MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114776939 · doi:10.1108/ijoes-03-2025-0121

The rationalizing animal: moral disengagement and ethical decision making

2025· article· en· W7114776939 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Ethics and Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral disengagementMindsetSituational ethicsCollectivismMoralityIndividualismContext (archaeology)Social cognitive theory of morality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Research in behavioral ethics has focused on factors allowing individuals to act unethically without feeling distress. Moral disengagement refers to the process by which we persuade ourselves that ethical standards do not apply in a particular situation. It consists of eight interrelated self-serving biases. This paper aims to examine the implications of moral disengagement for ethical decision-making in organizational contexts. Design/methodology/approach Two experimental studies evaluated whether the influence of moral disengagement is amenable to change. In Study 1 (N = 55), a direct approach was used, in which individuals were trained to recognize moral disengagement openings in everyday ethical scenarios. Study 2 (N = 501) explored an indirect, low-pressure approach that primed an individualist or collectivist mindset. Study 3 (N = 462) involved a survey to test a theoretical framework examining the influence of situational factors and individual differences on ethical decision-making. Findings In Study 1, despite practicing identifying moral disengagement “windows” in real-life scenarios, self-assessed vulnerability to moral disengagement remained unaffected. In Study 2, inducing an individualist mindset fostered a greater reduction in moral disengagement than a collectivist mindset (particularly amongst female participants), but the change in moral disengagement was insignificant. The results of Study 3 highlight the potential to foster ethical culture change in organizations by focusing on the environmental factors that shape our behavior in different contexts. Practical implications Interventions to mitigate self-serving biases that impede accurate evaluations of our actions in an organizational context are considered. Originality/value We are not the rational animals that we would like to think we are. The human brain appears to be prewired for self-justification and for reducing dissonance. Moreover, changing our beliefs about our behavior is difficult, and changing those beliefs for the worse may be impossible. However, by fostering a culture of consideration and respect, organizations can improve the ethicality of decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Ethics and SystemsSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207