MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040018884 · doi:10.5840/beq200818436

Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and Its Implications for Business Ethics

2008· review· en· W2040018884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ruodan Shao, Karl Aquino, Dan Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Ethics Quarterly · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSituational ethicsSocial cognitive theory of moralityMoral disengagementMoral agencyExtant taxonIdentity (music)Agency (philosophy)SociologyMoral psychologyMoral reasoningBusiness ethicsEpistemologyPerspective (graphical)Foundation (evidence)Moral developmentSocial identity theorySocial psychologyNormative ethicsPsychologySocial groupPolitical scienceSocial sciencePublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moral identity has been touted as a foundation for understanding moral agency in organizations. The purpose of this article is to review the current state of knowledge regarding moral identity and highlight several promising avenues for advancing current understandings of moral actions in organizational contexts. The article begins with a brief overview of two distinct conceptual perspectives on moral identity—the character perspective and the social-cognitive perspective—that dominate extant literature. It then discusses varying approaches that have been taken in attempting to measure moral identity. The final two sections of the article review empirical findings regarding the antecedents and consequences of moral identity, respectively. Mechanisms and situational factors that are pertinent to moral agency in organizations are emphasized in both sections.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.732
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations410
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Ethics QuarterlySame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207