Shopping cart
0 Items | US$ 0.00
3.3 A
NALYSIS AND STATISTICS
24
4 RESULTS
25
4.1 P
ARTICIPANTS
' D
EMOGRAPHICS
25
4.2 E
FFECT OF
D
EMOGRAPHICS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
26
4.3 M
ORAL DISENGAGEMENT
: 6
STATEMENTS TEST
28
4.4 C
OMPARING RESULTS IN EXPERIMENT ONE AND TWO
28
4.5 M
ORAL DISENGAGEMENT
: 32
STATEMENTS TEST
(E
XP
. 3)
29
5 DISCUSSION
32
5.1 H
YPOTHESIS
1: A
RE
BECC
EFFECTIVE
?
32
5.2 H
YPOTHESIS
2: H
ONESTY VERSUS DISHONESTY
32
5.3 H
YPOTHESIS
3: D
ISENGAGEMENT EXAMINED IN MORE DETAIL
33
5.4 H
YPOTHESIS
4: G
ENDER EFFECTS
34
5.5 H
YPOTHESIS
5: A
GE AND SOCIO ECONOMICAL EFFECTS
35
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, FUTURE ASPECTS
36
6.1 S
UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
36
6.2 I
MPLICATIONS
38
6.3 S
UGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
38
FIGURES AND TABLES
1
1
INTRODUCTION
Not only criminals but also citizens who are not habitually in conflict with the law
exhibit dishonesty, or engage in actions harmful to their fellow citizens (Gabor 1994).
Most members of society are aware of the rules that govern the truthfulness of our
actions, namely morale and ethics; however, studies indicate that many engage in
dishonest behaviour frequently and show for example that everybody lies on a daily
basis (DePaulo BM 1996). A staggering 66% of high-school students in the USA for
example report to have cheated in exams (Bernardi, Metzger et al. 2004).
A recent example of academic fraud is offered by Germany's defence minister, Karl-
Theodor zu Guttenberg, who has plagiarised large passages of his doctoral thesis
(BBC.co.uk 2011). As a consequence the thesis was retracted by the awarding
university, the minister has to resign, and the political scandal has triggered debates
about the state of moral behaviour of individuals serving in public office in Germany
(Warner 2011).
Ethics and morale are of fundamental importance in business and economics, and
unethical behaviour stands for great financial damage. Tax avoidance and tax evasion
for instance may have caused a damage of 345 billion USD in 2007 in the USA alone
(Kaufman 2007). Accountants describe tax evasion as morally questionable less
frequently the lower their actual knowledge on the system of taxation is (Eriksen and
Fallan 1996). Intellectual property theft worldwide has cost the US industry alone more
than 250 billion USD in 2004 (Nina, Dan et al. 2010). "Wardrobing", i.e. the short-term
use and return of recently bought clothing for refund, costs the retail industry
approximately 16 billion USD, and as many as 9% of all returns are thought to be
fraudulent (Hilinski 2005).
Acceptance of fraud and deception is apparently widespread, as demonstrated by the
fact that 10% of US Americans stated in a recent survey, that it was acceptable to hand
in fraudulent insurance claims, for example when reporting goods as damaged or stolen
when they were not. In the same study, 25% of US Americans even agreed that
overstating an insurance claim was acceptable (Accenture 2003).
How can dishonest behaviour be curbed? As the Internal Revenue Service (tax office of
the USA) noted for instance, performing more audits did not result in more taxes paid
(Herman 2005). If more control is not the answer, the question remains, which
measures, techniques and strategies can be used to address, the problem of fraud and
deception in the business arena? Certainly, any measure that does improve moral
behaviour will improve the economic bottom line of any business fallen victim.
This study reviews the possibilities of altering moral behaviour. In doing so it
investigates dishonesty in the business arena and evaluates what is known about the
underlying reasons for deception, the psychological and sociological mechanisms
accompanying this behaviour, and the tools that can be applied to contain deceit. Based
on surveys, this study investigates the effect of formally agreed upon rules, such as an
Ethical Code of Conduct, on individuals' moral values.
In brief: This study investigates if honour codes are effective in improving morality.
2
1.1
BACKGROUND
1.1.1
The origin of deception
The terms morale and ethics include a wide variety of different actions. Commonly
lying, cheating and stealing are defined as unethical behaviour (Trevino Linda, Weaver
Gary et al. 2006). More generally speaking, deception of any kind is thought of as
unethical, while behaviours such as honesty, obeying the law, and whistle-blowing are
conform with ethical standards (Jones 1991).
