Relative Importance Measurement of the Moral Intensity Dimensions

Abstract

The relative importance of the JonesÕ [Jones, T. M.: 1991, Academy of Management Review 16 (2), 366-395] six components of moral intensity was measured using a conjoint experimental design. The most important components influencing ethical perceptions were: probability of effect, magnitude of consequences, and temporal immediacy. Contrary to previous research, overall social consensus was not an important factor. However, consumers exhibit distinctly different patterns in ethical evaluation, and for approximately 15% of respondents social consensus was the most important dimension.

Moral Intensity, Issue Importance, and Ethical Reasoning in Operations Situations

“…According to Jones (1991), the various dimensions of moral intensity should consistently enhance recognition of an ethical issue, ethical judgment, and ethical intention by making individuals focus more readily on the issue-contingencies embedded in ethical situations. However, despite Jones' (1991) contention that the moral intensity dimensions should vary monotonically to collectively impact ethical reasoning, empirical evidence suggests that the moral intensity factors can independently and uniquely influence ethical reasoning without necessarily being interrelated (e.g., Barnett 2001;Barnett and Valentine 2004;Carlson et al 2002;Morris and McDonald 1995;Singer 1996;Tsalikis et al 2008). This study therefore treats the dimensions of moral intensity as independent constructs with respect to their influence on ethical reasoning, rather than as a one-dimensional factor that captures overall perceptions of issue-contingencies.…”

Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: The Role of Leadership Stress

“…Thus, issues of high moral intensity are more likely to be recognized as a moral issue, will elicit more sophisticated moral reasoning, and more likely will cause a moral agent to establish a moral intent as well as engage in ethical acts. Subsequent studies support the main elements in Jones' model (Chia and Lim, 2000;Tsalikis et al, 2008). In Jones' model, organizational or external factors consist of everything beyond the moral issue and the ethical decision making process itself.…”

Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Construct a Measure of the Magnitude of Consequences Component of Moral Intensity

“…These results prompted the authors to observe: ''This raises the question of whether the moral intensity construct proposed by Jones (1991) should include all six components'' (Chia and Mee 2000, p. 266). A recent study by Tsalikis et al (2008) calculated a ''significance to times studied'' ratio (STSR) for all components and found the STSR for social consensus to be 81% and for magnitude of consequences to be 73%, which were the highest. Concentration of effect was lowest at 33% (p. 615).…”

“…New cases could then be evaluated using the weights obtained during the first step. Similar analyses could be conducted for the other components of moral intensity that are considered to be valid (see for example Tsalikis et al, 2008). A composite score could then be assigned to any new case under evaluation in terms of its moral intensity.…”

“…Several studies (e.g., Chia and Mee, 2000;Dukerich et al, 2000;McMahon and Harvey, 2007) have found the magnitude of consequences component of moral intensity to be a significant factor. Most recently, Tsalikis et al (2008) found that of all the factors comprising moral intensity, magnitude of consequences and social consensus were ranked highest in terms of significance frequency. We thus began this work with a keen interest in the role that consequences have in decision making.…”