Description
Week 10 Discussion: Personal EthicNow that the course is nearly over, reflect on the theories and principles you studied and the activities you completed.How have you changed as a result of this course?How has your approach to what is right, what is wrong, and what is ethical changed?How has your personal moral philosophy changed?Has this course provided you with the knowledge necessary to make leadership decisions on a morally and ethically conscious level?Response GuidelinesEngage in a conversational dialogue with at least two of your peers. This should be an exchange of ideas and experiences that add to each other’s work. Ask questions, seek clarification, and, as appropriate, challenge claims. You are encouraged to participate in an ongoing dialogue.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
J Bus Ethics (2016) 139:755–776
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8
Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach
Mark S. Schwartz1
Received: 15 December 2014 / Accepted: 23 September 2015 / Published online: 26 October 2015
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Ethical decision-making (EDM) descriptive
theoretical models often conflict with each other and typically lack comprehensiveness. To address this deficiency,
a revised EDM model is proposed that consolidates and
attempts to bridge together the varying and sometimes
directly conflicting propositions and perspectives that have
been advanced. To do so, the paper is organized as follows.
First, a review of the various theoretical models of EDM is
provided. These models can generally be divided into
(a) rationalist-based (i.e., reason); and (b) non-rationalistbased (i.e., intuition and emotion). Second, the proposed
model, called ‘Integrated Ethical Decision Making,’ is
introduced in order to fill the gaps and bridge the current
divide in EDM theory. The individual and situational factors as well as the process of the proposed model are then
described. Third, the academic and managerial implications of the proposed model are discussed. Finally, the
limitations of the proposed model are presented.
Keywords Emotion Ethical decision making
Intuition Moral rationalization Moral reasoning
Introduction
While much has been discovered regarding the ethical
decision-making (EDM) process within business organizations, a great deal remains unknown. The importance of
& Mark S. Schwartz
[email protected]
1
School of Administrative Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts and
Professional Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street,
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
EDM is no longer in doubt, given the extent of illegal and
unethical activity that continues to take place every year
and the resultant costs to societal stakeholders including
shareholders, employees, consumers, and the natural
environment (U.S. Sentencing Commission 2014; Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2014). Unethical
activity by individuals continues despite the best efforts of
business organizations to implement comprehensive ethics
programs, including codes of ethics, ethics training, and
whistleblowing hotlines (Ethics Resource Center 2014;
Webley 2011) and despite the extent to which business
schools around the world teach the subject of business
ethics (Rossouw and Stückelberger 2012). The significant
negative yet potentially preventable costs to society
resulting from the unethical actions of individual firm
agents suggest that ethical decision making might be
considered one of the most important processes to better
understand, not only for the academic management field,
but also for the corporate community and society at large
(Treviño 1986).
There have however been important developments
through academic research over recent years leading to an
improved understanding of EDM (see Treviño et al. 2006;
Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008) including how to
measure each of its constructs and dimensions (Agle et al.
2014). Building on and borrowing from a series of academic disciplines and theories including moral philosophy, moral psychology, social psychology, social
economics, organizational behavior, criminology, behavioral science, behavioral ethics, cognitive neuroscience,
and business ethics, a number of descriptive EDM theoretical models have been proposed to help explain the
decision-making process of individuals leading to ethical
or unethical behavior or actions (see Torres 2001).
Commonly referred to as EDM theory, these descriptive
123
756
theoretical EDM frameworks (as opposed to normative
EDM frameworks) help to explain how cognitive processes (i.e., reason or intuition) or affective processes
(i.e., emotion) operate within the brain (Reynolds 2006a;
Salvador and Folger 2009; Greene et al. 2001) leading to
moral judgment and behavior on the part of individuals.
To further enhance our understanding, these theoretical
models typically present the EDM process as a series of
temporal and sequential process stages, typically beginning with initial awareness or recognition of an ethical
issue leading to a moral judgment, intention to act, and
finally to behavior (Rest 1984, 1986).1
In addition to explaining the EDM process, most theoretical EDM models also include a set of individual, organizational, or situational-related variables and indicate at
which stage of EDM (i.e., awareness, judgment, intention,
or behavior) they can exert a causal effect or a moderating
influence. Based on these theoretical EDM models, hundreds of empirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative
in nature, along with several meta-studies, have now been
conducted to try to verify and explain exactly which independent factors or variables actually influence the decision
making of individuals, including whether one stage of EDM
necessarily leads to the next stage (see Ford and Richardson
1994; Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005; Craft
2013; Lehnert et al. 2015).
While such theoretical and empirical research has
proven helpful to better understand what has been referred
to as the ‘black box’ of EDM (Liedka 1989, p. 805;
Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008, p. 584), the relevance
or explanatory power of the theoretical and empirical
research can at least initially be questioned given the lack
of consistent findings (O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005;
Craft 2013; Pan and Sparks 2012). This may be partially
attributable due to the research methods being used (e.g.,
the use of scenarios/vignettes, surveys, student samples,
or self-reporting, see Randall and Gibson 1990; O’Fallon
and Butterfield 2005) or the diversity or quality of the
research measurement instruments being utilized (see
Mudrack and Mason 2013; Casali 2011). Another possibility may be that EDM is simply too complex a neurocognitive-affective process involving too many inter-related or undiscoverable variables being processed by our
brains preventing any possible generalizable conclusions.
It may also be that the predictive ability of any theoretical
EDM model will be limited to activity that more clearly
constitutes ethical or unethical behavior, rather than predicting behavior involving more complex ethical dilemmas where achieving normative consensus over what even
constitutes ‘ethical’ behavior can often prove to be
1
For ease of reference, ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical’ are considered throughout
the paper to be synonymous with ‘morality’ or ‘moral.’
123
M. S. Schwartz
elusive.2 The challenges and complexity of EDM have
even led some researchers to suggest a ‘punch bowl’ or
‘garbage can’ approach to EDM, which assumes that
researchers will never know exactly what takes place
leading to ethical judgments in that only what goes into or
out of the process is capable of being analyzed (e.g.,
Schminke 1998, p. 207).
One other possible explanation for the lack of consistent
empirical findings however is that further refinements to
EDM descriptive theory models if undertaken might
improve the models’ explanatory and predictive capability
leading to more relevant and consistent empirical findings.
It is this latter possibility that this paper seeks to address.
For example, a review of the descriptive EDM theoretical
models proposed to date (Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe
2008) along with consideration of the more recent challenges and criticisms raised with respect to EDM research
(Haidt 2001; Sonenshein 2007; Whittier et al. 2006; Bartlett 2003) suggests that there is significant room for
improvement in theoretical EDM models. Following their
review of the empirical EDM research, O’Fallon and
Butterfield state (2005, p. 399): ‘‘If the field of descriptive
ethics is to move forward to strengthen our understanding
of the EDM process, it is imperative that future studies
focus more attention on theory development.’’ According
to Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008, p. 547): ‘‘…many
[studies] are still atheoretical or uni-theoretical, relying on
a single theory.’’ They then reflect on the deficiency in
EDM theory: ‘‘Unlike in the past, researchers no longer
need to justify their rationale for studying ethics; instead,
their attention needs to focus on developing a more comprehensive theoretical platform upon which empirical work
in behavioral ethics can continue’’ (Tenbrunsel and SmithCrowe 2008, p. 593). In other words, the current disagreement among scholars over which theoretical EDM
model (if any) is the most appropriate, especially when
engaging in empirical research, needs to be addressed.
This paper will attempt to contribute to EDM literature
by focusing on the primary gaps in the theoretical EDM
models that have been identified. By doing so, the research
objective is to develop a theoretical EDM model that not
only captures and builds upon the current state of EDM, but
also consolidates and attempts to bridge together the varying and sometimes directly conflicting propositions and
perspectives that have been advanced. In other words, the
paper will attempt to incorporate and depict what has not
always been clearly portrayed in any proposed EDM model
in a more integrated manner. The most important or key
integration being advanced is the combined and inter2
For example, Ferrell and Gresham state (1985, p. 87): ‘‘Absence of
a clear consensus about ethical conduct…has resulted in much
confusion among academicians…’’
Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach
related impact of intuition–emotion along with reason–rationalization on the moral judgment stage of EDM. In
addition, to address the proliferation of individual, organizational, and situational/issue-related factors being applied
in EDM research, several core constructs are proposed in
order to better capture their corresponding sub-variables,
such as an individual’s ‘moral capacity’ and an organization’s ‘ethical infrastructure.’ Other important features of
the revised model include (i) the presence of ‘lack of moral
awareness’ leading to behavior; (ii) the expansion of the
issue-based EDM variable; (iii) the inclusion of moral
rationalization; and (iv) the addition of an explicit ‘moral
consultation’ stage into the EDM process.
The proposed integrated model essentially reflects a
synthesis of the ‘intuitionist/sentimentalist’ (Haidt 2001),
‘rationalist’ (Kohlberg 1973; Rest 1986), ‘person-situation
interactionist’ (Treviño 1986), and ‘issue-contingent’ (Jones
1991) approaches to EDM. The revised model attempts to
depict the current theoretical field of EDM in a relatively
comprehensive yet hopefully more coherent and simplified
manner. The intended contribution of the proposed model is
not necessarily to offer any particularly new major insights
into EDM, but to depict a theoretical platform and schematic
representation upon which a broader range of EDM
researchers, including both rationalists and non-rationalists,
can hopefully feel comfortable utilizing in a more cohesive
and consistent manner. In addition, while ‘is’ does not
necessarily imply ‘ought,’ the development of a more robust
descriptive EDM model may lead to more effective and
relevant normative EDM models which might then have an
effect on future management or educational practices.
In order to propose and depict a reformulated theoretical
EDM model, the paper will be organized as follows. First, a
review of the various theoretical models of EDM will be
provided. These models can generally be divided into
(a) rationalist-based (i.e., reason); and (b) non-rationalistbased (i.e., intuition and emotion). Second, the proposed
model, called ‘Integrated EDM’ (I-EDM), is introduced in
order to fill the gaps and bridge the current divide in EDM
theory. The individual and situational factors as well as the
process of the proposed model are then described. Third,
the academic and managerial implications of the proposed
model will be discussed. Finally, the limitations of the
proposed model are presented.
Several notes of caution are required however. This
study is not intended to provide a comprehensive literature
review of the EDM field. Only what might be considered to
be the most salient or utilized EDM models or research is
included in the discussion.3 In addition, each of the EDM
constructs or processes is not discussed to the same extent,
3
This is similar to the approach used by Treviño et al. (2006) in their
literature review of EDM.
757
rather those that require modification from previous EDM
models are given greater emphasis throughout the paper. In
addition, the unit of analysis is individuals acting within or
on behalf of business organizations, rather than organizational-level ethical decision making.
Finally, for the purposes of the paper, a few key definitions are required. An ethical dilemma is defined as a
situation in which an individual must reflect upon competing moral standards and/or stakeholder claims in
determining what is the morally appropriate decision or
action.4 Moral judgment is defined as the determination of
the ethically appropriate course of action among potential
alternatives. Ethical behavior is defined not merely as
conforming to the legal or moral norms of the larger
community5 (Jones 1991), but consists of behavior supported by one or more additional moral standards.6
Review of the Theoretical Descriptive EDM
Approaches
A review of EDM research reveals that there are two
general categories of EDM theoretical models, those that
are (a) rationalist-based; and (b) non-rationalist-based.7
The rationalist-based models specifically assume that the
4
One might try to distinguish situations involving ‘ethical dilemmas’
from those whereby an individual is facing a ‘moral temptation.’
‘Ethical dilemmas’ can be seen as those more challenging situations
involving ‘right versus right’ or ‘wrong versus wrong’ alternatives,
such as deciding which employee to lay off. ‘Moral temptations’
however involve ‘right versus wrong’ alternatives more directly
linked to one’s self-interest, such as deciding whether to steal supplies
from the office supply cabinet (see Kidder 1995). For the purposes of
the I-EDM model, both ethical dilemmas and moral temptations can
be faced by individual decision makers as ethical issues.
5
Jones states (1991, p. 367): ‘‘…an ethical decision is defined as a
decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger
community. Conversely, an unethical decision is either illegal or
morally unacceptable to the larger community.’’ This is too limited a
definition of ‘ethical’ to be utilized for the purposes of properly
studying the EDM process. Jones (1991, p. 367) himself admits that
his definition of an ethical decision is ‘‘imprecise and relativistic’’ and
refers to the difficulties of establishing substantive definitions for
ethical behavior. Others have also suggested that this definition of
what is ethical is ‘‘too relativistic’’ and avoids a precise normative
position on right versus wrong (Reynolds 2008; Tenbrunsel and
Smith-Crowe 2008). In addition, community norms can violate
‘hypernorms’ (see Donaldson and Dunfee 1999).
6
While there is an extensive literature on moral theory, the moral
standards can be grouped under three general categories: (i) conventionalist (e.g., industry or corporate codes of ethics); (ii) consequentialist (e.g., utilitarianism); or (iii) deontological, including
trustworthiness, respect, moral rights, and justice/fairness (see
Schwartz and Carroll 2003; Schwartz 2005).
7
Another possible way of dividing up EDM models is to categorize
those that focus primarily on the disposition of the decision maker,
versus those that are more interactional (person-situation) in nature.
See Tsang (2002, p. 25).
123
758
moral reasoning process dominates the core of the model,
leading to moral judgment. The non-rationalist-based
models assume that both intuition and emotion dominate the
moral judgment process, with moral reasoning playing a
secondary ‘after the fact’ explanatory (i.e., reason) or justificatory (i.e., rationalization) role for one’s moral judgment (Haidt 2001; Sonenshein 2007). More recent models
however suggest that rather than reason–rationalization and
intuition–emotion being mutually exclusive, there is either
a ‘dual-process’ involving two stages or a ‘two-systems’
process whereby there is concurrent interaction between
intuition (impulsive) and reason (reflective) leading to
moral judgment (see Reynolds 2006a; Strack and Deutsch
2004) or between emotion and reason leading to moral
judgment (Greene et al. 2001). These interactions form the
basis of the revised model discussed below. Each group of
EDM theoretical models will now be briefly outlined.
Rationalist approaches
The first group of theoretical models explicitly or implicitly
assumes that a predominantly reason-based process takes
place leading to moral judgment. The rationalist approach
suggests that upon experiencing an ethical dilemma, the
decision maker attempts to resolve conflicts through a
logical, rational and deliberative cognitive process by
considering and weighing various moral standards that
might be in conflict with one another. The vast majority of
empirical EDM researchers appear to rely on this particular
theoretical framework when conducting their research.
For example, Ferrell and Gresham (1985) developed a
‘multistage contingency’ model of EDM, in which an ethical dilemma arises from the social or cultural environment.
The behavior of the decision maker is then affected by two
sets of ‘contingency factors’ including (1) individual factors
(i.e., knowledge, values, attitudes, and intentions); and (2)
organizational factors (i.e., significant others including top
management and peers, and opportunity including codes,
enforcement, and rewards and punishment).8
Treviño (1986) introduces a ‘person-situation interactionist’ model of ethical decision making. Her model begins by
suggesting that the manner by which an ethical dilemma is
analyzed by the decision maker depends upon the individual’s
stage of cognitive moral development (Kohlberg 1973).9 The
8
Ferrell et al. (1989) later suggest a revised ‘synthesis model’ which
incorporates into their original model (1985) Kohlberg’s stages of
moral development as well as the deontological and teleological
moral evaluation process taken from Hunt and Vitells’ EDM model
(1986).
9
Kohlberg (1973) proposed three general levels of moral development including the pre-conventional (stage one: punishment; stage
two: self-interest), conventional (stage three: referent others; stage
four: law), and post-conventional (stage five: social contract; stage
123
M. S. Schwartz
decision maker’s initial cognition of right and wrong is then
moderated by individual factors including ego strength
(strength of conviction or self-regulating skills), field dependence (dependence on external social referents), and locus of
control (perception of how much control one exerts over the
events in life). Situational factors also moderate behavior such
as immediate job context (reinforcement contingencies such
as rewards and punishment for ethical/unethical behavior) and
other external pressures (including personal costs, scarce
resources, or competition). Organizational culture (normative
structure, referent others, obedience to authority, and
responsibility for consequences) and characteristics of the
work also moderate behavior.
Possibly the most significant or prominent rationalistbased theoretical model of EDM is by Rest (1986), who
posited that there are four distinct process components (or
stages) of EDM: (1) becoming aware that there is a moral
issue or ethical problem or that the situation has ethical
implications (also referred to as ‘interpreting the situation,’
‘sensitivity,’ or ‘recognition’)10; (2) leading to a moral
judgment (also referred to as ‘moral evaluation,’ ‘moral
reasoning,’ or as ‘ethical decision making’)11; (3) establishing a moral intent (also referred to as moral ‘motivation,’ ‘decision,’ or ‘determination’)12; and (4) then acting
on these intentions through one’s behavior (also referred to
as ‘implementation’ or ‘action’).13 The moral judgment
stage of Rest’s model which is the key moral reasoning
component of the EDM process is based on Kohlberg’s
(1973) rationalist theory of moral development.
Jones (1991) provided an important contribution to
EDM theory by not only building on and consolidating
previous theoretical EDM models such as Rest (1986), but
by including an important new factor, the nature of the
Footnote 9 continued
six: universal ethical principles). Kohlberg in later years indicated
that his model focused on moral reasoning, and later clarified that it
really only focused on justice/fairness issues. See Rest et al. (1999).
10
For ‘heightened ethical concern,’ see De Cremer et al. (2010, p. 3).
Moral awareness is defined by Rest (1986, p. 3) as the ‘‘…interpretation of the particular situation in terms of what actions (are)
possible, who (including oneself) would be affected by each course of
action, and how the interested parties would regard such effects on
their welfare.’’
11
Moral judgment is defined by Rest as: ‘‘[F]iguring out what one
ought to do. Applying moral ideals to the situation to determine the
moral course of action’’ (Rest 1984, p. 26).
12
For ‘determination’ see Ferrell et al. (1989, p. 60). Moral intention
might be considered synonymous with moral motivation which Rest
defines as giving ‘‘…priority to moral values above other personal
values such that a decision is made to intend to do what is morally
right’’ (1986, p. 3).
13
Moral action is defined as having ‘‘…sufficient perseverance, ego
strength, and implementation skills to be able to follow through on
his/her intention to behave morally, to withstand fatigue and flagging
will, and to overcome obstacles’’ (Rest 1986, pp. 4–5).
Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach
ethical issue itself. Jones (1991, p. 367) states that an ethical
issue exists when a person’s actions, when freely performed
(i.e., involve a choice) ‘‘…may harm or benefit others.’’
Jones defines the ‘moral intensity’ of the ethical issue as a
construct that ‘‘…captures the extent of [the] issue-related
moral imperative in a situation’’ (1991, p. 372). Jones’
components or characteristics of ‘moral intensity’ include:
consequences (i.e., magnitude of consequences, probability
of effect, temporal immediacy, and concentration of effect);
social consensus that a proposed act is evil or good; and the
proximity or ‘the feeling of nearness’ (social, cultural, psychological, or physical) the agent has to those affected. The
moral intensity of the issue is proposed by Jones to influence
each of the four stages of EDM and can act as both an
independent and moderating variable.
Most other rationalist models proposed since 1991
appear to be a variation or a combination of Rest (1986)
and Jones (1991).14 Sonenshein (2007) groups the
rationalist approaches into what he considers to be three
‘prominent streams of research’: (i) manager as philosopher (e.g., Hunt and Vitell 1986); (b) person-situation
(Treviño 1986); and (iii) issue-contingent (Jones 1991).
What unites all of these theoretical models however is the
emphasis on the rational cognitive process used by decision
makers to resolve ethical dilemmas. While rationalist
approaches tend to recognize that intuition or emotion
might play a role in EDM,15 they would never be determinative of one’s moral judgments. Rationalist approaches
are now beginning to recognize their limitations however,
including constraints such as ‘bounded rationality’ (or
more specifically ‘bounded ethicality,’16 see Chugh et al.