Deception and the capacity to detect deceit are products of animal and human evolution
(Buchanan 2006). While the way we are dealing with deception certainly is a product
of our social evolution the psychological capabilities involved enabling us to lie and
cheat have developed in our biology and are hardwired (Leighton 1906). Deceit and
detection thereof is a universal human trait (Bond, Omar et al. 1990).
A scenario of deception in the animal kingdom could for instance be a signal warning
of a predator when in fact no predator is present. After all animals have fled the scene
the deceiver may have a resource such as feed for itself. Deception is thereby defined as
a signalling act that in the broadest sense can be any exchange between two or more
individuals (Buchanan 2006).
If this exchange manifests as an exchange of goods, a financial, social or material gain
can manifest on the expense of the deceived. The origins of deceit may have been
simple survival mechanisms that ensure that the more pushy ones, the more egoistic
individuals, would survive more easily (Leutenegger 1987).
1.1.2
Definition of Ethics and morale
Human society has come up with definitions for dishonesty and developed coping
strategies for dealing with deception (Bond, Omar et al. 1990). However, these
definitions are far from fixed, but rather vary in different societies and may change over
time (Jones 1991).
In some instances deception may be punished and sanctioned, in others it may be a
generally accepted occurrence or even be encouraged. For instance, law-enforcement
may employ deception and use misrepresentation as a tool in a number of areas, such as
setting up sting operations to catch corrupt officials, placing informants in various
undercover situations, and falsifying documents in witness relocation plans (Shine
1989).
The example demonstrates that the line between deception and socially accepted
behaviour is at times vague at best. The attempt of defining this line is the function of
ethics and the study of morale. Some fields of study distinguish between ethics as being
of a more universal relevance and morale as being applicable for a distinguished social
group (Wiktionary 2011).
In this study the terms ethics and morale are used interchangeably for "the rules or
standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession"
(Dictionary 2011).
3
1.1.3
The self in the regulation of behaviour
The concept of the psychological self, self-consciousness or the self-concept, i.e. the
way people view and perceive themselves, is a prerequisite in understanding the
motivational- and other forces that move the individual to either behave ethical or
unethical (Mazar, Amir et al. 2008).
Identity is viewed as something possessing hierarchies, networks or spaces, including
personal characteristics', feelings, roles and social status (Burke 1980). The self-
concept explains the reflections and interpretations of on-going behaviour the self
performs on its identity.
The self-concept is today being viewed as dynamic and adjustable in its response to
challenges from the social environment (Markus and Wurf 1987). The self-concept
consists of self-representations, i.e. ways in which the self presents itself to the outer
world. Some self-representations may be based on the actual self or images of the self,
as it would like to appear (Stryker 2007).
The concepts can be at odds with each other, in so-called self-discrepancy (Higgins
1987). Not all self-representations are subject to conscious reflection, but if they are,
they are called self-conceptions (Markus and Wurf 1987). Self-representations may be
actively repressed or altered, for example to substitute a sad mood with a happy
memory (Josephson, Singer et al. 1996).
Apparently there are two viewpoints in the relationship between the individual and its
social surrounding. From the social perspective of the surrounding the individual has
internalized social roles through which it interacts with others, which is denominated
identity theory (Stryker 2007; Wikipedia 2011).
From the psychological point of view, the individual has inherited traits, which are
rather stable, individual and shape a person's disposition and behaviour, and is called
personality theory (Wikipedia 2011). Naturally, the social and the psychological
perspectives of the self have large overlaps (Stryker 2007).
In the interaction with its surrounding the individual seeks to control certain
behaviours, which is known as self-regulation (Markus and Wurf 1987). Self-regulation
does occur also in-group contexts' when individuals aim at regulating their behaviour
in accordance to their perceived social identity (Sassenberg and Woltin 2008).
The person's believe in the ability, and the willingness to perform an activity
contributing to self-regulation has been termed self-efficacy (Albert and Edwin 2009).
Self-efficacy is being motivated or channelled by desires and needs, some of which
may be the cause of dishonesty (Markus and Wurf 1987).
Understanding the above mentioned mechanisms and how to alter them is paramount in
the control of ethical behaviour. Additionally, it may be helpful understanding how
moral behaviour develops psychologically.
1.1.4
Stages of moral development
Moral development is a key component in the decision process on moral behaviour
(Kohlberg 1984; Hunt 1992; Green and Weber 1997; Abdolmohammadi and Sultan
2002; Greenberg 2002; Bernardi, Metzger et al. 2004). Kohlberg's conventional level of
4
moral development are a well accepted basis to describe the stages of such a
development (Kohlberg 1984; Wikipedia 2011)(Table 1).
The stages describe the progression from a mostly
egoistic and self-interested moral perspective,
over the acceptance that social norms should be
followed for an efficient social existence, to the
realization of higher principles, such as ethical
principles and social contracts (Kohlberg 1984).
The basic principles of this model apparently hold
true for different cultures, although this
circumstance is a matter of some debate (Boom,
Wouters et al. 2007; Gibbs, Basinger et al. 2007).
A similar model, that in contrast to Kohlberg's
model does not concentrate as much on social
development, but rather emphasizes infant
development is Jean Piaget's developmental stage
theory (Carpendale 2000).
Some studies have provided evidence that the stages do correlate with actual behaviour.
Employees who had attained Kohlberg's conventional level of moral development
refrained from stealing money when they worked in an office that had an ethics
program in place. Those on the other hand at the pre-conventional level of development
and who worked at an office without an ethics program stole from their employers.
Apparently the programs in place improved the moral development of the employees
(Greenberg 2002).
Importantly, not only an ethical program in place is of importance but apparently also
the personal development of the individuals who are expected to subordinate their
egoistic interests to the common rules.
1.1.5
Social cognitive theory of morality
Apparently, even in comparable situations different individuals may take
fundamentally different decisions in relation to ethical issues. Social cognitive theory
attempts to explain the basis of these differences (Reynolds 2008). The postulate of
social cognitive theory is that moral decision is based on the traits of the individual,
external stimuli, and the ensuing interaction of the two factors (Bandura 1986).
In accordance to social cognitive theory the difference in moral behaviour derives from
variation in attention to moral issues between individuals. The attention is influenced
by the significance of the stimulus, how interesting the stimulus is, and the individual's
capacity to recognize and process the stimulus (Taylor 1991).
The basis for moral reasoning is moral judgment that derives from the questions "What
is right and wrong?" and the concept of the self, as discussed above (Reynolds and
Ceranic 2007). Ethical behaviour starts with a moral judgement based on the awareness
of a moral issue, the intention to act morally, and finally the engagement in the
appropriate behaviour (Kohlberg 1975).
Table 1: Moral development
Source: (Kohlberg 1984; Wikipedia 2011)
5
The judgment of what is right and wrong is crucial for moral behaviour, and is
influenced by two main factors, namely development of moral reasoning (Kohlberg
1984; Hunt 1992; Green and Weber 1997; Abdolmohammadi and Sultan 2002;
Greenberg 2002; Bernardi, Metzger et al. 2004), and ethical predisposition, which is
defined as a cognitive framework that builds the basis for moral decisions (Brady and
Wheeler 1996). Moral judgment is a process that in principles happens every time anew
a moral decision has to be taken (Reynolds and Ceranic 2007).
1.1.6
Influencing moral awareness using psychological priming
Some studies have suggested that these factors are subject to priming, i.e. the activation
of specific connectional frameworks by subliminal suggestion (Higgins 1989). Priming
can for example act by having subjects sort phrases, or unscramble sentences, that are
enriched with suggestive terms, for instance words that are associated with the term
"mean".
By subconsciously directing attention towards the framework for judging actions as
"mean" individuals can be influenced to judge vignettes as meaner than control subjects
that have performed unscrambling tasks with no inbuilt bias (Skowronski John,
Sedikides et al. 2010).
Other categories that have been addressed using priming are, racial categories (Devine
1989), gender stereotypes (McKenzie-Mohr and Zanna 1990), political advertisements
(Shen 2004), anxiety (Robles, Smith et al. 1987), and violent crimes (James 1986), to
name but a few examples of the wide array of possible applications.
1.1.7
Moral attentiveness, moral identity, and social consensus
Some authors distinguish moral awareness, that can be influenced by priming, from
moral attentiveness, and define attentiveness as a more general sensitivity to moral
topics that exists regardless of context (Jones 1991; Reynolds 2008).
Moral attentiveness can be associated with a more intuitive moral reaction while
awareness implies deliberation. Perceptual aspects play a role in moral attentiveness,
which let an individual react conditioned to information encountered, based on moral
identity, and a reflective aspect which lets the individual examine and judge the
experience (Reynolds 2008).
This is an intricate part of an individual's moral identity which deals with moral aspects
of one's self (Bergman 2002). The moral identity acts as a motivator to behave in
accordance to moral sets of rules that an individual has come to accept as basis for his
own behaviour (Bornstein 1999; Narvaez and Lapsley 2009).
"Social consensus indicates the extend to which there is a general concurrence within
society about the moral status of the issue" (Reynolds and Ceranic 2007). Reynolds and
others have argued that a high social consensus reduces the need for moral judgment by
an individual, so that the behaviour of the individual is going to be influenced by his
moral identity but not the moral judgment (Reynolds and Ceranic 2007).
1.1.8
Psychological dissonance and self-deception
Generally people strive to behave morally, even if they fail frequently (Aquino and
Reed 2002). If their self-concept of being a moral individual is at odds with their
6
immoral behaviour individuals may resort to self-deception in order to resolve the
discrepancy (Trivers 2000) or disengage from their moral identity or their moral
convictions (Bandura, Barbaranelli et al. 1996).
Self-deception is a common psychological strategy in aligning believes with reality. For
example, people frequently maintain believes about themselves that are not in
accordance with reality. More than 50% of people believe for instance that they are
more intelligent than the average, a view that clearly violates logic (Alicke, Klotz et al.
1995). In order to align the internal self-concept with the outer reality people resort to
self-deception to reduce this so-called psychological dissonance (Elliot and Devine
1994).
Self-deception has been considered an important psychological factor in the decision in
favour of unethical behaviour (Messick 2001; Tenbrunsel and Messick 2004). People
also apply self-deception unconsciously to convince themselves of certain motives,
hiding their true intention even to themselves (Anderson, Cohen et al. 2000; Dodson
2001). In this case of real self-deception there are no cues, such as increased pupil size,
lip pressing and similar, to an observer to discern the dishonesty (Morris 2004).
1.1.9
Moral disengagement and immoral behaviour
As mentioned, another strategy of dealing with is cognitive dissonance is the process of
emotionally distancing oneself from ones unethical behaviour, which has been termed
"moral disengagement".
Moral disengagement means the separation of moral reactions from inhumane conduct
and the disabling of mechanisms of self-condemnation (Bandura, Barbaranelli et al.
1996). It has been suggested that as a result of dishonest behaviour a person may
disengage even further from moral behaviour, forgetting moral rules, and leading to a
downward spiral (Shu Lisa, Gino et al. 2011).
A facet of moral disengagement is a self-justification process (Bandura, Caprara et al.
2001). The uncertainty of information may be used as the basis for the justification of
dishonesty. The act of lying may then be justified by the fact that the information
available is not clear cut, or reliable (Schweitzer and Hsee 2002). This act of conscious
self-deception differs from the previously mentioned self-deception in that the
perpetrator is aware of the betrayal, but chooses to justify (White, Bandura et al. 2009).
An example that describes it well is the moral disengagement process that prison
personnel must undergo in order to be able to carry out the death penalty on prisoners
(Osofsky, Bandura et al. 2005).
An interesting example of self-deception can be found in a study by Shu et al. In the
study students were given a chance to cheat in an exam after they had read a code of
honour. The students were tested for their moral disengagement and also for how much
information from the code they remembered. Interestingly, the students that had
cheated remembered less of the code than the students that decided to be honest. The
authors argue that this is "strategic forgetting" that prevents dissonance (Shu Lisa, Gino
et al. 2011).
7
Figure 1: Strategies of moral disengagement
Based on (Bandura 2002)
Bandura defines a number of strategies for moral disengagement that are also the basis
for his test of moral-disengagement, which is described in more detail in the review
chapter (Figure 1)(Bandura 2002).
