Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a Multidimensional Scale for Ethical Decision Making

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

Abstract

This article reports on the development of the managerial ethical profile (MEP) scale. The MEP scale is a multilevel, self-reporting scale measuring the perceived influence that different dimensions of common ethical frameworks have on managerial decision making. The MEP scale measures on eight subscales: economic egoism, reputational egoism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, self-virtue of self, virtue of others, act deontology, and rule deontology. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to provide evidence of scale validity. Future research needs and the value of this measure for business ethics are discussed.

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

AGFI:

Adjusted goodness of fit index

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Confirmatory fit index

CR:

Composite reliability

DIT:

Defining issues test

EPQ:

Ethics position questionnaire

MEP:

Managerial ethical profile

MES:

Multidimensional ethics scale

MJT:

Managerial judgment test

MVP:

Managerial values profile

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

References

  • Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology, and the intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1161–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical ideology and the ethical judgments of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casali, G. L. (2007). A quest for ethical decision making: Searching for the Holy Grail and finding the sacred trinity. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(3), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Pant, L., & Sharp, D. (2005). A validation and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comunian, A. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2006). Promotion of moral judgement maturity through stimulation of social role-taking and social reflection: An Italian intervention study. Journal of Moral Education, 35(1), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A., Andersen, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A., Johnson, N. B., & Ohmer, D. G. (1998). Issue-contingent effects on ethical decision making: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 373–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development theory and application (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etter, S., Cramer, J. J., & Finn, S. (2007). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with information technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 133–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2008). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1981). Moral judgment: The influence of ethical ideology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 218–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Individual differences in information integration during moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R., Nye, J. L., & Kelley, K. (1988). Idealism, relativism and the ethic of caring. The Journal of Psychology, 122(3), 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Foundation of philosophy series. New Jersey: Prentice Hall).

  • French, E. L., & Casali, G. L. (2008). Ethics in emergency medical services–Who cares? An exploratory analysis from Australia. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies, 13(2), 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. (1997). Ethics and activism: The theory and practice of political morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. (2010). A multidimensional ethics scale for Indian managers’ moral decision making. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies, 15(1), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinman, L. (Ed.). (2003). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishida, C. (2006). How do scores of DIT and MJT differ? A critical assessment of the use of alternative moral development scales in studies of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (1991). Method and moral theory. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics (pp. 476–489). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I. (2009). Ethical judgments and behaviours: Applying a multidimensional ethics scale to measuring ICT ethics of college students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 940–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Golsin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). New York: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1979). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worchester, MA: Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlberg’s model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G. (1978). How does one measure moral judgment? Problems and alternative ways of measuring a complex construct. In G. Portele (Ed.), Sozialisation and moral (pp. 171–201). Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G. (1995). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment revisited. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moutatidou, K., Goutza, S., & Chatzopoulos, D. (2007). Physical education and moral development: An intervention programme to promote moral reasoning through physical education in high school students. European Physical Education Review, 13(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradice, D. B., & Dejoie, R. M. (1991). The ethical decision-making processes of information systems workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postov, B. C. (2007). Towards honest ethical pluralism. Philosophical Studies, 132(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rallapalli, K. C., Vitell, S. J., & Barnes, J. H. (1998). The influence of norms on ethical judgments and intensions: An empirical study of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 43(3), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 871–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, V., & Smith, A. (2001). Ethics, moral development, and accountants-in-training. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sashkin, M., Rosenbach, W. E., & Sashkin, M. G. (1997). Development of the power need and its expression in leadership and management with a focus on leader–follower relations. In L. S. Estabrook (Ed.), Leadership as legacy: Proceedings of the twelfth scientific meeting of the A. K. Rice Institute. Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnietz, K. E., & Epstein, M. J. (2005). Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shawver, T. J., & Sennetti, J. T. (2009). Measuring ethical sensitivity and evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 663–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, R. M. (1998). The place of care in ethical theory. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 23(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Ho, N. H. (1997). Ethical decision making in marketing: A synthesis and evaluation of scales measuring the various components of decision making in ethical situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(7), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb, L. L., Erdener, C. B., & Li, C. (1998). Business ethical values in China and the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(8), 839–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, B., Davis, D. C., & Hodis, F. A. (2007). The relationship between ethical decision making and ethical reasoning in information technology students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgheib, P. W. (2005). Managerial ethics: An empirical study of business students in the American University of Beirut. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George St., Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia

    Gian Luca Casali

Authors
  1. Gian Luca Casali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gian Luca Casali.

Appendix 1: MEP Questionnaire

Appendix 1: MEP Questionnaire

When fulfilling the requirements of your position in your organisation, please indicate the importance of the followings in your decision-making process.

 

1

Providing the highest economic return (profit) for the organisation

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

2

Minimising costs for the organisation

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

3

Protecting the reputation of the organisation

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

4

Optimising resources of the district/hospital/unit/dept

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

5

Attaining organisational yearly budgets (short term)

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

6

Being in line with the organisational mission

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

7

Generating the greatest overall benefits for the district/hospital

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

8

Not harming the clients/patients

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

9

Respecting organisational’ rules and regulations that have been created for the greatest benefit for all stakeholders

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

10

Obeying the law (state and federal)

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

11

Creating the greatest overall benefit for the local community

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

12

Creating the greatest overall benefit for the wider community

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

13

Being most in line with your core personal values

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

14

Being most in line with the person you want to be

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

15

Respecting dignity of those affected by the decision

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

16

Being able to empathise with clients

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

17

Acting openly when making decision

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

18

Making “care for the sick” paramount in determining decision alternatives

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

19

Giving the opportunity to all affected parties or their representatives to have input into the decision-making process

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

20

Treating others as you want others to treat you

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

21

Treat people as ends not as means

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

22

Ensuring that confidentiality is maintained at all times

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

23

Maintaining a fair process at all times

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

24

Ensuring that the organisation “duty of care” is maintained at all times

Extremely important

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important at all

Part C

Please rate the following factors in terms of their influence on your decision-making process.

Individual Factors

 

1

Receiving rewards or minimising punishment to yourself (Kohlberg pre conventional)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

2

Fulfilling expectation of your colleagues and boss (Kohlberg conventional)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

3

Following your personal moral values regardless of other people’s opinions (Kohlberg post conventional)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

4

Making a decision independently, and using the information available to you at the time (Vroom DM AI)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

5

Making the decision independently but getting more information from collaborators (Vroom DM AII)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

6

Making a decision independently but asking for tokenistic consultation from subordinates (Vroom DM CI)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

7

Making a decision independently and only informing subordinates (Vroom DM CII)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

8

Making a decision collaboratively through facilitation and engagement of subordinates (Vroom DM GI)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

9

Relying heavily on your personal values in making decisions (Personal values)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

10

Being guided by your professional experience (professional experience)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

11

Being guided by experts in their fields (professional experience)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

Organisational Factors

 

12

Being in line with the hospital/district code of ethics/conduct (code of ethics)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

13

Following ethical principles learnt during training provided by the organisation or from formal studies (ethical training)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

14

Following ethical principles that you have learnt during your formal studies (ethical training)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

15

Following ethical principles that you have learnt in a previous organisation (ethical training)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

16

Being in line with the organisational culture (organisational culture)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

17

Reaching a decision based by using evidence-based process (decision-making process)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

18

Reaching a decision by bargaining with superiors and subordinates (DMP)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

19

Reaching a decision by inspiring others (DMP)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

20

Reaching a decision by using personal judgment (DMP)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

21

Being in line with the mission statement of the company (mission statement)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

22

Respecting your professional code of conduct (professional code of conduct)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

External Factors

 

23

Political agendas compared to medical needs (Political)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

24

Fulfilling macro economic factors (Government budgets) (Economic)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

25

Covering existing health gaps in the community needs (social)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

26

Encouraging the technological advancement in terms of hardware and software where given high preference (technological)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

27

Promoting environment protection such as reduction of chemical waste and energy savings (environmental)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

28

Identify particular gaps between the community health needs, and the current level of satisfaction of those needs by competitors (competition)

Extremely influential

Very influential

Influential

Not too influential

Not influential at all

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Casali, G.L. Developing a Multidimensional Scale for Ethical Decision Making. J Bus Ethics 104, 485–497 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0923-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0923-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation