Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1991, Jones developed an issue-contingent model of ethical decision making in which moral intensity is posited to affect the four stages of Rest’s 1986 model (awareness, judgment, intention, and behavior). Jones claimed that moral intensity, which is “the extent of issue-related moral imperative in a situation” (p. 372), consists of six characteristics: magnitude of consequences (MC), social consensus (SC), probability of effect (PE), temporal immediacy (TI), proximity (PX), and concentration of effect (CE). This article reports the findings of two studies that analyzed the factor structure of moral intensity, operationalized by a 12-item Perceived Moral Intensity Scale (PMIS) adapted from the work of Singhapakdi et al. [1996, Journal of Business Research, 36, 245–255] and Frey [2000, Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 181–195]. The two items that were purported to measure CE were dropped due to their inability to effectively tap into the characteristic proposed by Jones. Factor analyses of the remaining 10 items supported a 3-factor structure, with the MC, PE, and TI items loading on the first factor, the PX items loading on the second factor, and the SC items loading on the third factor. These factors were labeled: Probable Magnitude of Consequences, Proximity, and Social Consensus. The authors conclude that moral intensity consists of three characteristics, rather than the six posited by Jones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CE:

Concentration of Effect

CFA:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

EFA:

Exploratory Factor Analysis

F:

Factor

MC:

Magnitude of Consequences

MI:

Moral Intensity

MIS:

Moral Intensity Scale

PE:

Probability of Effect

PMIS:

Perceived Moral Intensity Scale

PX:

Proximity

R 2 :

Communality

SC:

Social Consensus

TI:

Temporal Immediacy

References

  • C. S. Alexander H. J. Becker (1978) ArticleTitle‘The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research’ Public Opinion Quarterly 42 93–104 Occurrence Handle10.1086/268432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. J. Brass K. K. Butterfield B. C. Skaggs (1998) ArticleTitle‘Relationships and Unethical Behavior: A Social Network Perspective’ Academy of Management Review 23 14–31

    Google Scholar 

  • K. D. Butterfield L. K. Trevino G. R. Weaver (2000) ArticleTitle‘Moral Awareness in Business Organizations: Influences of Issue-Related and Social Context Factors’ Human Relations 53 981–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • P. A. Dabholkar J. J. Kellaris (1992) ArticleTitle‘Toward Understanding Marketing Students’ Ethical Judgment of Controversial Personal Selling Practices’ Journal of Business Research 24 313–329 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0148-2963(92)90037-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. M. Dawson (1995) ArticleTitle‘Women and Men, Morality and Ethics’ Business Horizons 38 61–68 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0007-6813(95)90010-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. J. Dubinsky B. Loken (1989) ArticleTitle‘Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’ Journal of Business Research 19 83–107 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0148-2963(89)90001-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O. C. Ferrell L. G. Gresham (1985) ArticleTitle‘A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’ Journal of Marketing 49 87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • O. C. Ferrell L. G. Gresham J. Fraedrich (1989) ArticleTitle‘A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing’ Journal of Macromarketing 11 55–64

    Google Scholar 

  • B. F. Frey (2000) ArticleTitle‘The Impact of Moral Intensity on Decision Making in a Business Context’ Journal of Business Ethics 26 181–195 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1006139124110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. J. Fritzsche (1995) ArticleTitle‘Personal Values: Potential Keys to Ethical Decision Making’ Journal of Business Ethics 14 909–922 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00882069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. J. Fritzsche H. Becker (1984) ArticleTitle‘Linking Management Behavior to Ethical Philosophy – An Empirical Investigation’ Academy of Management Journal 27 166–175

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Harris (1990) ArticleTitle‘Ethical Values of Individuals at Different Levels in the Organizational Hierarchy of a Single Firm’ Journal of Business Ethics 9 741–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, R. J.: 1982, A New Approach to Job Classification Using Two-Mode Factor Analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1982), Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 5-B, 1649.

  • L. Hatcher (1994) A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling SAS Institute Inc Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • J. J. Hoffman (1998) ArticleTitle‘Are Women Really More Ethical Than Men? Maybe It Depends On the Situation’ Journal of Managerial Issues 10 60–73

    Google Scholar 

  • S. D. Hunt S. Vitell (1986) ArticleTitle‘A general theory of marketing ethics’ Journal of Macromarketing 6 5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • T. M. Jones (1991) ArticleTitle‘Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model’ Academy of Management Review 16 366–395

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Kahneman P. Slovic A. Tversky (Eds) (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • P. C. Kelly D. R. Elm (2003) ArticleTitle‘The Effect of Context on Moral Intensity of Ethical Issues: Revising Jones’s Issue-Contingent Model’ Journal of Business Ethics 48 139–154

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Levin (1965) ArticleTitle‘Three-mode Factor Analysis’ Psychological Bulletin 64 442–452

    Google Scholar 

  • D. R. May K. P. Pauli (2002) ArticleTitle‘The Role of Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision Making’ Business & Society 41 84–117 Occurrence Handle10.1177/0007650302041001006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. L. McCabe J. M. Dukerich J. E. Dutton (1991) ArticleTitle‘Context, Values and Moral Dilemmas: Comparing the Choices of Business and Law School Students’ Journal of Business Ethics 10 951–960 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00383799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Nunnally (1978) Psychometric Theory McGraw-Hill New York

    Google Scholar 

  • R. E. Reidenbach D. P. Robin L. Dawson (1991) ArticleTitle‘An Application and Extension of a Multidimensional Ethics Scale to Selected Marketing Practices and Marketing Groups’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 IssueID2 83–92

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Rest (1986) Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory Praeger New York

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc.: 1999, SAS/STAT user’s guide: The factor procedure. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.id.unizh.ch/software/unix/statmath/sas/sasdoc/stat/chap26/ sect23.htm.

  • A. Singhapakdi S. J. Vitell K. L. Kraft (1996) ArticleTitle‘Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-making of Marketing Professionals’ Journal of Business Research 36 245–255 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0148-2963(95)00155-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. E. Stead D. L. Worrell J. G. Stead (1990) ArticleTitle‘An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations’ Journal of Business Ethics 9 233–242 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00382649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. D. Street S. C. Douglas S. W. Geiger M. J. Martinko (2001) ArticleTitle‘The Impact of Cognitive Expenditure on the Ethical Decision-making Process: The Cognitive Elaboration Model’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 256–277 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.2001.2957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. K. Trevino (1986) ArticleTitle‘Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person–Situation Interactionist Model’ Academy of Management Review 11 601–617

    Google Scholar 

  • L. R. Tucker (1966) ArticleTitle‘Some Mathematical Notes on Three-mode Factor Analysis’ Psychometrika 31 279–311

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Valentine L. Silver (2001) ArticleTitle‘Assessing the Dimensionality of the Singhapakdi, Vitell, and Kraft Measure of Moral Intensity’ Psychological Reports 88 291–294 Occurrence Handle10.2466/PR0.88.1.291-294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. M. Zych (1999) ArticleTitle‘Integrating Ethical Issues with Managerial Decision Making in the Classroom: Product Support Program Decisions’ Journal of Business Ethics 18 255–266 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1005871423821

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Christopher Newport University, 1 University Place, Newport News, VA, 23606-2998, U.S.A.

    Joan M. McMahon

  2. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 121 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, U.S.A.

    Robert J. Harvey

Authors
  1. Joan M. McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan M. McMahon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McMahon, J.M., Harvey, R.J. An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct. J Bus Ethics 64, 381–404 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0006-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0006-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation