J Bus Ethics (2015) 130:573583

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2245-1

Comparative Analysis of Jones and Kelleys Ethical

Decision-Making Models
Yi-Ming Yu

Received: 29 April 2013 / Accepted: 6 June 2014 / Published online: 25 June 2014
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This study used structural equation modeling to

verify the performance of the ethical decision-making
models developed by Jones and by Kelley and Elm. A
comparison showed that the Kelley and Elm decision
model yielded the optimal degree of fit. The investigations
conducted in this study indicated that moral intensities are
not an objective, existing concept but rather the product of
subjective perception influenced by organizational factors.
In addition to directly influencing ethical decisions, organizational factors indirectly influence ethical decisions
through moral intensities.
Keywords Administration ethics
Moral intensity

Kelley and Elm model
Jones model
Organizational
alienation

Introduction
In 1991, Jones (hereafter referred to as J model) introduced
an ethical decision-making (EDM) model, which has since
been considered the research pattern. He summarized
previous EDM theories (Dubinsky and Loken 1989; Ferrell
and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Rest 1986;
Trevino 1986) and proposed an issue-contingent model. He
asserted that the emotional decision- making (EDM) is
directly and primarily influenced by moral intensity (MI)
and organizational factors (OFs). In addition, he asserted

Y.-M. Yu (&)
National Defense University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
e-mail: yuimingtw@gmail.com

that an individual positioned in a substantially superior

organizational culture is more likely to incorporate ethical
issues into individual decision making, and vice versa.
Furthermore, the stronger the intensity of an ethical issue,
the more likely the decision maker is to exhibit ethical
behaviors. Therefore, Jones contended that MI and OF are
independent variables that directly and separately affect
EDM.
However, increasing numbers of recent studies have
indicated that decision makers must subjectively be conscious the objective aspects (e.g., severity of the consequence) of ethical issues. Researchers typically assert that
MI is an essential variable that influences EDM behaviors,
and that decision makers must subjectively be conscious
the characteristics of MI (Chia and Lim 2000; Messick and
Bazerman 1996; Wasieleski and Hayibor 2008). Furthermore, MI is derived from an individuals subjective recognition of ethical issues. Only when any one of the six MI
dimensions (e.g., severity, immediacy, and proximity) is
perceived in relation to the severity of the ethical incident,
can MI be significant to the individual. Conversely, if an
individual cannot be conscious the severity of the consequence, immediacy, and proximity, then the issues do not
possess MI. Thus, an individuals recognition influences
the MI of an issue; that is, when an individual is perception
of the MI characteristics (e.g., severity of the consequence), only then does the intensity affect the individual.
In an empirical study, Kelley and Elm (2003) introduced
the Kelley and Elm Model (hereafter referred to as the
K&E model) and demonstrated that an individuals subjective perception of MI may originate from the effects of
external organizational environments. According to Rest
(1986), an excellent organizational setting easily cultivates
ethical perception, and conversely, a poor organizational
setting nurtures poor ethical perception. In other words, the

123

574

effects that MI has on decision making occurs as follows:

OFs influence an individuals recognition of MI, and the
former subsequently affects EDM through MI. Based on
the above affirmation, Kelley and Elm (2003) modified the
J model and proposed the K&E model, where OFs were
considered to affect MI, subsequently influencing decisionmaking behavior. In K&E model, MI is an intervening
variable instead of simply an independent variable.

Moral Intensity, Organizational Factors and EDM

MI and EDM
Previous studies typically adopted the framework of organizational cultures and individual characteristics and backgrounds to investigate ethical behaviors or ethics-related
topics; however, in-depth discussions regarding the characteristics of ethical issues are scarce. Specifically, studies on
ethical behavior have typically investigated the principles
involved, but not the characteristics of the ethical incidents
and the situations in which they occurred. Furthermore, the
definitive characteristics of ethical issues have not received
sufficient attention. Jones (1991) was the first to incorporate
MI into EDM research after comparing various EDM models. He asserted that the characteristics of ethical issues are
crucial factors that influence individual decision making;
that is, in certain situations, a specific ethical issue or topic
affects subsequent EDM. In addition, because the ethical
characteristics of different ethical issues vary. Indeed, only
when the outcome of a decision has significant ethical consequences (e.g., casualties and environmental damage) does
decision makers concern for related ethical issues increase
each ethical issue possesses a differing degree of MI.

Theory on the Objective Existence of MI

Jones (1991) asserted that MI is a type of influence generated by ethical facts of objective existence, which comprise
various characteristics, such as the magnitude of consequences, social consensus, probability of effect, temporal
immediacy, proximity, and concentration of effect. When
the consequence of an ethical issue has considerable
implications, the issue is of personal relevance to the
decision maker, or the probability of the issue occurring is
extremely high, the likelihood that the decision maker will
adopt EDM behaviors is high; otherwise, unethical decision
making typically occurs (Barnett 2001). These moral
characteristics (i.e., consequence and probability of occurrence) are closely related to ethical issues. Accordingly, MI
exhibits objective existence characteristics; for example,

123

Y.-M. Yu

unethical decisions leading to the loss of life and property.

Because MI is a fact of objective existence, in the J Model,
MI and OF are considered independent variables that
influence EDM.
Theory on the Subjective Existence of MI
In contrast to Jones MI of objective existence (1991), the
results reported by Chia and Lim (2000) indicated that MI
should include compositions of subjective perception
rather than being merely a fact of objective existence. For
example, the situation where various ethical issues
instantly affect a certain person or generate serious ethical
consequences actually entails personal recognition. Only
through this type of recognition can the existence of an
ethical issue be significant to or perceived by an individual.
In other words, the existence of an ethical issue is appropriately defined according to individuals and the environment because it must be subjectively conscious by an
individual. The loss of life and property, for example, must
be subjectively recognized by the decision maker. Furthermore, because the identity, position, thinking, resources, and situation of each individual differ, these factors
also influence individuals subjective recognition of MI.
Countering Jones perspectives on objective existence,
Chia and Lim (2000) contended that if MI is a fact of
objective existence, an ethical issue is, therefore, not necessarily defined according to the environment. If the existence of MI is objective, the ethical issue should possess
identical MI at different locations and times and with
various subjects. However, in reality, this is not the case.
MI is characterized as depending on an environment, and
in the study conducted by Chia and Lim (2000), MI was
confirmed to not only objectively influence EDM but also a
type of subjective cognition. Aside from the direct influence of MI, EDM is potentially initially affected by OFs,
after which the OFs influence EDM. Because MI development in an individual involves an internal cognition
process, and the development of the individuals cognitive
abilities is affected by the external environment, in the
K&E model, MI is considered to be initially influenced by
OFs, after which the OFs influence the EDM.
Organizational Factors and EDM
Previous studies have indicated that organizations significantly influence EDM (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010). Typically, OFs are external environmental factors that possess a
wide variety of connotations, and range from large external
social environments to small in-groups (Ford and Richardson 1994; Loe et al. 2000; OFallon and Butterfield
2005). Furthermore, researchers have employed various
dimensions or concepts to investigate the effects that OF

Jones and Kelleys Ethical Decision-Making Models

have on EDM and found that although all factors influence

decision-making behavior, the effects differ substantially.
Ford and Richardson (1994) and Loe et al. (2000) reviewed
previous EDM studies and indicated that the larger the
organizational scale (Weber 1990), the fuzzier the internal
norms (Ferrell and Skinner 1988); and if professional
training is insufficient (Akaah 1992), members or
employees are more likely to make unethical decisions.
Although previous studies have identified the effects that
OFs exert on EDM, these effects of OFs are difficult to be
accurately measured because of the influence of social
desirability bias (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010).
Psychologist Bandura (1986) previously suggested that
decision makers isolated from the consequences of a
decision by the hierarchical layers of bureaucratic organizations are unlikely to perceive the ethical consequences;
this easily generates moral disengagement during decision
making, thereby leading to unethical decisions. In addition,
Bauman (1995) asserted that a bureaucratic organizations
hierarchical constraints and decentralized responsibilities
cause members of the organization to neglect the morality
of a decision. He maintained that with the obligation of
maintaining organizational efficiency, decision makers are
relieved of ethical responsibility and stripped of ethical
subjectivity when making decisions. The organizational
structure cultivates them into individuals who are not
required to execute ethical judgments; thus, under the
influence of bureaucratic structures, individuals are prone
to the effects of organizational alienation, and are subsequently transformed into individuals who lack a sense of
morality. Numerous psychology experiments have identified the negative effects that organizational structures exert
on EDM. Milgram (1974) conducted a classic psychological study and showed that the roles and positions in a
bureaucracy yield different authoritative structures, which
are influenced by the psychological phenomenon of obedience to authority. Consequently, subordinates tend to
blindly obey the commands of their superiors, leading to
the execution of unethical decisions. Researching people
affected by groupthink, Janis (1972) indicated that individuals attempting to prove their loyalty to their organization or emphasize team spirit generally refrain from
giving personal suggestions. Therefore, organizations lack
reflective ability, which causes them to make erroneous or
unethical decisions. Additionally, the psychological effects
of bureaucracy prompt individuals to seek personal gains
by hiding under the protection of the bureaucratic organization, a phenomenon also known as deck-stacking (Smith
and Carroll 1984). Berman (1990) reported that the phenomenon of organizational alienation can be widely
observed in modern bureaucratic organizations.
Meanwhile, Jones (1991) investigated the concept of
organizational alienation by revising previous methods,

575

where organizational cultures or norms were used as the

influential factors for assessing the effects that OF had on
decision-making behaviors, and using socialization processes, authority factors, and group dynamics as indicators
to assess the effects that external OFs have on EDM.
Moreover, Jones asserted that because of bureaucratic
organizational alienation effects, when groupthink or obedience to authority becomes apparent in an organization,
organizational members are more likely to obey blindly,
which causes them to disregard ethical factors when
making decisions. Concurrently, when the effects that
organizational socialization has on members becomes
increasingly evident, the negative effects of organizational
alienation (i.e., groupthink and obedience to authority) on
members EDM increases.
Organizational Factors, MI, and EDM
Previous studies have unanimously verified that OF and MI
influence EDM; however, this influence varies. Jones
(1991) maintained that OF and MI directly and separately
influence EDM. However, Kelley and Elm (2003) contended that OF affect EDM through their influence on MI.
In Jones model, OF and MI are independent variables that
separately influence EDM, whereas in K&E model, OFs
are independent variables that affect the intervening variable MI, through which OF influence EDM.
As mentioned previously, Kelley and Elm (2003) indicated that MI depends on an individuals ethical recognition of an issue: the lower the individuals recognition, the
lower the MI, and vice versa. Based on the results of
previous studies, they also proposed that external situational or environmental factors influence an individuals
recognition. For example, Darley and Latane (1968) indicated that under time pressures, people with a high moral
character, such as preachers, typically fail to intervene in
emergencies. Cooper (2001) investigated the decisionmaking behaviors of civil servants and found that when
making decisions regarding urgent matters, they generally
simply search for solutions without considering ethical
issues.
Organizational Factors and MI
In contrast to previous studies, Berman (1990) used the
bureaucratic organizational structure to explain the effects
of environmental factors on ethical perception. He maintained that because of the division of labor under a
bureaucratic organizational structure, each person is only
responsible for a fragment of the decision. This division of
responsibility for decisions and results insulates decision
makers from the consequences of their decisions, leading to
a high potential for unethical decisions. When decision

123

576

makers are unable to perceive the harm and pain their

decisions can cause others, their ethical perception is
decreased. Berman asserted that modern administrative
organizations endeavoring to achieve policy goals tend to
emphasize various aspects of the organization, such as
expertise, technology, and efficiency. When organizations
pursue efficiency, they typically adopt unscrupulous means
to achieve their goals. In an empirical study, Kelman
(1973) indicated that when the division of work is
increasingly precise, people focus on the details of the
work rather than considering the overall outcome, which
suggests that this notion of responsibility sharing is rational
and reasonable. In addition, when individuals are situated
in a bureaucratic decision-making structure, they easily
ignore the harm caused by collective decision-making
behaviors.
Based on the structural influence of bureaucratic organizations, Berman (1990) will use the term organization
alienationto refer to the effects that OFs have on ethical
recognition. He described the effects that OFs have on
ethical recognition. He described the effects that environmental factors have on ethical recognition. He indicated
that the division of work in bureaucracies generally separates decisions from related consequences, which causes
decision makers to neglect the severity of the consequences
and subsequently make unethical decisions. This phenomenon is observed because each person is only responsible for part of a decision; however, the division of work
and hierarchical responsibilities are also factors that lead to
this phenomenon. Moreover, when decision makers cannot
perceive the harm resulting from their decisions, ethical
recognition ultimately decreases (Bandura 1986).
EDM Models
Rest (1986) also found that individuals positioned in an
ethical organizational culture that cares for others tend to
be influenced by this type of culture and thus more likely to
focus on ethical issues when making decisions. Conversely,
individuals who have been a part of a utilitarian society
(where people care about themselves more than others) for
a long period generally focus on their personal interests or
benefits and neglect the interests of others or the group.
Thus, Hunt and Vitell (1986) and Ferrell and Gresham
(1985) contended that external environments affect an
individuals perception; an organizational culture of care
promotes the development of an individuals ethical perception, whereas a self-interest-oriented organizational
culture hinders the development of an individuals ethical
perception. Based on the above assertion, the overall
effects that OF have on EDM manifest themselves through
the influence of OF on an individuals recognition of MI.
Consequently, Kelley and Elm (2003) revised Jones

123

Y.-M. Yu

viewpoint and maintained that MI is not an issue of

objective existence; instead, it depends on an individuals
recognition. In other words, when an individual is conscious the intensity of an ethical issue, MI can then affect
an individuals decision making; however, external organizational environments also influence an individuals
ethical recognition.
In summation, these analyses demonstrate the differing
views proposed by Kelley and Elm (2003) and Jones
(1991). Jones asserted that EDM is influenced by OFs and
MI, whereas Kelley and Elm stated that although OFs can
exert an effect on EDM, this effect might be caused by the
indirect effects of MI.

The Decision-Making Models Established by Jones

and Kelley and Elm
To avoid losing the focus of this study by including
excessive variables, in the following section, we primarily
investigated the three variables MI, OFs, and EDM. The
theories proposed by Jones and Kelley were simplified and
extended to develop a hypothetical model.
Jones Simplified Model
Of the three factors, Jones (1991) suggested that MI and
OF directly affect individual EDM. However, a relationship between MI and OF does not exist. Jones considered
MI a fact that objectively exists. For example, regarding
employees bring office supplies home, although the
magnitude of the consequences indicates that no harm is
caused to anybody, social consensus prohibits such
behavior. Because both the magnitude of the consequences
and social consensus contribute to objective existence,
Jones asserted that MI is a fact that objectively exists and
directly influences EDM. Concurrently, both OF and MI
exert a direct influence on EDM. In other words, MI and
OF are independent, uncorrelated variables in Jones model
(Fig. 1).
Simplified K&E Model
Based on earlier studies, Kelley and Elm (2003) suggested
that MI is not entirely a concept of objective existence;
Moral Intensity
Moral Behavior
Organizational
Factors

Fig. 1 The model developed after simplifying Jones theory

Jones and Kelleys Ethical Decision-Making Models

Organizational
Factors

Moral Behavior

Moral Intensity

577

Organizational
Factors

Moral Intensity

Moral Behavior

Fig. 3 Hypothetical model

Method
Fig. 2 The model developed after simplifying K&E theory

Competing Models and the Hypothetical Model

rather, it is given concrete significance through an individuals recognition of external MI. Without this recognition, the intensity of an ethical issue cannot affect an
individual. Thus, individuals must be conscious MI for it to
influence their moral intent (Paolillo and Vitell 2002). For
example, when stealing public property, MI only affects
individual behavior if the perpetrator perceives the
behavior as harmful to others. If the individual does not
perceive the behavior as potentially harmful to others, MI
will not exist. Thus, for MI to exist, subjective perception
is required. Moreover, if activities such as stealing public
property do not generate ethical recognition, individual
behavior will not be affected by MI. In the K&E model, MI
serves as the intervening variable, and OFs do not directly
influence ethical behaviors; instead, external MI is perceived through an individuals subjective perception.
Consequently, MI is further constructed by an individuals
perception, which influences EDM. In other words, an
individuals recognition of MI originates from external
environmental influences. Thus, Kelley and Elm (2003)
asserted that MI does not directly influence ethical
behaviors. They argued that MI is first perception through
OF before influencing individual EDM. In the K&E model,
OFs are the independent variables and MI is the intervening variable between OF and EDM behavior (Fig. 2).
According to the differing views maintained by Jones
(1991) and Kelley and Elm (2003), two EDM models may
exist; that is, OF may directly influence EDM, or indirectly
affect EDM through MI. If Jones model interacts with and
is combined with the K&E model, a third model can be
formed (Fig. 3). Therefore, this study combined the Jones
and K&E models to develop a third EDM model as the
hypothetical model. We conducted hypothesis testing on a
series of competing models to compare the conceptualization of factor structures, thereby identifying the fit of the
three models. Next, because K&E model does not contradict Jones model, adoption of confirmatory modeling
strategies or the data-generation method was unnecessary
to develop a theoretical model. Thus, a model development
strategy was not implemented in this study. Instead, we
adopted a research strategy where competing models were
employed as testing models. Based on the results of the
theoretical investigations described above, we designed
three types of models as a reference for the subsequent
hypothesis testing (Fig. 3).

Jones Model
The first competing model (hereafter referred to as competing model 1) was developed by simplifying Jones
theory, which contended that external organizational
environments and MI influence EDM behaviors (Jones
1991). Consequently, for J Model, we hypothesized that MI
and organizational environments influence ethical behaviors (Fig. 1).
K&E Model
The second competing model (hereafter referred to as
competing model 2) was developed by simplifying the
theory proposed by Kelley and Elm (2003). This theory
maintained that organizational environments first influence
EDM behaviors before affecting ethical behaviors through
MI. Therefore, for the K&E model, we hypothesized that
OFs are the second-order exogenous variables, and MI is
the first-order latent variable. OFs initially influence MI,
after which MI influences individuals decisions. Concurrently, OFs directly influence EDM. Therefore, both OFs
and MI influence ethical behavior. Specifically, OFs exert
not only a direct influence on ethical behavior but also an
indirect influence through MI. In other words, MI is the
intervening variable between OFs and ethical behavior
(Fig. 2).
Hypothetical Model
To investigate the suitability of the model introduced in
this study, we not only adopted two competing models
from extant theories and estimated their degree of fit with
the observed data but also developed a possible hypothetical model based on competing models 1 and 2. Combining
the two competing models, we established a third possible
model, which asserts that OFs indirectly affect EDM
through MI (Fig. 3).
Procedures and Subjects
The research subjects were civil servants in Southern
Taiwan, and subjects in Northern Taiwan were selected for
cross-validation to verify the representativeness of the
samples obtained using convenience sampling. To

123

578

effectively manipulate the research variables (MI, OF, and

EDM), the test subjects included civil servants of a position
higher than the associate level, with substantial decisionmaking experience, and who were trainees at the civil
servant training center in Southern Taiwan. Before the
participants began the questionnaire, the researchers
explained the research objectives and methods for completing the questionnaire. They also emphasized that the
test was purely for academic research purposes and guaranteed anonymity to the participants. Finally, to eliminate
the participants uncertainty regarding the survey, the
researchers stated that participation in the test was voluntarily. The cluster sampling method was adopted for
questionnaire distribution. Accordingly, classes were
selected during various training programs and subjected to
group tests before the end of the program. The tests were
completed between June 2011 and July 2011. Of the 400
questionnaires distributed, only 46 were excluded as
invalid (including 33 questionnaires that showed excessively high social desire) Totally, we assessed 354
(88.5 %) valid questionnaires (average years of experience
in civil service = 12.8; average age = 35.2; and 289 men
and 65 women). Furthermore, as an incentive to complete
the questionnaire, the participants received gifts of appreciation for completing the survey.
Instruments
According to the three simplified models described above,
we employed the questionnaire measurement method as the
data collection tool. The connotations of the scales used are
explained below.
MI Scale
Based on the MI concept proposed by Jones (1991), we
composed a situational MI scale (MIs), which comprised
two subscales, namely, the magnitude of consequences
scale (MCs) and social consensus scale (SCs). This study
modified part of the situational content to correspond to the
characteristics of the participants and the situational context of civil services. We compiled two scenario-based
questionnaires with descriptions/backgrounds to assist the
participants in completing the questionnaire. In the first
scenario, which involved adherence to principles
behavior, the participating civil service employees were
instructed by a supervisor to ignore the defects of an original product design in an effort to meet project deadlines
(Cooper 1987, p. 320). In the second scenario, which
involved behaviors toward coworkers, the participants
were placed in a situation to observe their treatment of a
colleague with whom they had a bad relationship. The
questions for the two scenarios encompassed the two

123

Y.-M. Yu

dimensions of the magnitude of consequences and social

consensus. All questions were answered according to these
scenarios. For example, the questions regarding social
consensus included I believe that most people would
consider the behaviors of the parties concerned as incorrect
or unethical; the questions for the magnitude of consequences included I believe that the probability of the
parties concerned actually causing harm is low. Each
question was allocated a score between 6 and 1
(6 = strongly agree, 5 = partially agree, 4 = agree,
3 = partially disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly
disagree). Higher scores indicated that the MI of an issue
was higher, and low scores represented a lower MI. The
Cronbachs a value for the two subscales exceeded .85.
Ethical Behavior Scales
Regarding the measurements of ethical behavior, the two
scenarios of the MI test were employed. The participants
were asked to refer to the two scenarios and answer the
questions according to an ethical behavior scale. For the
ethical behavior scale, this study adopted the behavior of
adherence to principles (MB1) and behaviors toward
coworkers (MB2) subscales from the ethical behavioral scale
for teachers employed by Lu (2002). From each of these two
subscales, we selected and modified five items with substantial effects to incorporate connotations of civil service
characteristics that satisfied the participants situational
contexts. For example, the statement I clearly understand
and can abide by the Teachers Act and relevant laws and
regulations was modified to I clearly understand and can
comply with organizational norms. Items that were relevant
to this study remained unmodified. For the scenario that
involved behaviors toward coworkers, the statement I do
not voice criticisms about my coworkers to others was
allocated a score between 6 and 1 (6 = strongly agree,
5 = partially agree, 4 = agree, 3 = partially disagree,
2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree). Higher scores
indicated that the level of ethical behavior was higher. For
example, if the participants answered strongly agree to the
statement, this indicated that regardless of the relationship
the participants had with their colleague, they would not
voice their criticisms of them (demonstrating great ethics).
Conversely, if the participants answered strongly disagree, this indicated that they would voice their criticisms
of colleagues because of past grudges (exhibiting poor ethics). The Cronbachs a values all exceeded .83.
Organizational Factors
To measure OFs, this study adopted the authority factors,
socialization, and group dynamics proposed by Jones
(1991) as the basis of measurement.

Jones and Kelleys Ethical Decision-Making Models

Obey Scales
This study used the obey scale (OBs) compiled by Lo et al.
(2004) based on the obedience to authority concept
introduced by Milgram (1974). Because the situational
content of the scale was similar to that of civil service, we
directly employed the scale without implementing modifications or adjustments. The scale comprised 10 items,
including Even if the instructions of my superiors are
unreasonable, I will still obey. Each item was allocated a
score between 6 and 1 (6 = strongly agree, 5 = partially
agree, 4 = agree, 3 = partially disagree, 2 = disagree,
and 1 = strongly disagree). Higher scores indicated that the
participants tendency to obey was stronger. The Cronbachs
a value of the scale was .89.

579

Cooper (1989) to assess the degree of social desirability. To

ensure the reliability of the questionnaire, we discarded
questionnaires with exceedingly high scores of social
desirability. The scale comprised five items, including I can
be courteous even to people I dislike. Each item was allocated a score between 1 and 5 (1 = strongly agree,
2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly
disagree). Higher scores indicated that the participants
possessed a greater tendency of social desirability, and lower
scores indicated that their degree of social desirability was
lower. The maximum, minimum, and median scale scores
were 25, 5, and 15, respectively. Questionnaires where the
social desirability score exceeding the median (15) were
discarded because a high score indicated that the participants
possessed relatively high social desirability. The Cronbachs
a value of the scale was .85.

Groupthink Scale
Data Analysis and Model Specification
We applied the groupthink scale (GTs) developed by Park
(1989) based on the groupthink concept proposed by Janis
(1972). The scale comprised 19 items, including The people participating in a meeting generally find reasons (or
excuses) to ignore negative information that surfaces during
the meeting. Each item was allocated a score between 6 and
1 (6 = clearly understand/strongly agree, 5 = somewhat
understand/agree, 4 = understand/agree, 3 = somewhat
do not understand/disagree, 2 = do not understand/disagree, and 1 = do not understand at all/strongly disagree).
Higher scores indicated that the participants groupthink
conditions were more severe, and lower scores indicated less
severity. The Cronbachs a value of the scale was .90.
Organization Socialization Scale
For this study, we revised the 34 items in the organization
socialization scale (OSs) established by Chao et al. (1994).
The original scale measures the degree of socialization in
general organizations. We modified the wording of the items
to form an organization socialization scale relevant to the
specifics of a civil service context. For example, the organizations goal is also my personal goal and I understand
the meaning of each symbol used in civil services. This
study used a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,
2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = somewhat
agree, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores
indicated that the participants exhibited greater organizational socialization. According to the internal consistency
analysis results, the Cronbachs a value of the scale was .93.
Social Desirability Scale
To prevent social desirability bias from influencing the
research results, we used the scale developed by Fraboni and

To compare the two models, we examined Jones model and

K&E model using the comparative function of structural
equation modeling (SEM) to identify a rational and suitable
EDM model. This study employed SPSS version 16.0 for data
entry and processing, and used Lisrel 8.54 as the analysis tool
for SEM. To conduct data analysis, we adopted the following
tools: (1) Prelis software for calculating the covariance matrix
of raw data for subsequent model estimation and (2) Simplis
syntax to enter the paths of the three hypothetical models into
statistical software, where maximum likelihood was
employed for parameter estimation, and the maximum number of iterations was set to 100. Because a consensus concerning fit indices has not been achieved since the 1980s, a
concrete standard cannot be established. Although several
scholars have contended that fit indices can be discarded, for
researchers who apply SEM, and from a methodological
perspective, no concrete and acceptable alternatives are
available. Therefore, this study adopted the eight observation
indices proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999) to establish the
degree of fit between the observed data and models.
We primarily used two types of variables to establish the
SEM model (Fig. 4), namely, measured variables and
1

OBs
1

GTs

OSs

r1

OF

MB

r2
3

r3

MI
4

7
6

MB1s

MB2s

MCs

SCs

Fig. 4 Settings of the hypothetical model

123

580

latent variables. Because the concepts examined in this

study are considered latent variables, that is, abstract concepts that cannot be directly observed, we used several
measurement tools for estimation. Regarding the concepts
employed to establish the SEM model, the three concepts
of OF, MI, and ethical behaviors, are latent variables,
which were estimated using the measured variables. In this
study, we adopted seven scales to estimate the measured
variables for the three latent variables mentioned above.
According to the SEM model setting specifications, an
elliptical shape was used to denote the latent variable, and a
rectangular shape was used to denote the measured variable. The diagram showing the relationships and paths
between the latent variables comprised the structural
model, which was used to define the theoretical relationships between the latent variables. The paths between each
latent and measured variable constituted the measurement
model and were employed to define the measured variables
for estimating the latent variables.
Model Fit Evaluation
To verify that the research results possessed cross-sample
and cross-situational applicability, we employed the crossvalidation index (CVI) developed by Cudeck and Browne
(1983) to examine the validity. The aforementioned sampling method was also adopted. However, reverse questions were employed in the questionnaires to avoid the
possibility of common method variance. Using identical
methods but a different region, this study selected trainees
at a civil servant training center in Northern Taiwan as
subjects and sampled a total of 400 trained civil servants to
complete the questionnaire. The 384 valid samples were
used to calibrate and validate the first and second sample
groups. Subsequently, the goodness-of-fit of the three
models was compared.

Results
Table 1 shows the fit indices of the hypothetical model and
the two competing models adopted for this study. According
to Table 1, the v2 and df ratio of competing model 2 (3.20)
was lower than that of competing model 1 and the hypothetical model. This result suggests that the competing model
2 possessed a good fit and is an excellent model. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Bentler and Bonett 1980) and the
adjusted GFI (AGFI) of competing model 2 were .97 and .91,
respectively, both of which satisfied the criterion
(GFI [ .90) established by Bentler and Bonett (1980).
Regarding the three models, apart from competing model 1
showing an AGFI of .85, which was below the criterion, the
two indices of competing model 2 exceeded the preset

123

Y.-M. Yu
Table 1 Competing, K&E model and J model (good-of-fit index)
J model
(competing
model 1)

K&E model
(competing
model 2)

Hypothetical
model

v2/df

5.21

3.20

GFI

.94

.97

.90

AGFI
NFI

.85
.96

.91
.98

.91
.95

NNFI

.95

.97

.93

CFI

.97

.98

.92

RMSEA

.13

.09

.19

103.63

69.22

71.81

AIC

3.44

criterion, and competing model 2 and the hypothetical model

were superior to competing model 1 regarding the degree of
fit. Furthermore, this result explained the significant variance
in the observed data. The normed fit index (NFI) and the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) values for the three models were all
within the ideal range, that is, NFI and NNFI exceeded .90,
indicating that the models possessed a good fit. Subsequently, although the comparative fit indices (CFI; Bentler
1980) of the three models exceeded the criterion (.90),
competing model 2 yielded the optimum CFI value of 2.98,
which exceeded that of competing model 1 and the hypothetical model. Table 1 shows the results for the proxy
indicator, which was the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger 1990). Although competing
model 2 failed to satisfy the RMSEA criterion (i.e., less than
or equal to .05), it generated the best RMSEA (.09) of the
three models. According to the criterion specified by Steiger
(1990), this result is not within the ideal range. However,
compared to the values of competing model 1 and the
hypothetical model (which both yielded a value of .10,
substantially deviating from the criterion), the RMSEA of
the competing model 2 was within the range that demonstrated a good fit. Finally, we examined the Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike 1987) to compare the quality
of the various models. When comparing the models, a lower
AIC index indicated a superior model. Among the three
models, the AIC for competing model 2 was the lowest
(69.22), followed by that for the hypothetical model and
competing model 1. This result suggests that the fit of the
K&E model to the observed data was superior to that of the J
model and the hypothetical model (Fig. 5).
Table 2 shows the CVI performance of the three models
using the double cross-validation samples. Each model
presents two CVI values. Among the double cross-validations of the three models, the CVI value generated using
the sample of the first group shows that the K&E model is
the optimal model. The CVI value obtained from the criterion validity sample of the second group also indicates

Jones and Kelleys Ethical Decision-Making Models

.12

OBs

.05

GTs

.10

OSs

.80
.88
.87

.85
-.79

OF

MB1s

.15

MB2s

.22

MB

-.75
.65

MI
MI
.89

581

.78

.92

MCs

SCs

.21

.20

Fig. 5 Standard solution of hypothetical model

Table 2 Double cross-validation of the three models

Group

J model

K&E model

Hypothetical model

Composite sample
1

CVI = 1.25

CVI = 1.23

CVI = 1.30

CVI = 1.28

CVI = 1.25

CVI = 1.43

that the K&E model is the optimal model. Finally, by

examining the overall goodness-of-fit, we verified that the
performance of the K&E model is optimal.
Combining the above results, each index of the K&E
model exceeded that of the J model and hypothetical
model. Additionally, although the RMSEA value was not
optimal, it was within the acceptable range. Although the J
model and the hypothetical model demonstrated a good fit,
the fitness of the K&E model was superior. The fit index of
the hypothetical model was superior to that of the J model.

Discussion
Summarizing the analysis results, we found that the K&E
model and the observed data exhibited a good fit, and that
the model fitness of the proposed model exceeded that of
the J model and the hypothetical model. Although each
index of the J model and hypothetical model was within the
acceptable range, the overall performance of the K&E
model remained superior. Concerning the relationship
between OFs, MI, and EMD, OFs and MI directly influenced EMD, yet OF also indirectly influenced EDM
through MI. The results suggested that MI not only exists
objectively, but that an individual is also required to subjectively perceive the MI of objective issues. Thus, an
individuals recognition of MI is affected by external OF;
specifically, a superior organizational setting (emphasizing
caring for others) results in individuals possessing higher
ethical recognition, which induces active ethical responses
to external environments.
According to the final standardized solution of the
hypothetical model, organizational alienation influences

EDM, as well as MI. A higher degree of organizational

alienation implies that individuals are less inclined toward
EDM, which subsequently influences their recognition of
MI. In other words, if the negative effects of obedience to
authority, groupthink, or bureaucratic structure occur in an
organization, these effects will influence an individuals
ethical recognition and decision making through socialization. In addition, although the goodness-of-fit exhibited
by the K&E model was superior to that of the J model and
hypothetical model, each index of the J model and hypothetical model was within the acceptable range. This result
shows that MI influences decision making through objective ethical issues, as well as the subjective ethical recognition of an individual.
Thus, the J model and the hypothetical model possess a
certain rationality that achieves an overall fit within the
acceptable range. Comparing the fit of the three models, MI
possesses objective, as well as subjective compositions that
are crucial and complement each other. Consequently, if
MI only presents the intensity of an objective ethical issue
and is not perception by an individual, then the MI is low.
Conversely, if the morality of an issue is indistinguishable,
an individual will not exhibit high MI despite possessing
high ethical perception.
Findings
Our findings do not contradict the results reported by previous studies, that is, OF directly influences the EDM
behavior of an individual and indirectly influences an individuals decision making through MI. From the perspective
of bureaucratic organizational alienation, severe organizational alienation suggests that organizational members easily
and blindly obey their superiors to emphasize team spirit or
unity. In this type of environment, members are prone to
suppress their individual ethical recognition and even
intentionally ignore ethical issues that arise during the
decision-making process. Because superiors cannot obtain
adequate information directly from their subordinates, this
situation typically results in erroneous judgments or unethical decisions. Therefore, leaders or followers can easily be
negatively affected by the phenomena of groupthink and
obedience to authority, which obstructs their ethical thinking
and ultimately leads to unethical decisions. In other words, as
the severity of organizational alienation increases, organizations easily disregard the justice of decisions. Furthermore, when organizational alienation limits an individuals
ethical recognition, the individual easily adopts instrumental
rationality to form immoral or unethical decisions. In reality,
the decision-making process in the public sector typically
demonstrates the phenomenon of bureaucratic alienation,
particularly in organizations that emphasize power concentration or efficiency (e.g., the military). According to the

123

582

K&E model proposed in this study, when an organization

exhibits a dysfunctional disposition, decision makers are
likely to formulate unethical decisions. Based on this perspective, governments should establish institutional review
boards in administrative departments that feature the characteristics highlighted above to prevent excessive concentration of power, which ultimately leads decision makers
who pursue efficiency or performance to make unethical
decisions.
Limitations
Furthermore, according to the measurement model, the
degree of groupthink, obedience to authority, and organizational socialization mitigates the measurement problems
encountered in previous ethical studies and prevents social
desirability from influencing the survey. The questions and
statements regarding morality employed in the past easily
resulted in social desirability bias by steering the participants responses to the direction of social norms. Therefore, the test results did not reflect the actual psychological
state of the participants. Nevertheless, in this study,
investigating the effects that OF have on EDM from the
perspective of organizational alienation not only enhanced
the quality of the tests implemented, but also facilitated
exploration of the effects of organizational alienation on
decision making. Therefore, this topic may be a research
direction that future researchers can continue to explore.
However, organizational differences can only explain 55 %
of the latent variance, which suggests that despite our
attempt to resolve the traditional problems of ethical
research by using social desirability scales and methods for
measuring organizational alienation, we still could not
prevent social desirability from influencing the study
results. Although the statistical analysis results were in the
acceptable range (i.e., they were not extremely low),
compared to the explanatory power that other scales have
regarding latent variables, the explanatory power of the
measured variables for the latent variables in this study was
low. However, despite this limitation, the K&E model
proposed in this study demonstrated a good fit. If future
researchers can reduce the limitations of related assessment
tools, the degree of fit can be further enhanced.
Despite the low proportion of women in this study, after
equal numbers of men and women were randomly chosen
from the sample, no difference in sex was observed. This
indicated that the insufficient number of female participants did not influence the final result.
Suggestions for Future Research
In addition, in response to our research topic, this study
selected a civil service unit as the research subject.

123

Y.-M. Yu

Although the specific ethical situation of the civil service

sector was effective for this study, it inevitably restricts the
external validity of the research results. Consequently, we
recommend that subsequent studies examine samples of
other types or from other countries to verify the universality or generality of the proposed model. In addition, we
recommend the effective control of the possible confounding factors such as sex, culture within the organization, and organizational norms. A transnational study
reported that national and cultural differences result in
diverse moral values, thus causing variation in EDM
(Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). Subsequent studies can
investigate EDM from the cultural perspective to determine
whether EDM varies among cultures. Because of the limitations of the research methods, we only employed the
simplified model and focused on investigating the relationships between variables in this study. Models of greater
complexity can be used in future studies to verify their
universal applicability.

References
Akaah, I. P. (1992). Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 599608.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3),
317332.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of morla intensity and ethical decision
making: An empirical study. Joural of Applied Social Psychology, 31(5), 10381057.
Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in fragments: Essays in postmodern morality.
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables:
Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 419456.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Berman, B. J. (1990). Perfecting the machine: Instrumental rationality
and the bureaucratic ideologies of the state. World Futures:
Journal of General Evolution, 28(14), 141161.
Chao, G. T., O Leary-Kelly, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Garnder, P. D.
(1994). Organizational socialization: Its contents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730743.
Chia, A., & Lim, S. M. (2000). The effects of issue characteristics on
the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Business Ethics,
27(3), 255269.
Cooper, T. L. (1987). Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public
administration: A perspective for normative ethics. Public
Administration Review, 474, 320328.
Cooper, T. L. (2001). The responsible administrator: An approach to
ethics for administrative role (4th ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance
structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 147167.
Darley, J., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 8(4), 377383.

Jones and Kelleys Ethical Decision-Making Models

Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision
making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2),
83107.
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework
for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. The
Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 8796.
Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and
bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103109.
Ford, R., & Richardson, W. (1994). Ethical decision making: A
review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics,
13(3), 205221.
Fraboni, M., & Cooper, D. (1989). Further validation of three short
forms of the Marlowe-Crowne scale of social desirability. Psychological Reports, 65, 595600.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures in organizations.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 155.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing
ethics. Journal of macromarketing, 6(1), 516.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of
foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in
organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366395.
Kelley, P. C., & Elm, D. R. (2003). The effect of context on moral
intensity of ethical issues: Revising Joness Issue-Contingent
model. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 139154.
Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections
on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of
Social Issues, 29(4), 2561.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad
apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about
sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 131. doi:10.1037/a0017103.
Lo, H. H., Chen, C. H., & Chen, H. C. (2004). The relationship among
leader types, follower types and leadership effectiveness: The

583
members of military as sample. Journal National Defense
Management, 22(5), 5160.
Loe, T., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical
studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 25(3), 185204.
Lu, Z. J. (2002). The study on the relationships among elementary
school teachers professional moral reasoning ego-strength and
professional moral behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
National Ping Tung University of Education, Taiwan.
Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and
the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review,
37, 922.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view.
New York: Harper & Row.
OFallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 19962003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375413.
Paolillo, J. G. P., & Vitell, S. J. (2002). An empirical investigation of
the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral
intensity factors on ethical decision making. Journal of Business
Ethics, 35(1), 6574.
Park, W.-W. (1989). Team players and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in theory and research.
New York: Praeger.
Smith, H. R., & Carroll, A. B. (1984). Organizational ethics: A
stacked deck. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(2), 95100.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification:
An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25(2), 173180.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
person-situation interactionist model. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601627.
Wasieleski, D. M., & Hayibor, S. (2008). Breaking the rules:
Examining the facilitation effects of moral intensity characteristics on the recognition of rule violations. Journal of Business
Ethics, 78(1), 275289.
Weber, J. (1990). Managers moral reasoning: Assessing their
responses to three moral dilemmas. Human Relations, 43(7),
687702.

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.