The purpose of this study was to contribute to our limited understanding of the cognitive processes that precede ethical decision-making and the antecedents of those processes. An explanation of ethical decision-making was built around integrative complexity (the cognitive differentiation and integration of concepts). Antecedents of integrative complexity were considered from an interactionist perspective where individuals (characterized in terms of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and social dominance orientation, or SDO) interact with their environments (defined in terms of accountability). I hypothesized that accountability to a corrupt authority figure would constrain integrative complexity, making unethical decision-making (i.e., skimping on worker safety training) more likely. I further hypothesized that conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extreme levels of SDO would exacerbate the negative relationship between accountability and integrative complexity, in most cases making unethical decision-making even more likely. The results did not support these latter hypotheses. Nevertheless, the results were supportive of the hypothesis that those who were accountable to a corrupt authority figure would engage in more unethical decision-making than those not accountable. These findings, as well as suggestions for future research and current study limitations, are discussed / acase@tulane.edu
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TULANE/oai:http://digitallibrary.tulane.edu/:tulane_23298 |
| Date | January 2004 |
| Contributors | Smith-Crowe, Kristin (Author), Landis, Ronald S (Thesis advisor) |
| Publisher | Tulane University |
| Source Sets | Tulane University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Access requires a license to the Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest) database., Copyright is in accordance with U.S. Copyright law |
Page generated in 0.0103 seconds