Love or Tara Ceranic Salinas.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3937-8

Keywords

Navigation