5 found
Order:
  1.  61
    The danger of “fake news”: how using social media for information dissemination can inhibit the ethical decision making process.Rahul S. Chauhan, Shane Connelly, David C. Howe, Andrew T. Soderberg & Marisa Crisostomo - 2022 - Ethics and Behavior 32 (4):287-306.
    ABSTRACT Social media is becoming increasingly embedded in people’s daily lives. These virtual spaces are now regularly used as a tool for information dissemination. Drawing on the moral intensity literature combined with uses and gratifications theory, this research explores how using social media to consume information can affect the ethical decision-making process. This study compares the influence of two online media dissemination formats – an online news article and social media discussion thread – on individuals’ ethical perceptions and decisions. Results (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  17
    Psychological Reactance to Leader Moral Hypocrisy.McKenzie R. Rees, Isaac H. Smith & Andrew T. Soderberg - forthcoming - Business Ethics Quarterly:1-28.
    Drawing on early work on ethical leadership, we argue that when leaders engage in leader moral hypocrisy (i.e., ethical promotion without ethical demonstration), followers can experience psychological reactance—a negative response to a perceived restriction of freedom—which can have negative downstream consequences. In a survey of employee–manager dyads (study 1), we demonstrate that leader moral hypocrisy is positively associated with follower psychological reactance, which increases follower deviance. In two subsequent laboratory experiments, we find similar patterns of results (study 2) and explore (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  30
    The Devil is in the Details: Sexual Harassment e-Training Design Choices and Perceived Messenger Integrity.Shannon L. Rawski, Emilija Djurdjevic, Andrew T. Soderberg & Joshua R. Foster - forthcoming - Journal of Business Ethics:1-20.
    While training design choices seem amoral, they interact to determine training (in)effectiveness, potentially harming/benefiting trainees and organizations. These moral implications intensify when training is administered at scale (e.g., e-training) and focuses on social issues like sexual harassment (hereafter, SH). In fact, research on SH training shows it can elicit trainees’ gender-based biases against content messengers. We suggest that one such bias, resulting from messenger gender-occupation incongruence and influencing training effectiveness, is lowered perceptions of the messenger’s integrity. We also investigate whether (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  25
    An Examination of Mind Perception and Moral Reasoning in Ethical Decision-Making: A Mixed-Methods Approach.Isaac H. Smith, Andrew T. Soderberg, Ekaterina Netchaeva & Gerardo A. Okhuysen - 2022 - Journal of Business Ethics 183 (3):671-690.
    Taking an abductive, mixed-methods approach, we explore the content of people’s moral deliberations. In Study 1, we gather qualitative data from small groups of graduate business students discussing moral dilemmas. We analyze their conversations with a focus on how participants perceive others’ thoughts, opinions, and evaluations about the dilemmas and incorporate them into their reasoning. Ascribing such capacities to think and feel to others—i.e., mind perception—is central to morality. We use the conversations in Study 1 to identify whose minds participants (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  9
    Can you expect those with status to be ethical? The effects of status on trust.Andrew T. Soderberg & David Howe - 2021 - Ethics and Behavior 31 (6):395-418.
    This research examines the trust and expectations people have for individuals with varying levels of status. Specifically, we predicted that people will have a greater amount of trust for individuals whom they perceive to have high (vs. low) status. Furthermore, we predicted that this positive effect of status on trust occurs because high-status individuals are viewed as less likely to engage in unethical behavior. We found evidence in two experimental laboratory studies and one survey study for some of our hypotheses. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark