In a sample of 105 students, the dimensionality of a moral intensity scale developed by Singhapakdi, Vitell, and Kraft in 1996 was assessed. Principal components analysis yielded a one-factor solution across 10 ethics scenarios, indicating that moral intensity may be treated as a unidimensional construct in some situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettT.BrownG.BassK. (1994) The ethical judgments of college students regarding business issues. Journal of Education for Business, July/August, 333–337.
2.
DavisM. A.JohnsonN. B.OhmerD. G. (1998) Issue contingent effects on ethical decision making: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 373–389.
3.
JonesT. M. (1991) Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue contingency model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
4.
MorrisS. A.McDonaldR. A. (1995) The role of moral intensity in moral judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715–726.
5.
ReidenbachR. E.RobinD. P. (1988) Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 871–879.
6.
ReidenbachR. E.RobinD. P. (1990) Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639–653.
7.
SingerM. S. (1996) The role of moral intensity and fairness perceptions in judgments of ethicality: a comparison of managerial professionals and the general public. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 469–474.
8.
SinghapakdiA.VitellS. J.FrankeG. R. (1999) Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 19–36.
9.
SinghapakdiA.VitellS. J.KraftK. L. (1996) Moral intensity and ethical decision making of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36, 245–255.
10.
WeberJ. (1992) Scenarios in business ethics research: review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 137–160.
