Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pennington, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schlenker, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pennington, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schlenker, B. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 9, 1067-1081 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/01461672992512001

Accountability for Consequential Decisions: Justifying Ethical Judgments to Audiences

John Pennington

Middle Tennessee State University, jpenning{at}frank.mtsu.edu

Barry R. Schlenker

University of Florida

College students believed that they were judges in a real cheating case (in actuality, it was fictitious) under adjudication by a student honor court. Participants recommended harsher punishment after being led to believe that they would explain their decisions in a face-to-face meeting with (a) an official from the honor court, as compared to a meeting with the student or no anticipated meeting (Experiment 1), or (b) the professor who brought the charge of cheating, as compared to a meeting with the student (Experiment 2). These effects occurred even when participants wrote their decisions after learning that the anticipated meeting was canceled. The salient audience thus seemed to induce shifts in perspective or evaluative orientation during decision making, and not simply reporting shifts designed to please the audience.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Business SocietyHome page
S. L. Christensen and J. Kohls
Ethical Decision Making in Times of Organizational Crisis: A Framework for Analysis
Business Society, September 1, 2003; 42(3): 328 - 358.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
A. Quinn and B. R. Schlenker
Can Accountability Produce Independence? Goals as Determinants of the Impact of Accountability on Conformity
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 2002; 28(4): 472 - 483.
[Abstract] [PDF]