2005), or due to other cognitive biases that affect how
759
information is processed (Messick and Bazerman 1996;
Treviño et al. 2006).17
Non-rationalist (Intuitionist/Sentimentalist)
Approaches
Another stream of EDM research has developed that argues
that a non-rationalist approach involving intuition (a cognitive process) and/or emotion or sentiments (an affective
process) should be considered more central or ‘sovereign’
to the moral judgment process of EDM (Saltzstein and
Kasachkoff 2004, p. 274). For example, ‘‘…recent work in
moral psychology shows that ethical decisions are frequently informed by one’s feelings and intuitions’’ (Ruedy
et al. 2013, p. 532).
In terms of intuition, this non-rationalist research stream
posits that intuitive (i.e., gut sense) and emotive processes
(i.e., gut feelings) tend to at least initially generate moral
judgments. For example, according to Haidt (2001): ‘‘The
central claim of the social intuitionist model is that moral
judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions and is followed (when needed) by slow, ex post facto moral reasoning’’ (Haidt 2001, p. 818). Haidt states (2001, p. 814):
Intuitionism in philosophy refers to the view that there
are moral truths and that when people grasp these
truths they do so not by a process or ratiocination and
reflection but rather by a process more akin to perception, in which one ‘just sees without argument that
they are and must be true’…Intuitionist approaches in
moral psychology, by extension, say that moral intuitions (including moral emotions) come first and
directly cause moral judgments…Moral intuition is a
kind of cognition, but it is not a kind of reasoning.18
14
For example, other rationalist models include the ‘general theory
model’ proposed by Hunt and Vitell (1986), a ‘behavior model’
proposed by Bommer et al. (1987), and a ‘reasoned action’ model
proposed by Dubinsky and Loken (1989) based on the theory of
reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In conducting a summary
of various early models, Brady and Hatch (1992) propose that at least
four of the models (Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986;
Treviño 1986; Bommer et al. 1987) contain the same four elements
(1) a decision process, modified by (2) internal and (3) external
factors, leading to (4) ethical or unethical behavior.
15
For example, Rest himself refers to the cognitive–affective
interactions that take place during each of the four stages of EDM
(Rest 1984, p. 27). According to Rest (1986, p. 6), the moral
awareness stage involves trying to understand our own ‘gut feelings’
and in terms of the moral judgment stage ‘‘…most people seem to
have at least intuitions about what’s morally right or wrong’’ (1986,
p. 8). Rest states: ‘‘…there are different affect and cognition
interactions in every component’’ (1984, p. 28). He also states:
‘‘…I take the view that there are no moral cognitions completely
devoid of affect, no moral affects completely devoid of cognitions,
and no moral behavior separable from the cognitions and affects that
prompt the behavior’’ (Rest 1986, p. 4). Hunt and Vitell (1986, p. 10)
also refer to the ‘feeling of guilt’ one might experience if behavior
and intentions are inconsistent with one’s ethical judgments.
16
‘Bounded ethicality’ can be defined as one making decisions that
run counter to values or principles without being aware of it (Chugh
et al. 2005; Palazzo et al. 2012).
17
In terms of cognitive biases, Messick and Bazerman (1996)
propose a series of theories about the world, other people, and
ourselves which are suggested to help explain the often unethical
decisions that executives make. In terms of theories about the world,
people often ignore possible outcomes or consequences due to five
biases: ‘‘…ignoring low-probability events, limiting the search for
stakeholders, ignoring the possibility that the public will ‘find out,’
discounting the future, and undervaluing collective outcomes’’ (1996,
p. 10).
18
Moral reasoning might also be argued to potentially take place
without a conscious, effortful deliberation, suggesting it can be
classified as a form of intuition. Intuition might also be classified as a
very basic form of moral reasoning, meaning there is no real dispute
between the two forms of processing, but rather they merely represent
a difference in degree (i.e., time or effort) of processing. However,
because moral reasoning involves non-automatic inferential processing, moral reasoning can be distinguished from intuition not only in
terms of degree but also in terms of the kind of processing taking
place (see Wright 2005, pp. 28–29 and 44–45).
123
760
In other words, ‘‘…moral reasoning is retroactive: It
seeks to rationalize previous judgments and not to arrive at
those judgments’’ (Saltzstein and Kasachkoff 2004,
p. 276). One way to express the intuitive process is by
saying: ‘‘I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s
wrong’’ (Haidt 2001, p. 814).
Emotion or sentiment, defined as one’s ‘feeling state’
(Gaudine and Thorne 2001, p. 176), has also become more
explicitly incorporated into EDM research: ‘‘…[C]umulative evidence from empirical research supports the assertion that ethical decision making is based not only on
intuitive but also on emotion-based mechanisms, and that
emotions constitute a key component of moral decision
making’’ (Salvador and Folger 2009, pp. 11–12). Tangney
et al. (2007, p. 346) also note the importance of emotion in
relation to EDM: ‘‘Moral emotions may be critically
important in understanding people’s behavioral adherence
(or lack of adherence) to their moral standards.’’ Emotions
that have been suggested as being more directly related to
EDM can be categorized into: (i) ‘pro-social’ emotions
which promote morally good behavior such as empathy,
sympathy, concern, or compassion19; (ii) ‘self-blame’
emotions such as guilt and shame; or (iii) or ‘other-blame’
emotions, such as contempt, anger, and disgust (see Prinz
and Nichols 2010).20
Several researchers have attempted to explain how
emotion impacts EDM. Haidt (2001) as a non-rationalist
appears to directly link emotion to intuition with little
emphasis placed on reason. According to Elfenbein (2007,
p. 348): ‘‘The three main perspectives on the relationship
between emotion and cognition are that emotion interferes
with cognition, that emotion serves cognition, and that the
two are intertwined…’’ Greene et al. (2001) link emotions
directly to the cognitive process and state (p. 2107):
‘‘…emotional responses generated by the moral-personal
dilemmas have an influence on and are not merely incidental to moral judgment.’’21 According to Damasio
(1994), emotion is not in conflict with reason but provides
crucial support to the reasoning process by acting as a
M. S. Schwartz
regulator of conduct. Another similar means to explain the
relationship between emotion and reason is by describing
emotions as the ‘hot system’ (‘go’), which can undermine
efforts to self-control one’s behavior. In contrast, the ‘cool
system’ (‘know’) which is cognitive, contemplative, and
emotionally neutral can potentially control the ‘hot system’
through what is referred to as ‘moral willpower’ (Metcalfe
and Mischel 1999).22
The non-rationalist approaches have been persuasively
argued by researchers such as Haidt (2001) and Sonenshein
(2007). Building on the works of philosophers like
Shaftesbury and Hume, Haidt (2001, p. 816) suggests that:
‘‘…people have a built-in moral sense that creates pleasurable feelings of approval toward benevolent acts and
corresponding feelings of disapproval toward evil and
vice.’’ The relationship between emotions and intuition is
not so clear however. Monin et al. (2007, p. 101) state that:
‘‘The difference between intuitions and emotions…seems
to be that intuitions are behavioral guides or evaluations
that directly follow from an emotional experience.’’ Dane
and Pratt (2007, pp. 38–39) refer to intuitive judgments as
‘‘…affectively charged, given that such judgments often
involve emotions’’ and are ‘‘…detached from rationality.’’
Kahneman (2003) states: ‘‘The operations of [intuition] are
typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit
(not available to introspection), and often emotionally
charged.’’ This seems to suggest that emotions either affect
or cause intuitions and are thus importantly related, or in
other cases, emotions may directly affect any of the four
EDM stages (Gaudine and Thorne 2001). It is important to
note however that not all intuitive judgments are necessarily emotionally charged, and that intuitions should be
considered to be a cognitive (albeit non-deliberate) process
evoked by the situation: ‘‘It must be stressed…that intuition, reasoning, and the appraisals contained in emotions…are all forms of cognition’’ (Haidt 2001, p. 818).
Proposed Reformulation: Integrated Ethical
Decision-Making (I-EDM) Model
19
While positive emotions such as empathy are generally associated
with ethica
