Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 241–256 | Cite as

Reexamining the “Discussion” in the Moral Dilemma Discussion

  • Rommel O. SalvadorEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Cumulative evidence points to the effectiveness of moral dilemma discussion as a pedagogical strategy. However, much of the extant empirical research has been limited to investigating its effect on moral judgment. In addition, the potentially distinct effects of the two major components of the intervention, the intrapersonal contemplation and the interpersonal discussion that follows, have been barely examined. Using the Trolley Problem, this quasi-experimental study (N = 115) examined the effectiveness of moral dilemma discussion and of intrapersonal moral dilemma contemplation in promoting prosocial intentions among individuals in the context of a product-harm situation. The results confirm that moral dilemma discussion positively influences some forms of prosocial intentions. The results also suggest that moral dilemma discussion is not necessarily more effective than intrapersonal moral dilemma contemplation in promoting prosocial intentions.

Keywords

Moral dilemma discussion Prosocial intentions Business ethics education 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D. F. (2014). When moral awareness isn’t enough: Teaching our students to recognize social influence. Journal of Management Education, 38, 511–532.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about Trolley Problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 536–554.Google Scholar
  5. Bebeau, M. J., Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher, 28, 18–26.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, P. E., & Liu, L. (2015). Social justice reasoning of education undergraduates: Effect of instruction in Moral Development Theory and Dilemma Discussion in the asynchronous online classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 11, 60–75.Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, M. W. (2011). What works in values education. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 153–158.Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A report for policy makers and opinion leaders. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.Google Scholar
  9. Binfet, T. (2004). It’s all in their heads: Reflective abstraction as an alternative to the moral discussion group. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 181–201.Google Scholar
  10. Black, H., & Phillips, S. (1982). An intervention program for the development of empathy in student teachers. Journal of Psychology, 112, 159–168.Google Scholar
  11. Blatt, M. M., & Kohlberg, L. (1975). The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children’s level of moral judgment. Journal of Moral Education, 4, 129–161.Google Scholar
  12. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725.Google Scholar
  13. Cain, J., & Smith, D. (2009). Increasing moral reasoning skills through online discussions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10, 149–163.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, J. F., & Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1249–1264.Google Scholar
  15. Chugh, D., Bazerman, M., & Banaji, M. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. Moore, D. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflict of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cikara, M., Farnsworth, R. A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). On the wrong side of the trolley track: Neural correlates of relative social valuation. Scan, 5, 404–413.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, D., Weber, J., & Zambrano, R. (2014). Teaching business ethics online: Perspectives on course design, delivery, student engagement, and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 513–529.Google Scholar
  18. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177–191.Google Scholar
  19. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.Google Scholar
  20. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.Google Scholar
  21. Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D., Cladianos, A., & Richmond, A. (2010). Moral reasoning of education students: The effects of direct instruction in moral development theory and participation in moral dilemma discussion. Teachers College Record, 112, 621–644.Google Scholar
  22. Dahm, M. J. (2015). Dilemma-based approach to teaching ethics: Life lessons for family and consumer sciences college seniors. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 32(1), 29–41.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, E. R. (2016). I’m sorry I’m scared of litigation: Evaluating the effectiveness of apology laws. The Forum: A Tennessee Student Legal Journal, 3(1), Article 4.Google Scholar
  24. De Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., & Vargas Rossi, C. A. (2007). Service recovery paradox: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 10, 60–77.Google Scholar
  25. Dunlop, P. D., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Butcher, S. B., & Dykstra, A. (2015). Please accept my sincere and humble apologies: The HEXACO model of personality and the proclivity to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 140–145.Google Scholar
  26. Farrant, B. M., Devine, T. A., Maybery, M. T., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Empathy, perspective taking, and prosocial behaviour: The importance of parenting practices. Infant and Child Development, 21, 175–188.Google Scholar
  27. Ferguson, D. P., Wallace, J. D., & Chandler, R. C. (2012). Rehabilitating your organization’s image: Public relations professionals’ perceptions of the effectiveness and ethicality of image repair strategies in crisis situations. Public Relations Journal, 6, 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Fitzpatrick, K. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs. legal strategies in organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations Review, 21, 21–33.Google Scholar
  29. Folger, R., & Salvador, R. (2008). Is management theory too ‘self-ish?’. Journal of Management, 34, 1127–1151.Google Scholar
  30. Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.Google Scholar
  31. Galbraith, R. E., & Jones, T. M. (1976). Moral reasoning: A teaching handbook for adapting Kohlberg to the classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Greenhaven Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36, 663–685.Google Scholar
  33. Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Hewko, S. J., Cooper, S. L., & Cummings, G. G. (2015). Strengthening moral reasoning through dedicated ethics training in dietetic preparatory programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47, 156–161.Google Scholar
  35. Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 103–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hoger, E. A., & Swem, L. L. (2000). Public relations and the law in crisis mode: Texaco’s initial reaction to incriminating tapes. Public Relations Review, 26, 425–445.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237–256.Google Scholar
  39. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (2008). Moral judgment and moral neuroscience: Intersections, definitions, and issues. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 1–6.Google Scholar
  40. Koehn, D. (2013). Why saying “I’m sorry” isn’t good enough: The ethics of corporate apologies. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 239–268.Google Scholar
  41. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16, 53–59.Google Scholar
  42. Kurdek, L. A. (1978). Relationship between cognitive perspective taking and teachers’ ratings of children’s behavior in grades one through four. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 21–27.Google Scholar
  43. Latif, D. A. (2000). The relationship between ethical dilemma discussion and moral development. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64, 126–133.Google Scholar
  44. Lind, G. (2006). Effective moral education: The Konstanz method of dilemma discussion. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 3, 189–196.Google Scholar
  45. Lumpkin, A. L., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49, 121–133.Google Scholar
  46. MacKay, E., & O’Neill, P. (1992). What creates the dilemma in ethical dilemmas? Examples from psychological practice. Ethics and Behavior, 2, 227–244.Google Scholar
  47. Manika, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Bourlakis, M. (2017). Understanding the effects of a social media service failure apology: A comparative study of customers vs. potential customers. International Journal of Information Management, 37, 214–228.Google Scholar
  48. Manika, D., Wells, V. K., Gregory-Smith, D., & Gentry, M. (2015). The impact of individual attitudinal and organizational variables on workplace environmentally friendly behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 663–684.Google Scholar
  49. Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. (1991). Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 281–305.Google Scholar
  50. May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The influence of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 67–80.Google Scholar
  51. Molewijk, B., Verkerk, M., Milius, H., & Widdershoven, G. (2008). Implementing moral case deliberation in a psychiatric hospital: Process and outcome. Medical Health Care and Philosophy, 11, 43–56.Google Scholar
  52. Niles, W. J. (1986). Effects of a moral development discussion group on delinquent and predelinquent boys. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 45–51.Google Scholar
  53. Nylom, S., & Smids, J. (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied Trolley Problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19, 1275–1289.Google Scholar
  54. O’Connor, J. (2012). The trolley method of moral philosophy. Essays in Philosophy, 13, 242–255.Google Scholar
  55. O’Flaherty, J., & McGarr, O. (2014). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers’ levels of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 312–330.Google Scholar
  56. Oliner, P. M. (1985). Legitimating and implementing prosocial education. Humbolt Journal of Social Relations, 13, 391–410.Google Scholar
  57. Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613–623.Google Scholar
  58. Patel, A., & Reinsch, L. (2003). Companies can apologize: Corporate apologies and legal liability. Business Communication Quarterly, 66, 9–25.Google Scholar
  59. Pijanowski, J. (2009). The role of learning theory in building effective college ethics curricula. Journal of College and Character, 10(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  60. Power, F. C., & Power, A. M. (2012). Moral education. In P. M. Brown, M. W. Corrigan, & A. Higgins-D’Allesandro (Eds.), Handbook of prosocial education (pp. 179–196). Lantham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  62. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thomas, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  63. Rest, J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 5–28.Google Scholar
  64. Richards, C. H., & Adler, G. S. (2014). The effects of unstructured group discussion on ethical judgment. Journal of Education for Business, 89, 98–102.Google Scholar
  65. Robbennold, J. K. (2003). Apologies and legal settlement: An empirical examination. Michigan Law Review, 102, 460–516.Google Scholar
  66. Roy, A. W., & Howe, C. J. (1990). Effects of cognitive conflict and imitation on children’s socio-legal thinking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 241–252.Google Scholar
  67. Salvador, R. O., Folger, R., & Priesemuth, M. (2012). Organizational apology and defense: Effects of guilt and managerial status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 24, 124–139.Google Scholar
  68. Schinkel, A., & de Ruyter, D. J. (2016). Individual moral development and moral progress. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. doi: 10.1007/s10677-016-9741-6.Google Scholar
  69. Schlaefli, A., Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1985). Does moral education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the Defining Issues Test. Review of Educational Research, 55, 319–352.Google Scholar
  70. Seriodio, A., Kopelman, B. I., & Bataglia, P. U. (2016). The promotion of medical students’ moral development: A comparison between a traditional course on bioethics and a course complemented with the Konstanz method of dilemma discussion. International Journal of Ethics Education, 1, 81–89.Google Scholar
  71. Siomkos, G. J. (1989). Managing product-harm crises. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 3, 41–60.Google Scholar
  72. Siomkos, G., & Shrivastava, P. (1993). Responding to product liability crises. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 72–79.Google Scholar
  73. Skoe, E. E., Eisenberg, N., & Cumberland, A. (2002). The role of reported emotion in real-life and hypothetical moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 962–973.Google Scholar
  74. Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Volume 1 social and personal influences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  75. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 545–607.Google Scholar
  76. Thompson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.Google Scholar
  77. Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1977). Effects of controversy on cognitive perspective taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 679–685.Google Scholar
  78. Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Fabrey, L. J. (1980). Effects of controversy and defensiveness on cognitive perspective-taking. Psychological Reports, 47, 1043–1053.Google Scholar
  79. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.Google Scholar
  80. Tsang, E. W., & Kwan, K. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 759–780.Google Scholar
  81. Tyler, L. (1997). Liability means never being able to say you’re sorry: Corporate guilt, legal constraints, and defensiveness in corporate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 51–73.Google Scholar
  82. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173.Google Scholar
  83. Van Heerde, H., Helsen, K., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2007). The impact of a product harm crisis on marketing effectiveness. Marketing Science, 26, 230–245.Google Scholar
  84. Velleman, J. D. (2012). Comments on John Martin Fischer’s Our Stories. Philosophical Studies, 158, 515–521.Google Scholar
  85. Walker, L. J. (1983). Sources of cognitive conflict for stage transition in moral development. Developmental Psychology, 19, 103–110.Google Scholar
  86. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. P., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are overall measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.Google Scholar
  87. Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.Google Scholar
  88. Weber, J. (2015). Investigating and assessing the quality of employee ethics training programs among US-based global organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 27–42.Google Scholar
  89. Willhelm, W. J. (2008). Integrating instruction in ethical reasoning into undergraduate business courses. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 5, 5–34.Google Scholar
  90. Ye, L., & Ki, E. J. (2017). Organizational crisis communication on Facebook: A study of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Corporate Communications: An International Journal., 22, 80–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations