Articles
Ethical Decision Making:
A Process Influenced by Moral Intensity
Sarah Hope Lincoln, PhD (cand)
Psychology Intern
VADM Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership
United States Naval Academy,
112 Cooper Road
Annapolis, Maryland, 21402
Tel: (410) 293-6088
Fax: (410) 293-6081
Email: ekholmes@usna.edu
Elizabeth K. Holmes, PhD
Director of Assessment
VADM Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership
United States Naval Academy,
112 Cooper Road
Annapolis, Maryland, 21402
Tel: (410) 293-6088
Fax: (410) 293-6081

Author Note
The authors acknowledge the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence forsharing their Defence Ethics Survey. We thank Dr. Albert C. Pierce, Dr. Linda Mallory, andMr. Stephen Newberry, without whom this research would not have been conducted. The
authors are solely responsible for the contents of this article. The contents do not necessarilyreflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the
U.S. Government. All correspondence should be directed to Dr. Elizabeth Holmes.

Abstract
Understanding the process in which individuals engage in ethical decision making andthe factors influencing this process may be important for developing more effective ethics
education and leader development programs. This study investigated three componentsof ethical decision making: moral awareness, moral judgment, and moral intention, andtheir relationship with five components of moral intensity: Social Consensus, Magnitude ofConsequences, Temporal Immediacy, Proximity and Probability of Effect. The results suggestthat as individuals face morally charged situations, their awareness of the moral dilemma,
judgments about potential consequences, and intention to act are significantly affected bycharacteristics of the moral situation.
Keywords: Ethical decision making; moral intensity; moral reasoning; moral development;
leader development programs
Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201155

Articles
Introduction
Societies and institutions become more interested in analyzing what makes
an ethical, effective leader as they suffer the effects of poor leadership and the resulting
polarization and cynicism. How does one develop ethical, effective leaders? In the UnitedStates, the long tradition of professional military education and officer development canserve as an exemplar.
The military’s emphasis on continuous development and focus on ethical decision
making may offer an approach that can be adapted to other professions, including healthcare. Health care providers and researchers have to make ethical decisions all the time.
This paper, about the results of a study conducted in a professional militaryeducation environment with students, aims to foster an intellectual and cultural exchange
about how people in any setting make ethical decisions. Once the steps involved in theprocess of making ethical decisions are recognized and understood—along with the pressuresand biases that can influence decision making—then institutions of higher education can
explore how to best develop ethical, effective leaders.
In their constant discovery of the world and themselves, students often face morally
charged situations. Moral education attempts to prepare individuals to recognize and respondeffectively to moral dilemmas. Examining different philosophical approaches to ethics,
evaluating the decisions and consequences of historical moral problems, and discussing
hypothetical case studies are some of the ways individuals can acquire skills for making
ethical decisions. However, these approaches fail to explain the decision-making process andthe factors influencing it, and as a result may be limited in their ability to provide students
with the tools they need to think through ethical dilemmas.
Current literature on moral development has sought to provide a comprehensive
understanding of what determines moral behavior; specifically, research in this area has
focused on understanding the process of ethical decision making and factors that influence
this process. Knowing how individuals engage in ethical decision making and learning about
the factors that influence these decisions may be important in moral education and character
development programs. Understanding the process of ethical decision making will allow
an individual to be aware of and deliberate about the steps he or she takes when forminga decision and choosing to act. In addition, if external factors influence an individual’s
decision-making ability, those individuals who can acknowledge these potential influences
and take them into consideration will be better prepared to make moral decisions.

Ethical Decision Making: The Four Component ModelJames Rest’s (1994) theoretical model to explain the process of ethical decision
making developed out of a desire to piece together theories and research on moral
development and behavior from a variety of perspectives. Not only were researchers looking
at moral development from a cognitive-development perspective, arguably the most predominant approach in moral development, but from social, behavioral, and psychoanalytic
approaches as well (Rest). According to Rest, a new model was necessary to account for thedifferent findings from each approach. Until this point, significant attention had been given

56

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
to the concept of moral judgment, the evaluation of a decision or action as good or bad, as
the basis for ethical decision making. In contrast, Rest argued that moral judgment, while
important, is not the only, nor the most significant, influence on ethical decision making.
Rest proposed that ethical decision making involves four distinct psychological processes:
moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation/intention, and moral character/action.
Moral sensitivity (moral awareness), as described by Rest (1994), refers to anindividual’s ability to recognize that a situation contains a moral issue. Recognizing a moral
issue requires the individual’s awareness that his/her actions have the potential to harm
and/or benefit other people. Later research broadens this definition, suggesting that moral
sensitivity is the decision maker’s recognition that a situation has moral content and, as aresult, a moral perspective is valid (Reynolds, 2006).
Moral judgment refers to formulating and evaluating which possible solutions to
the moral issue have moral justification. This step in the process requires reasoning throughthe possible choices and potential consequences to determine which are ethically sound.
Moral motivation (moral intention) refers to the intention to choose the moral
decision over another solution representing a different value. This component of the ethicaldecision- making process involves committing to choose the moral value. For example,
an individual may recognize two solutions to a dilemma, one that results in an increaseof personal power and one that is morally right. In this instance, moral motivation is theindividual’s intention to choose the value of morality over the value of power.
Moral courage (moral action) refers to an individual’s behavior. This component is
the individual’s action in the situation. This step involves courage, determination, and theability to follow through with the moral decision.
Though these steps are arranged logically, they are not in a fixed order. Rest (1994)
suggested that each component is distinct and can influence the others. Furthermore, failure
at any step can result in a failure to make an ethical decision. An individual may have strong
moral judgment skills but will not begin to use them if she or he lacks moral sensitivity andfails to recognize a moral issue.

Moral Intensity
The lack of research on the characteristics of a moral issue initiated Thomas Jones’s(1991) development of the moral intensity model. Jones argued that the characteristicsof the moral issue, what he collectively termed moral intensity, influence ethical decision
making. Jones conceptualized his model such that moral intensity might influence each of
the components of Rest’s Four Component model. The six dimensions of moral intensity are
Magnitude of Consequences, Temporal Immediacy, Social Consensus, Proximity, Probabilityof Effect, and Concentration of Effect. Magnitude of Consequences refers to the degree towhich an individual may be harmed by or benefit from the decision maker’s action. A greater
degree of harm or benefit results in an increase in moral intensity. Temporal Immediacyrefers to the length of time between the action and its consequences. An action that resultsin immediate negative consequences will cause a greater increase in moral intensity thanan action for which the consequences are delayed. Social Consensus refers to the degree

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201157

Articlesof agreement among a social group that an action is good or bad. This social group could
be society as a whole (e.g., an illegal act is not morally acceptable by society because a law
prohibits it) or a smaller social group, such as an individual’s academic peers. A strong Social
Consensus that an act is morally wrong increases moral intensity. Proximity refers to thenearness of the decision maker to the individuals potentially affected by the consequences.
Proximity can be a feeling of physical, cultural, social, or psychological nearness. An increasein Proximity results in an increase of moral intensity. Probability of Effect refers to thelikelihood that the predicted consequences and the expected level of harm/benefit will occur.
If the probability that the action will occur and cause the predicted harm is high, moral
intensity increases. The final dimension, Concentration of Effect, refers to the relationshipbetween the number of people affected and the magnitude of harm. If the Concentration of
the Effect is great, moral intensity increases (Jones, 1991).
The four-step model shown here combines both Rest’s and Jones’s ideas and is one
approach to making practical, pragmatic decisions quickly, with conscious and deliberateawareness of these factors (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Ethical decision-making model.

Moral Intensity & Ethical Decision Making
Empirical work on the relationships among moral intensity dimensions andethical decision making is limited. Research in this area tends to be narrowly focused, rarely
evaluating multiple dimensions of moral intensity and/or the numerous steps involved in
ethical decision making (May & Pauli, 2002).

58

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
To date, the research on moral awareness creates at best a vague picture of therelationship between moral awareness and moral intensity. The majority of research on
moral awareness suggests the importance of Social Consensus (Chia & Mee, 2000; Barnett,
2001; Butterfield, Trevino, & Weaver, 2000; Frey, 2000; Harrington, 1997; Singhapakdi,
Vitell, & Kraft, 1996) and Magnitude of Consequences (Chia & Mee, 2000; Butterfield,
Trevino, & Weaver, 2000; Frey, 2000; Singhapakdi et al., 1996) as significant predictors ofmoral awareness, and the lack of importance of Concentration of Effect as a predictor of
moral awareness (Chia & Mee, 2000; Frey, 2000). However, the findings are equivocal forthe impact of Proximity, Temporal Immediacy, and Probability of Effect on an individual’s
sensitivity to a moral issue (Chia & Mee; Frey).
A more consistent relationship exists between moral judgment and the conceptof moral intensity as defined by Jones’s moral intensity factors than that between moral
awareness and the moral intensity factors. Research frequently finds that Social Consensus
and Magnitude of Consequences are strong predictors of moral judgment (Morris &McDonald, 1995; Singer, 1998; Barnett, 2001; Harrington, 1997). Studies on theinfluence of Probability of Effect are inconclusive, and further investigation is needed toprovide a clearer understanding. For example, Frey (2000) found Probability of Effectto be a significant predictor of moral judgment, but this dimension was found to have
only relatively little influence in another study by Singer (1998). Research on Proximity,
Temporal Immediacy, and Concentration of Effect, though not definitive, suggests that these
dimensions do not significantly influence an individual’s moral judgment (Frey, 2000; Singer,
1998; Barnett, 2001).
Similar to moral judgment, the majority of research on moral intention and moral
intensity suggests that Social Consensus, Magnitude of Consequences (Barnett, 2001;
Frey, 2000; Singhapakdi et al., 1996), and Probability of Effect (Frey, 2000) are strong
predictors of moral intention. Research also indicates that Proximity, Temporal Immediacy,
and Concentration of Effect have little to no influence on an individual’s moral intention(Barnett, 2001; Frey, 2000).
At this time, research on the relationship between moral action and moral intensity
is sparse due to the difficulty in studying moral actions. Nonetheless, Jones (1991) cites anumber of previous studies of moral behavior that suggest dimensions of moral intensity will
influence moral action. For example, in his research, Stanley Milgram conducted a series offamous studies to learn whether individuals would obey commands from a stranger (wearing
a lab coat) who prompted them to inflict increasingly powerful electric volts on anotherperson. The results showed that people who were physically closer to the individual they wereasked to shock were less likely to continue to administer the shock (Milgram, 1974 as citedin Jones, 1991). This particular finding potentially provides some basis for the hypothesisthat Proximity might influence an individual’s moral action (Jones). Though more research isneeded to investigate the relationship between moral intensity and moral action, the present
study does not include moral action in its investigation because of the inherent challenges of
examining individuals’ behaviors in moral dilemmas.
Research investigating ethical decision making, moral intensity, and the relationshipbetween the two constructs is continually expanding, but these theories need more empiricalsupport. A comprehensive study exploring multiple dimensions of moral intensity and
Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201159

Articles
multiple steps in the ethical decision-making process would greatly contribute to theory andpractice in this field. The present study, exploring moral awareness, judgment, and intention,
as well as five of the six components of moral intensity (Social Consensus, Magnitudeof Consequences, Temporal Immediacy, Proximity, and Probability of Effect) acrossfive scenarios, provides an opportunity to add to the understanding of the relationships
among moral intensity components and steps in ethical decision making. In addition tocontributing to the more general field of research on moral development, understanding how
individuals respond to moral dilemmas could offer an important addition to ethics educationand character development programs.

MethodParticipants and Procedure
Data were collected from 812 students (644 male, 168 female) attending a service
academy. Students were recruited to voluntarily participate in an anonymous computer
survey. The sample included students from all class years, 18.8% seniors, 27% juniors,
29.1% sophomores, and 25.1% first-year students. The race and ethnicity of the sample was
80.7% Caucasian, 7.6% Hispanic, 5.2% Asian American, 3.3% African American, 2.1%
Native American, 0.9% Multiracial, and 0.1% Other (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Study demographics.

60

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
MeasureThe Canadian Department of Defence gave permission to adapt their Ethics
Survey, which is not copyrighted (Dursum, Morrow, & Beauchamp, 2003), into aquestionnaire in two parts for the purposes of this study. Part I measured individual moral
approaches to ethical decision making. Part II was developed to assess three componentsof Rest’s (1994) process of ethical decision making, moral awareness, moral judgment, andmoral intention, and the influence of moral intensity on ethical decision making. The resultsfrom Part II are the focus of this study.
Part II of the questionnaire consisted of five scenarios, varying in ethical intensity,each describing a moral dilemma and a subsequent action/decision. All five scenarios wereadopted from the compilation of Canadian focus group findings in which the militaryand civilian employees identified the ethical issues to which they were exposed. An initial
selection of ten scenarios was pilot tested to insure the relevance of the stimulus for both
civilian and military audiences. The scenarios were written in the third person, with thegender unspecified. The final five scenarios chosen for the Canadian survey were thenmodified for use in this study based on focus group findings from U.S. military officers andmidshipmen to confirm the ethical dilemma exposure and relevance for the college student.
The five scenarios are described in Figure 3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Failure to report someone who damaged equipment by accident
A career person who does not select the best person for the job, but rather an outspoken
one who complained about unfairness
Unfair business practices in grading
A leader overlooks a fake claim that was submitted by a subordinate
An operational military member gets goods and services from a dealer on the black
marketFigure 3. Canadian and American scenarios.
Based on the decision made in each scenario, participants were asked a series of 15
questions, assessing their moral awareness, judgment, intention, and perception of five of thesix moral intensity dimensions.
Moral awareness was determined by the student’s responses to the question “Do you
believe that there is a moral or ethical issue involved in the above action/decision?” following
each scenario. The questions used a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely
agree) to 7 (completely disagree). The responses were recoded so that a higher score reflecteda higher level of moral awareness. The moral judgment component was composed ofseven different judgment factors: just/unjust, fair/unfair, morally right/wrong, acceptable/
unacceptable to family, acceptable/unacceptable in our culture, acceptable/unacceptable inour traditions, does not violate/violates an unspoken promise, and does not violate/violates
an unwritten contract. Each item used a seven-point Likert scale, with statements reflecting
a decision as morally appropriate (1) to morally inappropriate (7). An overall judgmentscore was computed by summing and averaging the ratings given to each factor. This moral
judgment scale was originally developed by Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990), and its use
in several empirical studies has shown reliability coefficients between .70 and .90 (Barnett,
Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201161

Articles2001). Moral intention was determined by the student’s responses to the statement “Pleaseindicate the likelihood that you would make the same decision described in the scenario”
following each scenario. The questions used a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1(definitely would) to 7 (definitely would not).
Basing their responses on the decision or action in each scenario, participantsevaluated the five dimensions of moral intensity; these questions measured each dimension
on a seven-point Likert scale. Singhapakdi et al. (1996) developed the perceived moral
intensity scale that was adapted for use in this study. The first statement measured
Magnitude of Consequences (“The possible harm resulting from the decision within thecontext of that situation would be:” from minor to severe). The second statement measured
Temporal Immediacy (“Any negative consequences of that decision are likely to occur:” fromafter a long time to immediately). The third statement measured Social Consensus (“Moststudents would consider that decision to be:” from appropriate to inappropriate). The fourthstatement measured Proximity (“The specific decision would negatively affect:” from mygroup to people outside of my group). The fifth statement measured Probability of Effect(“The chances of any negative consequences occurring as a result of that decision are:” fromnot likely to very likely). Concentration of Effect, the sixth dimension of moral intensity, was
not included because other research has failed to find empirical support for its inclusion in
the moral intensity construct.

Results
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for participants’ responses to questions
regarding moral awareness, judgment, and intention. The mean scores for each scenario
were averaged to create overall means for moral awareness, judgment, and intention. The
results from the study suggest that in general, the participants are morally aware, judge
immoral actions negatively, and are inclined towards the intention to act morally. A t-test
revealed no significant gender differences for moral awareness, judgment, or intention.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations: Moral Awareness, Judgment, and Intention;
Collapsed Scenarios (N=812)
MeansStandard Deviations

Moral Awareness (Recoded)

5.23

1.06

Moral Judgment

5.00

.77

Moral Intention

4.78

.85

Regression analyses were conducted to investigate how, if at all, moral intensity
dimensions predict moral awareness, judgment, and/or intention.
Table 2 shows the results from a multiple regression analysis of moral awarenessand the five dimensions of moral intensity used in this study. The overall regression was
significant for four of the five scenarios (F=8.83, p<.01, F=16.04, p<.01, F=19.64, p<.01,
F=12.47, p<.01, F=19.06, p>.05). However, while significant, only a small portion of
the variation in each scenario, 5%, 9%, 11%, 8%, and 11% for Scenarios 1 through 5

62

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
respectively, was accounted for by the moral intensity dimensions. T-tests show that bothSocial Consensus and Proximity were strong predictors of moral awareness, significantly
affecting all five scenarios and four of the five scenarios respectively. There was moderate
support for Probability of Effect and Temporal Immediacy, each significantly associatedwith three of the five scenarios; Magnitude of Consequences was a weak predictor of moral
awareness, as significant effects were found with only two of the scenarios. These results
suggest that Social Consensus and Proximity are significantly associated with an individual’s
moral awareness, but Probability of Effect and Temporal Immediacy, while showing someassociation, have a weaker relationship with moral awareness. The results of this study also
indicate that Magnitude of Consequences does not contribute to an individual’s recognition
that a situation presents a moral dilemma.
Table 2. Multiple Regression Analyses: Moral Awareness and Moral Intensity (N=812)
Scenario 1
Bt

Scenario 2
Bt

Scenario 3
Bt

Scenario 4
Bt

Scenario 5
Bt

Model 1
Magnitude ofConsequences

.08

1.99*

.05 1.23

.02

.37

.02

.15

TemporalImmediacy

−.01

−.36

−.02

−.51

−.11

2.93**−.15 −4.06**−.09 −2.25*

SocialConsensus

.10

2.52*

.23 5.98**.22

5.50**.16−.08 −2.19*

Proximity−.10 −2.63**−.80 −2.34*−.13 −3.53**−.18 −5.27**

−.05

1.32

Probability of
Effect.12.05 1.25

.10

−.02

.26

5.55**

F

8.83**

16.04**

19.64**

12.47**

19.06

R

.05

.09

.11

.08

  .11

Variables2

2.97**

2.38*.35

4.28**

−.58

3.23*

Note. B is standardized beta coefficient. *p<.05, **p<.01

Table 3 shows the results of a hierarchical regression analysis conducted to test
the relationship of moral judgment to moral awareness and moral intensity. In the analysis,
moral awareness was entered first and found to be a significant predictor of moral judgment
in all five scenarios (p<.01), though only a small amount of variance was accounted forin each scenario, 12%, 12%, 14%, 9%, and 4% for Scenarios 1 through 5 respectively. A
significant change for the R2 value occurred in all five scenarios when the moral intensity
dimensions were entered into the regression. Overall, moral awareness and moral intensity
account for 28%, 48%, 57%, 43%, and 47% of the variation in Scenarios 1 through 5. The
addition of moral intensity, with the exception of Scenario 1, explained at least three times
the amount of variation in moral judgment as moral awareness. These results suggest that the
moral intensity dimensions have more predictive value for an individual’s moral judgment
than moral awareness. Results from the t-tests for moral intensity’s influence on moral
judgment indicate that Social Consensus, Magnitude of Consequences, and Probabilityof Effect, each significantly associated with all five scenarios, were strong predictors ofparticipants’ moral judgment. Proximity and Temporal Immediacy were found to be weak
Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201163

