Self-evaluation bias of social comparisons in ethical decision making

The impact of accountability

Milorad Novicevic, M. Ronald Buckley, Michael G. Harvey, Helen Fung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine how accountability and judgment biases that occur in social comparisons may be related to ethical decision making. Using Jones' (1991) model as the theoretical framework to investigate this phenomenon, we found that self-enhancing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were more ethical in comparison to their peers) demonstrated higher responsiveness to increases in accountability than did self-effacing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were less ethical in comparison to their peers). We discuss these findings and outline the implications for future ethics research. Further, we provide practical guidance to those who administer ethics compliance programs on effective ways of facilitating ethical behavior in organizations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1061-1091
Number of pages31
JournalJournal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Social Responsibility
Decision Making
Research Ethics
Ethics
Compliance
Theoretical Models

Cite this

Novicevic, Milorad ; Buckley, M. Ronald ; Harvey, Michael G. ; Fung, Helen. / Self-evaluation bias of social comparisons in ethical decision making : The impact of accountability. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2008 ; Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 1061-1091.
@article{a7edd85813b74678a0ba15914e8aeb53,
title = "Self-evaluation bias of social comparisons in ethical decision making: The impact of accountability",
abstract = "The purpose of this paper is to examine how accountability and judgment biases that occur in social comparisons may be related to ethical decision making. Using Jones' (1991) model as the theoretical framework to investigate this phenomenon, we found that self-enhancing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were more ethical in comparison to their peers) demonstrated higher responsiveness to increases in accountability than did self-effacing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were less ethical in comparison to their peers). We discuss these findings and outline the implications for future ethics research. Further, we provide practical guidance to those who administer ethics compliance programs on effective ways of facilitating ethical behavior in organizations.",
author = "Milorad Novicevic and Buckley, {M. Ronald} and Harvey, {Michael G.} and Helen Fung",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00339.x",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "1061--1091",
journal = "Journal of Applied Social Psychology",
issn = "0021-9029",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Self-evaluation bias of social comparisons in ethical decision making : The impact of accountability. / Novicevic, Milorad; Buckley, M. Ronald; Harvey, Michael G.; Fung, Helen.

In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 1061-1091.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Self-evaluation bias of social comparisons in ethical decision making

T2 - The impact of accountability

AU - Novicevic, Milorad

AU - Buckley, M. Ronald

AU - Harvey, Michael G.

AU - Fung, Helen

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - The purpose of this paper is to examine how accountability and judgment biases that occur in social comparisons may be related to ethical decision making. Using Jones' (1991) model as the theoretical framework to investigate this phenomenon, we found that self-enhancing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were more ethical in comparison to their peers) demonstrated higher responsiveness to increases in accountability than did self-effacing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were less ethical in comparison to their peers). We discuss these findings and outline the implications for future ethics research. Further, we provide practical guidance to those who administer ethics compliance programs on effective ways of facilitating ethical behavior in organizations.

AB - The purpose of this paper is to examine how accountability and judgment biases that occur in social comparisons may be related to ethical decision making. Using Jones' (1991) model as the theoretical framework to investigate this phenomenon, we found that self-enhancing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were more ethical in comparison to their peers) demonstrated higher responsiveness to increases in accountability than did self-effacing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were less ethical in comparison to their peers). We discuss these findings and outline the implications for future ethics research. Further, we provide practical guidance to those who administer ethics compliance programs on effective ways of facilitating ethical behavior in organizations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40949163949&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00339.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00339.x

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 1061

EP - 1091

JO - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

SN - 0021-9029

IS - 4

ER -