Vignette Themes and Moral Reasoning in Business Contexts: The Case for the Defining Issues Test.
Saved in:
| Title: | Vignette Themes and Moral Reasoning in Business Contexts: The Case for the Defining Issues Test. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mudrack, Peter E.1 (AUTHOR) pmudrack@ksu.edu, Mason, E. Sharon2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Business Ethics. Dec2022, Vol. 181 Issue 4, p979-995. 17p. 2 Charts. |
| Subject Terms: | *Test validity, *Business students, Moral reasoning, Business ethics, Defining Issues Test, Moral judgment, Superior-subordinate relationship, Businesspeople |
| Abstract: | Some researchers interested in assessing moral reasoning among business practitioners or students have developed their own vignettes or scenarios set in business contexts, based on assumptions that the situations presented in the often-used Defining Issues Test (DIT) will somehow be inappropriate for these specific types of respondents. This paper is the first to examine in depth both the actual details contained in these business-oriented scenarios and empirical findings emerging from them. Among this paper's conclusions are: (1) assumptions underpinning the presumed superiority of business-oriented vignettes have yet to be tested; (2) the DIT possesses considerable advantages unavailable in alternative measures; (3) many business-oriented scenarios have underlying Dilemma themes that seem inherently ambiguous and thus of questionable relevance for assessing moral reasoning; (4) these scenarios have no obvious equivalent in the DIT and thus cannot definitively be placed under the umbrella of the latter's demonstrated construct validity; and (5) meaningful empirical findings have not clearly emerged from investigations using business-oriented vignettes. In light of these conclusions, we recommend that investigators interested in moral reasoning advance knowledge in a coherent and unified way by using the DIT that seems entirely appropriate for use among respondents with business experience or training. Although alternative measures may have value for assessing ethical judgments, evidence of their validity as a measure of moral reasoning is lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 160705258 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Vignette Themes and Moral Reasoning in Business Contexts: The Case for the Defining Issues Test. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mudrack%2C+Peter+E%2E%22">Mudrack, Peter E.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> pmudrack@ksu.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mason%2C+E%2E+Sharon%22">Mason, E. Sharon</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Business+Ethics%22">Journal of Business Ethics</searchLink>. Dec2022, Vol. 181 Issue 4, p979-995. 17p. 2 Charts. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+validity%22">Test validity</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+students%22">Business students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+reasoning%22">Moral reasoning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+ethics%22">Business ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Defining+Issues+Test%22">Defining Issues Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+judgment%22">Moral judgment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Superior-subordinate+relationship%22">Superior-subordinate relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Businesspeople%22">Businesspeople</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Some researchers interested in assessing moral reasoning among business practitioners or students have developed their own vignettes or scenarios set in business contexts, based on assumptions that the situations presented in the often-used Defining Issues Test (DIT) will somehow be inappropriate for these specific types of respondents. This paper is the first to examine in depth both the actual details contained in these business-oriented scenarios and empirical findings emerging from them. Among this paper's conclusions are: (1) assumptions underpinning the presumed superiority of business-oriented vignettes have yet to be tested; (2) the DIT possesses considerable advantages unavailable in alternative measures; (3) many business-oriented scenarios have underlying Dilemma themes that seem inherently ambiguous and thus of questionable relevance for assessing moral reasoning; (4) these scenarios have no obvious equivalent in the DIT and thus cannot definitively be placed under the umbrella of the latter's demonstrated construct validity; and (5) meaningful empirical findings have not clearly emerged from investigations using business-oriented vignettes. In light of these conclusions, we recommend that investigators interested in moral reasoning advance knowledge in a coherent and unified way by using the DIT that seems entirely appropriate for use among respondents with business experience or training. Although alternative measures may have value for assessing ethical judgments, evidence of their validity as a measure of moral reasoning is lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=160705258 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10551-021-04944-8 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 StartPage: 979 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Test validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Business students Type: general – SubjectFull: Moral reasoning Type: general – SubjectFull: Business ethics Type: general – SubjectFull: Defining Issues Test Type: general – SubjectFull: Moral judgment Type: general – SubjectFull: Superior-subordinate relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Businesspeople Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Vignette Themes and Moral Reasoning in Business Contexts: The Case for the Defining Issues Test. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mudrack, Peter E. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mason, E. Sharon IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 25 M: 12 Text: Dec2022 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 01674544 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 181 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Business Ethics Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