Articles
predictors of moral judgment, significantly affecting only two of the five and one of the five
scenarios respectively. These findings suggest that an individual’s consideration of Social
Consensus, Magnitude of Consequences, and Probability of Effect significantly contributes
to his/her judgments about a moral situation; Proximity and Temporal Immediacy are lessimportant factors.
A hierarchical regression was conducted to examine moral intention’s relationshipwith moral judgment and moral intensity.
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moral Judgment, Moral Intensity & Moral
Awareness (N=812)
Variables

Scenario 1
B R2

Scenario 2
B R2

Scenario 3
B R2

Scenario 4
B R2

Scenario 5
B R2

Model 1
Moral
Awareness.35** .12**.34** .12**.38** .14**.30** .09**.19** .04**

Model 2Moral
Awareness

.28**

.16**

.17**

.21**

.05

Magnitude ofConsequences

.09**

.14**

.10**

.10**

.16**

TemporalImmediacy

−.04

−.08*

−.01

−.02

.03

SocialConsensus

.35**

.51**

−.60*

.49**

.42**

Proximity

.00

−.03

−.06*

−.07*

−.03

Probability of
Effect.05.12** .48**.07*.10** .43**.24** .47**

R2∆

.16**

.37**

.42**

.34**

.44**

.28**

.57**

Note. B is standardized beta coefficient. *p<.05, **p<.01

As shown in Table 4, moral judgment was entered first and found to be a significant
predictor of moral intention for all five scenarios (p<.01). Moral judgment explained 43%,
43%, 53%, 38%, and 52% of the variation for moral intention. Adding moral intensity
dimensions in the second step of the regression significantly increased the R2 value (p<.01),
though the percentages are R2∆ for each scenario are small. This finding suggests that moral
judgment is a better predictor of moral intention than moral intensity, but when combined,
moral judgment and moral intensity are significantly stronger predictors of moral intention
than either alone. T-tests show that Social Consensus, significantly affecting all five scenarios,
Magnitude of Consequences, and Probability of Effect, each significantly associated withfour of the five scenarios, were strong predictors of moral intention. Results also show
Proximity was a moderate predictor of moral intention, significantly associated with three ofthe five scenarios. Temporal Immediacy was a weak predictor of moral intention, having asignificant relationship with only one of the five scenarios. These findings are similar to the64

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
results of moral intensity’s relationship to moral judgment. These results indicate that Social
Consensus, Magnitude of Consequences, and Probability of Effect significantly contributeto an individual’s intention to act in morally charged situations; Proximity is also related to
an individual’s intention to act, but to a lesser degree. Furthermore, when deciding his/her
intention, Temporal Immediacy does not play a significant role in the individual’s decision.
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moral Intention, Moral Intensity & Moral
Judgment (N=812)
Variables

Scenario 1
B R2

Scenario 2
B R2

Scenario 3
B R2

Scenario 4
B R2

Scenario 5
B R2

Model 1
Moral
Judgment.65** .43**.65** .43**.73** .53**.62** .38**.72** .52**

Model 2
Moral
Judgment

.55**

.47**

. 50**

.42**

.57**

Magnitude ofConsequences

.07*

.06

.00

.17**

.05

TemporalImmediacy−.01−.11**

.03

.05*

.04

SocialConsensus

.17**

.22**

.29**

.19**

.19**

Proximity−.07**

−.06*

−.04

.03

.00

Probability of
Effect.06*.09** .48**

.01

R2∆

.05**

.10**

.03**

.47**

.04

.47**

.05**

.02
.05**

.58**

.56**

Note. B is standardized beta coefficient. *p<.05, **p<.01

Discussion
Other studies have not researched the service academy population. This study is thefirst, and it is not a developmental theory-based study. The population of 18- to 24-year-olds
in this study is similar to previous studies at all adult ages.
The findings provide evidence supporting the importance of the relationshipbetween moral intensity and ethical decision making. As individuals face morally charged
situations, their awareness of the moral dilemma, their judgments about choices andconsequences, and their intention to act are significantly affected by specific characteristics ofthe moral situation.
The results of this study strongly suggest that the moral intensity component, Social
Consensus, is significantly associated with moral awareness, judgment, and intention. As
students recognize a moral issue, form a judgment, and decide their intention to act, they

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201165

Articles
are strongly affected by what they believe others within their social group consider morally
right or wrong. These findings support previous studies regarding the importance of Social
Consensus in ethical decision making (Chia & Mee, 2000; Barnett, 2001; Butterfield et al.,
2000; Frey, 2000; Harrington, 1997; Singhapakdi et al., 1996). Conformity studies in social
psychology have consistently indicated the significant power of a group over the individual(e.g. Asch’s conformity experiments, 1956); as a result, the strong impact of Social Consensus
is not surprising. Increasing an individual’s awareness of his/her susceptibility to the influenceof the social group will provide him/her with the opportunity to consciously consider theextent to which the group may be positively and negatively affecting his/her decision.
The results also indicate that other dimensions of moral intensity are likely to affectspecific parts of the ethical decision-making process. Proximity’s significant effect on moral
awareness suggests that the closer an individual feels to the individual(s) affected by his/her actions, the greater the likelihood that s/he will be aware of the moral issue. However,
because of Proximity’s weak relationship to moral judgment and moderate relationshipto moral intention, its overall association with ethical decision making remains unclear.
Previous studies have not reached a consensus on Proximity’s role in ethical decision making(Barnett, 2001; Chia & Mee, 2000; Frey, 2000). Perhaps Proximity is an important predictor
for moral awareness because individuals may be more sensitive to the potential of theiractions to harm or benefit another, if the “other” is closer (physically, culturally, socially, or
psychologically) to them.
Participants’ moral judgment and their intention to act were strongly associatedwith Magnitude of Consequences and Probability of Effect. This finding suggests that, as
individuals make judgments and form intentions, they consider the consequences of theiractions, both the extent of the harm or benefit their actions might cause and the likelihoodthat those consequences will occur. These results are only partially consistent with previous
research. Other research supports this study’s assertion that Magnitude of Consequences andProbability of Effect are important predictors for moral judgment and intention (Barnett,
2001; Morris & McDonald, 1995). However, while a number of studies have also foundmoral awareness to be significantly affected by Magnitude of Consequences (Chia & Mee,
2000; Butterfield et al.; Frey, 2000), this study did not.
The strong association Magnitude of Consequences and Probability of Effect havewith moral judgment makes sense. Moral judgment requires the individual to focus on
possible choices and consequences, evaluating their value. The extent of harm or benefit ofthose consequences and the likelihood that they will occur would be reasonable measuresby which to form judgments. Similarly, the relationship of Magnitude of Consequences andProbability of Effect to moral intention is also reasonable. Choosing to intend to behave
morally rather than follow another choice may force the individual to weigh the costs
and benefits of his/her choices; thinking about the extent of those consequences and thelikelihood that they will occur may be appropriate ways to determine which course of action
to pursue. While moral awareness requires that an individual be sensitive to the possibility
that his/her actions may affect other people, in this step of the ethical decision making process,the decision maker may not have formulated potential consequences to evaluate in termsof their magnitude or probability. He or she may simply recognize that any future choices
involve the well-being of at least one other person; consequently, moral awareness would notnecessarily be as strongly affected by Magnitude of Consequences and Probability of Effect.
66

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
As an individual engages in the awareness, judgment, and intention components ofthe ethical decision-making process, Temporal Immediacy has little influence. This factor of
moral intensity, only negligibly affecting moral awareness, judgment, and intention, is theweakest of all the factors. Other studies (Barnett, 2001; Frey, 2000) report similar results,suggesting that Temporal Immediacy should not be included as a dimension of moral intensity.
In addition to exploring the significance of the relationships among the steps in the
ethical decision-making process and the dimensions of moral intensity, the analyses used inthis study provide insight into the strength of these relationships. An interesting result, worth
future exploration, shows that the dimensions of moral intensity do not affect each step inthe decision- making process to the same degree. Moral intensity accounts for approximately
5-10% of the variance in moral awareness and moral intention for the five scenarios. In
contrast, with the exception of Scenario 1, moral intensity accounts for approximately 3040% of the variance in moral judgment. This finding suggests that while moral intensity issignificantly related to moral awareness, judgment, and intention, its predictive value may
be strongest with moral judgment. Future research should further explore the strength of therelationships among moral intensity and the steps in the ethical decision-making process.
Similarly, the results also suggest that the steps in the process of ethical decision making are
significantly related to one another, but the strengths of these relationships differ. Moralawareness is significantly associated with moral judgment, but explains a smaller proportionof the variance in moral judgment than that explained by moral intensity. In contrast, moral
judgment is significantly associated with moral intention and explains a greater proportionof variance in moral intention than that explained by moral intensity. These results indicatethat the steps of the ethical decision-making process may not relate to one another to thesame degree. More research is needed to explore the relationships between the steps in Rest’s
process of ethical decision making to provide empirical support for this model.

Conclusion
Future research should take into consideration how much the implicit interpersonal
relationships in the dimensions of moral intensity affect ethical decision making. If Temporal
Immediacy and Concentration of Effect were excluded, the remaining four dimensions haveimportant interpersonal components. As the decision maker evaluates Proximity, Probability of
Effect, Magnitude of Consequences, and Social Consensus, he or she necessarily considers theimpact his/her actions will have on other people. The decision maker must ask: How close is thisperson to me? To what extent will this person be affected by my decision? How likely is it that thisperson will be affected? What will my peers think? Neither Temporal Immediacy nor Concentrationof Effect is as focused on interpersonal relationships; more research is needed to determine if
the interpersonal aspect of the other four dimensions contributes to their significant effects.
The findings of this study have important implications for moral education andleader development programs. Recognizing and understanding the steps involved in ethicaldecision making allows institutions of higher education to educate their students about theprocess of making ethical decisions and their own strengths and weaknesses. In addition,
knowing that specific characteristics of a moral issue significantly influence the process of
ethical decision making can help individuals focus on and ask questions about important
aspects of the moral issue, allowing them to gather critical information that will help themmore thoroughly assess a moral dilemma.
Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201167

Articles
References
Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against aunanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9).
Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making:An empiricalstudy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1038–1057.
Butterfield, K., Trevino, L., & Weaver, G. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations:Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53, 981–1018.
Chia, A., & Mee, L. (2000). The effects of issue characteristics on the recognition of moral
Issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 255–269.
Dursum, S., Morrow, R. O., & Beauchamp, D. L .J. (2003). 2003 Defence ethics survey
report. In Sponsor research report (pp. 204–218). Ottawa, Canada,Frey, B. (2000). The impact of moral intensity on decision making in a business context.
Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 181–195.
Harrington, S. (1997). A test of a person issue contingent model of ethical decision making
in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 363–375.
Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations:
An issue-contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
May, D., & Pauli, K. (2002).The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making.
Business & Society, 41, 84–117.
Morris, S., & McDonald, R. (1995). The role of moral intensity in moral judgments:
An empirical Investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715–726.
Reidenbach, D., & Robin, R. (1988). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy:
Closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing, 51(1),44–58.
Reidenbach, D., & Robin, R. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale
for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639–653.
Rest, J. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moraldevelopment in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1–26). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reynolds, S. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the roleof individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 233–243.

68

Volume I, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Articles
Singer, M. (1998). The role of subjective concerns and characteristics of the moral issue inmoral considerations. British Journal of Psychiatry, 89, 663–679.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S., & Franke, G. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating
effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 19–36.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S., & Kraft, K. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making
of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36. 245–255.

Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities

Volume I, No. 1, 201169