LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Fortin, Marion; Nadisic, Thierry; Bell, Chris M.; Crawshaw, Jonathan R.; Cropanzano, Russell
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
This article reflects on context effects in the study of behavioral ethics and organizational justice. After a general overview, we review three key challenges confronting research in these two domains. First, we consider social scientific versus normative approaches to inquiry. The former aims for a scientific description, while the latter aims to provide prescriptive advice for moral conduct. We argue that the social scientific view can be enriched by considering normative paradigms. The next challenge we consider, involves the duality of morally upright versus morally inappropriate behavior. We observe that there is a long tradition of categorizing behavior dichotomously (e.g., good vs. bad) rather than continuously. We conclude by observing that more research is needed to compare the dichotomous versus continuous perspectives. Third, we examine the role of “cold” cognitions and “hot” affect in making judgments of ethicality. Historically speaking, research has empathized cognition, though recent work has begun to add greater balance to affective reactions. We argue that both cognition and affect are important, but more research is needed to determine how they work together. After considering these three challenges, we then turn to our special issue, providing short reviews of each contribution and how they help in better addressing the three challenges we have identified.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ambrose, M.L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803-812.
    • Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 678-689.
    • Bandura A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27-46.
    • Bandura A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetuation of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.
    • Bandura A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119.
    • Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The moderating effect of individual's perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 351-362.
    • Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A Quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286- 295.
    • Birnbaum, M. H. (1972). Test of an averaging model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 35-42.
    • Birnbaum, M. H. (1972). Test of an averaging model with differential weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 395-399.
    • Birnbaum, M. H., & Riskey, D. R. (1974). Compensatory effect in moral judgments: Two rights don't make up for a wrong. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 171-173.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article