Briefly, Bandura's definitions of moral disengagement are (Bandura 2002):
x Moral justification: Portraying an act as socially worthy cause
x Euphemistic labelling: Sanitized language disguises immoral acts
x Advantageous comparison: Comparing immoral act against seemingly worse
alternative
x Displacement of responsibility: Following the dictate of a higher authority
x Diffusion of responsibility: Division of labour as social diffusion
x Disregard of distortion of consequences: Argumentative minimisation of the
actual harm caused
x Dehumanisation: Immoral acts against strangers or animals are psychological
easier to carry out
x Attribution of blame: Portraying oneself as the victim of others or
circumstances
Previous studies have shown that moral disengagement in boys is larger than in girls,
and positively correlated with aggression, social competence, and in some cases
delinquency, but unrelated with socioeconomic status or age (Bandura, Barbaranelli et
al. 1996). In contrast, other studies have shown that the acceptance of moral
disengagement is higher in males and increases with age (Obermann 2011).
Moral disengagement was chosen as a basis for the determination of the participating
individuals' moral thinking in this study as discussed in more detail below. The aspects
age and gender in relation to ethical attitudes were subjects of investigation in order to
shed more light on the discrepancies found between previous studies.
1.2
PROBLEM DISCUSSION
1.2.1
Reasons for dishonest behaviour in economic contexts
Honesty and deception are concepts of ethics and morale that are being investigated not
only by moral philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists, but in a more
8
applied arena in recent times by researchers from such fields as business studies (Ayres
and Ghosh 1999; Chan, Fung et al. 2010).
However, already philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and economists such as Adam
Smith have given the issue some though and have argued that behaving in line with
moral expectations may merely be the result of a cost-benefit analysis, weighing desires
against the costs of fulfilling them, an idea very much based on the concept of homo
economicus (Smith and Cannan 1981; Nina, Dan et al. 2010).
The basic idea for this is, that people are only honest to the extent that a planned trade-
off favours honesty (Hechter 1990). In accordance to this economic model ethical
behaviour is for example influenced by external incentives, the bigger the reward that
can be derived from being dishonest the greater the incentive for dishonest behaviour
(Lewicki 1983).
Another model concentrates on internal reward, felt due to the following of social
norms (Henrich, Boyd et al. 2009). There is evidence from game theory that people act
not only in terms of selfish motives but also in accordance with considerations
regarding social utility and the care for others' as outcome (Ernst and Urs 2003; Fehr
and Fischbacher 2004). In fact, brain-imaging studies have shown that people who
followed moral conventions felt an intense reward. The intensity of the reward-feeling
equalled that of other reward triggers, such as monetary gain (de Quervain Dominique,
Fischbacher et al. 2004).
Interestingly, game theory also showed that people evaluate their counterparts'
situation when deciding to be dishonest or not. It has been demonstrated that people
will be more prone to dishonesty in a game for personal gain, when their counterpart is
wealthier than they themselves (Gneezy 2005).
Apparently these internal reward mechanisms vary between different cultures and are
shaped by the economic characteristics of the societies people live in, in other words
socialization is key for altruistic behaviour (Henrich, Boyd et al. 2009). Additionally to
these economic and sociological factor that influence human honesty behaviour, also
personality traits, situational factors, and other individual factors contribute to the
decision for or against dishonesty (Lewicki 1983).
An example for a situational factor is the certainty of information. Studies have shown
that uncertainty of information can be an inducing factor for dishonesty. For example, a
manager may have an incentive to underreport the true dimension of costs for
renovation of a house in sales negotiations, justifying the lie with the uncertainty of this
information (Schweitzer and Hsee 2002).
1.2.2
The state of research in business ethics
The need for research on ethics and morale in a business context arises from the fact
that lie, betrayal and deception are at the core of such problems as accounting fraud, as
in recent cases such as the Enron scandal (Bazerman, Loewenstein et al. 2002; House,
Watt et al. 2004) or the Bernard L. Madoff fraud scandal (Battalio and Loughran 2008).
The Enron and WorldCom scandals alone are estimated to have cost the US economy
37-42 billion USD (Graham 2002; BBC.co.uk 2004; Rice 2010).
9
Some argue that these problems arise from a relentless pursuit of the idea of the homo
economicus, i.e. the assumption that individuals are merely out to maximize their own
gain, if needed on the expense of others, and if opportunity permits by deception
(White 2004). In a similar vein, individuals in companies such as in accounting may, if
presented with an opportunity to beget immoral advantage, abuse their position
(Kravitz 2009).
Past research has investigated deception in business contexts by investigating the
importance of internal psychological factors, such as motivation (Bazerman,
Loewenstein et al. 2002), moral or religious identity (Vitell, Bing et al. 2009), measures
of ethical sensitivity (Shawver and Sennetti 2009), self-concept and self-regulation
(Markus and Wurf 1987) to name but a few.
Also external factors have been investigated, such as incentives for ethical behaviour
(Battalio and Loughran 2008), organizational structures, including company norms and
climate (Nijhof, Fisscher et al. 2000), and governmental legislation (Rockness and
Rockness 2005) for example.
All these factors play a role for moral behaviour in business and our daily life (Serota
Kim, Levine Timothy et al. 2010). However, it is a meticulous task to dissect which
exact roles the individual factors play and to what extend they contribute to ethical
behaviour. Notwithstanding, much progress has been made in understanding dishonesty
and the underlying causes and psychological processes (Chan, Fung et al. 2010).
1.2.3
Potential remedies against unethical behaviour
In a recent development, research has moved on to the next level of the problem, i.e.
how to remedy the occurrence of dishonesty with prudence (Tullberg 2009). In this
context it naturally has been discussed how external factors can be altered in order to
stifle the occurrence of fraught and deception (Amir, Ariely et al. 2005).
One may look at this strategy as the stick and carrot approach that tries to use
incentives and penalties in an attempt to manoeuvre individuals away from committing
fraught (Nina, Dan et al. 2010). At the same time, others have begun understanding
how internal factors manipulate moral decisions serving the same end, i.e. improve
morality (Shu Lisa, Gino et al. 2011). The question has been addressed: How can the
moral attitude or the very sense of morality be altered in order to diminish unethical
reflexes (Schweitzer and Hsee 2002; Reynolds and Ceranic 2007; Mazar, Amir et al.
2008)?
Methods that have been thought of are often directing attention towards raising
awareness or attentiveness for moral problems arising from ethical dilemmas (Reynolds
2008). Attempts have been undertaken to do so by using lectures on ethics and by
means of moral education (Kidwell 2001; Kulshreshtha 2005) or by increasing ethical
attentiveness using a Code of Honour, or Business Ethical Codes of Conduct (BECC)
(Kidwell 2001; Kaptein 2004).
10
1.3
PROBLEM FORMULATION AND PURPOSE
1.3.1
Problem formulation
Studies have shown that the effects of such codes or lectures on ethics can be efficient
in rendering immoral behaviour more ethical sometimes, but may even have
detrimental effects at other times, or be ineffective altogether (Kaptein and Schwartz
2008) (Pater and Van Gils 2003). The ambivalence of these findings served as basis for
the idea of the investigations in this study.
1.3.2
Hypotheses developed from the literature review
Bandura viewed moral disengagement as a prerequisite for immoral behaviour
(Bandura, Barbaranelli et al. 1996), but Shu et al. has demonstrated that immoral
behaviour also has an effect on an individual's moral engagement (Shu Lisa, Gino et al.
2011).
In the latter study it has been demonstrated, as discussed in more detail above, that
cheating is positively correlated with moral disengagement, opposite to honesty (Shu
Lisa, Gino et al. 2011). The same study shows that moral disengagement is positively
correlated with reading and signing a BECC in an exam situation where a chance for
cheating is given, a similar finding to Mazar et al. (Nina, Dan et al. 2010; Shu Lisa,
Gino et al. 2011).
Bandura has demonstrated that socioeconomic status and age are not correlated with
moral disengagement, while gender is. Namely, males are more morally disengaged
than females. Bandura has also shown that aggression is positively correlated with
moral disengagement (Bandura, Barbaranelli et al. 1996), and it has previously been
established that Machiavellianism, which is a construct measuring assertiveness
indirectly, is positively correlated with physical aggression, challenge to authority, and
total aggression (Russell 1974).
Figure 2: Hypotheses developed for study summarized
Overview over hypotheses taken into account for this study: Attributes that are thought to have an effect
on moral disengagement and the resulting behaviours or strategies of disengaging from morals. ("+"
positive correlation, "/" no correlation, "-" negative correlation. (Based on a body of work discussed in
the background chapter above)
Excerpt out of 59 pages
- scroll top
Details
- Quote paper
- , 2014, A question of honour: How codes of ethical conduct and moral dilemmas impact behaviour, Hamburg, Bedey Media GmbH, https://www.anchor-publishing.com/document/312682
Comments