2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistleblowing intention

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
0
7

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 114 publications
0
68
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…A hypothetical scenario approach was chosen because it is difficult to directly measure observation of wrongdoing in the workplace. Scenario approaches are widely used in the whistleblowing literature (Alleyne et al 2019 ; Latan et al 2019a ; Park and Lewis 2019 ; Valentine and Godkin 2019 ). In addition, the use of hypothetical scenarios does possess certain limitations, because the variables are measured without real-life decisions having to be made, which in some cases may not align with reality.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A hypothetical scenario approach was chosen because it is difficult to directly measure observation of wrongdoing in the workplace. Scenario approaches are widely used in the whistleblowing literature (Alleyne et al 2019 ; Latan et al 2019a ; Park and Lewis 2019 ; Valentine and Godkin 2019 ). In addition, the use of hypothetical scenarios does possess certain limitations, because the variables are measured without real-life decisions having to be made, which in some cases may not align with reality.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jones (1991) developed the construct of moral intensity, which consists of several situational characteristics that define ethical dilemmas, to facilitate understanding of ethical decision-making. These characteristics have also been suggested for unethical behavior as an antecedent of whistleblowing decision-making: i.e., the magnitude of the consequences of the unethical behavior (Cassematis and Wortley 2013;Robinson et al 2012); the social consensus on the extent to which the behavior is unethical (Valentine and Godkin 2019); the probability of the effect of the unethical behavior (Curtis and Taylor 2009); the temporal immediacy of the effect of the unethical behavior (Singer et al 1998); the proximity of the unethical behavior (Singer et al 1998); and the concentration of the effect of the unethical behavior (Alleyne et al 2013).…”
Section: Whistleblowing and Unethical Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The observation considers the difficulty in attempting to "objectively" to examine the benefit of diaspora strategy, which requires ethical judgments spring from qualitative factors that highlight consequences and social consensus. Then, this approach constitutes three steps, namely observation, pattern, tentative explanation, and proposed assumption for diaspora strategy [21].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%