期刊文献+

伦理诱惑的识解水平 被引量:6

Decision-making under Ethical Temptation:How Construal Level Theory May Help
下载PDF
导出
摘要 伦理诱惑是自我控制失败导致非伦理行为的跨期决策情景。人们对伦理诱惑的识解表征会影响伦理决策。高水平的识解表征使决策者能更清晰地意识到伦理诱惑情景中隐含的伦理原则,形成伦理判断、实现自我控制,从而促进符合伦理原则的行为;低水平的识解表征导致决策者偏好短期目标、追求工具性结果、计较利益得失,忽视伦理诱惑情景中隐含的伦理原则,带来违背伦理原则的行为。研究伦理诱惑的识解水平对伦理决策的影响机制具有重要的理论与实践意义。 Ethical temptation is defined as moral judgment situations in which unethical decisions are made due to failure of self-control especially in inter-temporal choices. According to the construal level theory, individual difference in construal level may impact decision-making under ethical temptation. When facing ethical temptations, individuals with a high construal level are likely to aware the ethical principles imbedded in the decision-making process, form ethical judgment, and behave in ways that are consistent with ethical principles through the mechanism of self-control. On the other hand, individuals with a low construal level may pay attention to short-term instrumental outcomes by deliberative thinking, overlook the ethical principles, and behave unethically. Therefore, we argue that the construal level theory is a theoretical tool with practical implications in understating decision-making under ethical temptation.
作者 严进 楼春华
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2013年第11期2047-2056,共10页 Advances in Psychological Science
基金 国家自然科学基金项目(项目号:71072114)资助
关键词 伦理诱惑 跨期决策 伦理决策 识解水平理论 自我控制 ethical temptation inter-temporal choice ethical decision making construal level theory self-control
  • 相关文献

参考文献46

  • 1Agerstr6m, J., 8t; Bj6rklund, F. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27(2), 261-282.
  • 2Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.
  • 3Barraquier, A. (2011). Ethical behaviour in practice: Decision outcomes and strategic implications. British Academy of Management, 22, $28-$46.
  • 4Baron, J., & Leshner, S. (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values? Journal of Experimental Psychology." Applied, 6, 183-194.
  • 5Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.
  • 6Bennis, W. M., Medin, D. L., & Bartels, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of calculation and moral rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 187-202.
  • 7Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceeding of National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 108(3), 15655-15659.
  • 8Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice: A psychological distance account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1105-1117.
  • 9Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209.
  • 10Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-43.

同被引文献58

  • 1程亮,翟金铭.面向伦理决策的师德教育:为何与何为[J].教育发展研究,2021,41(24):16-23. 被引量:15
  • 2Banaji, M. R., Bazennan, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.
  • 3Eyal, T., Libemlan, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice.Journal of Expenmental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209.
  • 4Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D, Trope, Y, LJ.berman, N, & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Joumal of Expenmental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-43.
  • 5Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Expezlmental Social Psychology, 44 (3), 562-572.
  • 6Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psyehology, 90(3), 351-367.
  • 7Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.Psycholoreal Review, 108(4), 814-834.
  • 8Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizons and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 298-310.
  • 9Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schuhz, J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub- scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15-21.
  • 10Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 366-395.

引证文献6

二级引证文献33

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部