Skip to main content
Log in

Mental Models and Ethical Decision Making: The Mediating Role of Sensemaking

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

Abstract

The relationship between mental models and ethical decision making (EDM), along with the mechanisms through which mental models affect EDM, are not well understood. Using the sensemaking approach to EDM, we empirically tested the relationship of mental models (or knowledge representations about an ethical situation) to EDM. Participants were asked to depict their mental models in response to an ethics case to reveal their understanding of the ethical dilemma, and then provide a response, along with a rationale, to a different ethical problem. Findings indicated that complexity of respondents’ mental models was related to EDM, and that this relationship was mediated by sensemaking processes (i.e., cause and constraint criticality, and forecast quality). The implications of these findings for improving integrity training in organizations, as well as ultimately understanding the role of mental models in EDM, are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2007). Personality and ethical decision-making in research: The role of perceptions of self and others. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L. N., Johnson, J. F., MacDougall, A. E., Devenport, L. D., Connelly, S.,… & Thiel, C. E. (2012). An investigation of case-based instructional strategies on learning, retention, and ethical decision-making. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(4), 79–86.

  • Bagdasarov, Z., Thiel, C. E., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. N., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1305–1322. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9414-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J. D., Peterson, D. R., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Thinking about applications: Effects on mental models and creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 199–212. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4), 449–472. doi:10.1007/z11948-008-9076-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Social Forces, 70(3), 601–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caughron, J. J., Antes, A. L., Stenmark, C. K., Thiel, C. E., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Sensemaking strategies for ethical decision making. Ethics and Behavior, 21(5), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chermack, T. J. (2003). Mental models in decision making and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(4), 408–422. doi:10.1177/1523422303257373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1518-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devenport, L. D. (2005). Big Pharma. Norman: University of Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerner, D., & Schaub, H. (1994). Errors in planning and decision making and the nature of human information processing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43, 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Resource Center (2013). National business ethics survey (NBES) of the U.S. workforce. Arlington, VA: Ethics Resource Center.

  • Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445–459. doi:10.1037/a0026406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity. Psychological Science, 25, 973–981. doi:10.1177/0956797614520714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Naive causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkrider, L. N., MacDougall, A. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., Thiel, C. E., Mumford, M. D., et al. (2013). Structuring case-based ethics trainings: How comparing cases and structured prompts influence training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 23(3), 179–198. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.774865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkrider, L. N., Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Mumford, M. D., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2012). Improving case-based ethics training with codes of conduct and forecasting content. Ethics and Behavior, 22(4), 258–280. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.661311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Barrett, J. D., Peterson, D. R., Hougen, D. P., Day, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Causal analysis to enhance creative problem-solving: Performance and effects on mental models. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2), 115–133. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.677249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Makridakis, S. (1981). Forecasting and planning: An evaluation. Management Science, 27, 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. F., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L. N., MacDougall, A. E., Connelly, S., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). The effects of note-taking and review on sensemaking and ethical decision-making. Ethics and Behavior, 23(4), 299–323. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.774275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. F., Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., et al. (2012). Case-based ethics education: The impact of cause complexity and outcome favorability on ethicality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(3), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., Mumford, M. D., & Hougen, D. F. (2008). Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 251–278. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9048-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). Sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18, 315–339. doi:10.1080/10508420802487815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, M. S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision-making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 319–345. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Feldman, J. M., Hein, M. B., & Nago, D. J. (2001a). Tradeoffs between ideas and structure: Individual versus group performance in creative-problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Peterson, D. R., Day, E. A., Hougen, D. F., & Barrett, J. D. (2012). Mental models and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 311–330. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.730008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R., & Van Doorn, J. A. (2001b). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Creativity and ethics: The relationship of creative and ethical problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 74–89. doi:10.1080/10400410903579619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. & Gabora, L. (2012). Evidence that threatening situations enhance creativity. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2234–2239). Held August 1–4, Sapporo Japan. Houston, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1022–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Thiel, C. E., Caughron, J. J., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Consequences identification in forecasting and ethical decision-making. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 25–32. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Caughron, J. J., Thiel, C. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Strategies in forecasting outcomes in ethical decision-making: Identifying and analyzing the causes of the problem. Ethics and Behavior, 20(2), 110–127. doi:10.1080/10508421003595935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 49–64. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 265–286. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9318-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waples, E. P., & Antes, A. L. (2011). Sensemaking: A fresh framework for ethics education in management. In C. Wankel & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch (Eds.), Management education for integrity: Ethically educating tomorrow’s business leaders (pp. 15–47). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, L. (2006). Mental models: A theoretical overview and preliminary study. Journal of Information Science, 32(6), 563–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(3), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhanna Bagdasarov.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Big Pharma

Jason is in his second year, and Robin is just finishing her first year of postdoctoral training in a cell biology lab where they share a good working relationship. They have generous fellowships thanks mostly to their mentor’s enterprising associations with the pharmaceutical industry.

Davis, the mentor, performs drug toxicity screening, and the work requires review and approval by industry scientists before it can be submitted for publication. His university objects to this, and has offered to negotiate with the drug companies for better publication terms, but Davis has so far refused on the grounds that he has no problem with the policy and does not want to compromise his reputation with the industry and the funding it provides for his team of first rate graduate students and post-docs.

The two post-docs are using different animal models to test the efficacy of a gene product. It is hoped that this gene product will interfere with cancer cell-signaling and slow or arrest meta-static activity. Jason’s results are extremely encouraging, but Robin’s are not. She confides to her friend that she is disappointed with her failing project and a year’s loss in productivity. She is also frustrated because Davis has hinted that she must be doing something wrong. After all, Robin is working with the same protein as Jason, and it is reasonable to expect that her results would at least show a similar trend.

Jason replies candidly about what he learned in his first year—that the industry’s emphasis is on getting results. He points out that if the Davis group does not produce, the project will be turned over to another team that will, and the fellowships will follow the money.

What Jason said made sense, but Robin was uncomfortable with the implication she thought was being conveyed. She made a noncommittal remark and changed the subject; however, the new information preyed on her mind. Was she being naively idealistic about science?

Robin continues to feel uncomfortable with the climate of the lab and her interactions with Jason. She contemplates discussing the issue with Davis but fears he will react just like Jason. Ultimately, she decides that the best course of action is to not change her results and to leave the laboratory altogether. When she discusses her resignation with Davis, he is surprised and asks for an explanation. She circumvents the real issue, simply telling him that she does not feel like she fits in very well and would like to take her career in a different direction. Robin, admittedly, is conflicted over her decision to withhold information from Davis but thinks that she might create a bigger issue if she shares the entire truth.

Six months later, Robin finds herself in an entry-level position at a small bio-medical company. She is satisfied with her current work and is relieved that she no longer faces the pressures of her previous lab. She is even more relieved that she left her post-doc position when she receives word from a former lab mate that Davis’s laboratory has lost its funding after being investigated by the Office of Research Integrity on data fabrication charges.

Source Devenport (2005).

Appendix 2

Friendswood City Council

You are an expert building contractor. You have a master’s degree in civil engineering, and after 20 years of working as a licensed contractor, you decided to retire. You and your spouse live in Friendswood, a small community in which you are very active. You often volunteer your services and expertise to local organizations that need your help. For instance, when city structures are being built, you often volunteer your expertise as a contractor free of charge, so that the city can save money. Whenever such opportunities arise, you are pleased to help because no one will place restrictions on you or your “vision.” Most of the time, you enjoy full autonomy to proceed with the projects as you see fit.

You are on the board of the Friendswood city council. There are twelve people that make up the council, including you. Members of the city council are elected by the residents of the city. You feel like the city council elections have become somewhat of a popularity contest, and it seems like the members of the council are the wealthiest members of the community, not necessarily the people who would benefit the community most. You feel like some of the members of the city council have no interest in giving back to the community; they just want to feel important by being a part of this organization.

Recently, two of the members of the council have begun to feud. Bill Knight and John Cosby got into an argument over which of them owns a lake that borders both of their property. The council members have begun to take sides, and the council is dividing into two factions. It is getting to the point where city council meetings are not productive. The meetings always turn into a political forum for Bill and John to voice why each is right in their arguments.

Furthermore, the in-fighting has caused the members not to communicate well. There are subcommittees in the council for various projects, including community fundraising, maintenance of Main Street, and community social events. The subcommittees have turned into cliques that are not communicating their progress to each other, and communication is essential for productive functioning of the city council. You think the whole argument is silly, and you refuse to take sides. You are still able to talk to most of the council members and the community still thinks highly of you. You are worried you will not be able to prevent these conflicts and are doing what you can to prevent public opinion from turning against you too.

Recently, the city council began looking to fund a renovation project of your local community center. Because you are an expert in construction, you designed the application for constructing companies to bid on this project. Furthermore, because you did not want to work closely with your colleagues on projects, given the in-fighting, you decided to design the application by yourself. You were given full autonomy in designing the application and you applied your expertise to do what would be best for the community.

You are now a part of the committee reviewing and approving the proposals. The city has expressed a desire for the renovations to begin as soon as possible, and you feel like the committee is rushing the process a little. You are concerned that you will miss something important in the review that will result in critical errors that may result in the city hiring a contractor that is less than satisfactory. Nine proposals have passed a first screen by meeting the criteria outlined in the application you designed. You and several others conducted more extensive reviews of the nine proposals. The team of reviewers has identified the winning proposal, which has many outstanding features. As you scan it one more time, however, you notice that it does not meet one of the ten criteria used in the initial screening process; this proposal should never have even made it past the first round of evaluations. No one else has caught this. Now you wonder what you should do.

Case Questions

What is the ethical dilemma in this situation?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

List and describe the causes of the problem.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What are the key factors and challenges of this ethical dilemma?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What should you consider in solving this problem?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What are some possible outcomes of this ethical dilemma?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What is your final decision?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What was your rationale for making this decision?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J.F., MacDougall, A.E. et al. Mental Models and Ethical Decision Making: The Mediating Role of Sensemaking. J Bus Ethics 138, 133–144 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2620-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2620-6

Keywords

Navigation