NamelessÂ +Â harmlessÂ =Â blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior
AbstractPeople often make judgments about the ethicality of others' behaviors and then decide how harshly to punish such behaviors. When they make these judgments and decisions, sometimes the victims of the unethical behavior are identifiable, and sometimes they are not. In addition, in our uncertain world, sometimes an unethical action causes harm, and sometimes it does not. We argue that a rational assessment of ethicality should not depend on the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing or the actual harm caused if the judge and the decision maker have the same information. Yet in five laboratory studies, we show that these factors have a systematic effect on how people judge the ethicality of the perpetrator of an unethical action. Our studies show that people judge behavior as more unethical when: (1) identifiable vs. unidentifiable victims are involved and (2) the behavior leads to a negative rather than a positive outcome. We also find that people's willingness to punish wrongdoers is consistent with their judgments, and we offer preliminary evidence on how to reduce these biases.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Volume (Year): 111 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
Ethics Identifiability Judgment Outcome bias Unethical behavior;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Schminke, Marshall & Caldwell, James & Ambrose, Maureen L. & McMahon, Sean R., 2014. "Better than ever? Employee reactions to ethical failures in organizations, and the ethical recovery paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 206-219.
- Sharma, Eesha & Mazar, Nina & Alter, Adam L. & Ariely, Dan, 2014. "Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards and compromises moral decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 90-100.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.