IT Influences on Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision - MISRC ...
IT Influences on Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision - MISRC ...
IT Influences on Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision - MISRC ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 1<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Shariffah Zamo<strong>on</strong> Shawn P. Curley<br />
Kuwait University University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota<br />
Runn<strong>in</strong>g Head: <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Send corresp<strong>on</strong>dence to: Shawn Curley<br />
Department of Informati<strong>on</strong> & Decisi<strong>on</strong> Sciences<br />
University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota<br />
321 19th Avenue S.<br />
M<strong>in</strong>neapolis, MN 55455 USA<br />
curley@umn.edu<br />
612.624.6546<br />
Fax: 612.626.1316<br />
Co-author <strong>in</strong>fo: Shariffah Zamo<strong>on</strong><br />
Kuwait University<br />
Department of Quantitative Methods and Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems<br />
Kuwait University<br />
P.O. Box 5486<br />
Safat, Kuwait, 13055 Kuwait<br />
szamo<strong>on</strong>@gmail.com<br />
965.2.498.4167<br />
Fax: 965.2.483.9406<br />
March 13, 2009
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 2<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
Our thanks to Mani Subramani for his comments <strong>on</strong> an earlier draft of this paper.<br />
Authors’ Biographies<br />
Shawn Curley is a Professor of Informati<strong>on</strong> and Decisi<strong>on</strong> Sciences at the Carls<strong>on</strong> School of<br />
Management, University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota. His research <strong>in</strong>terests are <strong>in</strong> behavioral decisi<strong>on</strong> theory<br />
and <strong>in</strong>clude the <strong>in</strong>fluences of features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods <strong>on</strong> ethical behavior and product<br />
bundl<strong>in</strong>g, the effects of feedback <strong>on</strong> behavior <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>atorial aucti<strong>on</strong>s, and techniques for<br />
captur<strong>in</strong>g uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<br />
Shariffah Zamo<strong>on</strong> is an Assistant Professor of Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems at Kuwait University. Her<br />
research <strong>in</strong>terests are <strong>in</strong> ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g processes, techniques of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>, and<br />
issues surround<strong>in</strong>g human-technology <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess sett<strong>in</strong>gs.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 3<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Abstract<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity is a judgment, usually implicit, as to the degree to which a decisi<strong>on</strong> is ethically<br />
charged. The novelty and fast pace of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology (<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>) developments has created<br />
ethical ambiguity <strong>in</strong> many of the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods, e.g., <strong>in</strong> the development<br />
of norms surround<strong>in</strong>g unauthorized copy<strong>in</strong>g and shar<strong>in</strong>g of software. This raises the importance<br />
of understand<strong>in</strong>g how moral <strong>in</strong>tensity arises <strong>in</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods,<br />
specifically: How do these decisi<strong>on</strong>s get recognized as be<strong>in</strong>g moral decisi<strong>on</strong>s and what<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluences this recogniti<strong>on</strong>? And, how do key factors <strong>in</strong>fluence this process? To address these<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>s, we develop the <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T). The theory uses<br />
and expands a variety of prior literature to identify important precursors and <strong>in</strong>fluences up<strong>on</strong><br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g digital goods, with the follow<strong>in</strong>g accomplishments: (1)<br />
We ref<strong>in</strong>e the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. (2) We identify features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods<br />
relevant to understand<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> an <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rich bus<strong>in</strong>ess envir<strong>on</strong>ment. (3) We review and<br />
apply relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory as a socially-grounded, relevant characterizati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
differences <strong>in</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. (4) We develop the relati<strong>on</strong>ships between moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques that expla<strong>in</strong> the argumentati<strong>on</strong> used <strong>in</strong> support of more deliberative<br />
judgments of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. Overall, this synthesis and expansi<strong>on</strong> of views creates a holistic<br />
theory for understand<strong>in</strong>g problem recogniti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology and provides a foundati<strong>on</strong> for future research <strong>in</strong> this area.<br />
Keywords: ethical judgment, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory, relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory,<br />
software piracy
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 4<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The chair at your desk is not work<strong>in</strong>g properly. It will take several weeks to<br />
replace and will be charged to your divisi<strong>on</strong>. A co-worker suggests that you<br />
switch your chair with <strong>on</strong>e of those <strong>in</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ference room without<br />
any<strong>on</strong>e else’s knowledge. Do you do so?<br />
You have just purchased data analysis software for your department to analyze the<br />
data from a recently completed customer survey. Several of your co-workers<br />
would like to evaluate the software and ask to make a copy for their use. Do you<br />
allow them to do so?<br />
Are these ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s? There is greater general agreement for the first example that rules<br />
govern<strong>in</strong>g right and wr<strong>on</strong>g, i.e., ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, are <strong>in</strong>volved. Even if there are differences <strong>in</strong><br />
resp<strong>on</strong>se, it is recognized that an ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is at work, <strong>on</strong>e that is either accepted or must<br />
be rati<strong>on</strong>alized away. For the sec<strong>on</strong>d example, the social c<strong>on</strong>sensus as to ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved is less clear. How do we expla<strong>in</strong> this variety? What <strong>in</strong>fluences an <strong>in</strong>dividual to judge<br />
whether or not a situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>volves moral pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and to what extent these pr<strong>in</strong>ciples should be<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to the decisi<strong>on</strong>? 1 How does the <strong>in</strong>volvement of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology (<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>)<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence this determ<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong>? What dist<strong>in</strong>guishes <strong>on</strong>e <strong>in</strong>dividual from another <strong>in</strong> their judgment?<br />
1 In this paper the words ethical and moral are <strong>in</strong>terchangeable.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 5<br />
These are the questi<strong>on</strong>s that are the focus of the theory developed <strong>in</strong> this paper. In this, the<br />
theory is focused <strong>on</strong> the problem formulati<strong>on</strong> phase of decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g. Although the specific<br />
term<strong>in</strong>ology varies, researchers recognize several phases <strong>in</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g (follow<strong>in</strong>g Russo &<br />
Schoemaker 2002): decisi<strong>on</strong> fram<strong>in</strong>g (formulati<strong>on</strong>—What is the problem? What k<strong>in</strong>d of<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> is this? What are the decisi<strong>on</strong> elements?), gather<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>telligence (What <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> is<br />
needed to make the decisi<strong>on</strong>?), com<strong>in</strong>g to c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s (evaluati<strong>on</strong> and choice—us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> to make the necessary judgments and the decisi<strong>on</strong>), and learn<strong>in</strong>g from experience<br />
(gather<strong>in</strong>g and apply<strong>in</strong>g feedback). Decisi<strong>on</strong> research largely has focused <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong><br />
stage of decisi<strong>on</strong>s, of evaluati<strong>on</strong> and choice. Our focus is <strong>on</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itial formulati<strong>on</strong> stage. Given<br />
the <strong>in</strong>fluence of problem fram<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s (see Kahneman & Tversky 2000 for an entry <strong>in</strong>to<br />
the extensive relevant literature), a better understand<strong>in</strong>g of how and why decisi<strong>on</strong>s are framed as<br />
they are is critical to decisi<strong>on</strong> theory. This phase is particularly essential to ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods, a po<strong>in</strong>t we turn to next.<br />
With the rapid development of technology, social norms have not been able to keep pace. For<br />
example, the unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong> of digital products occupies a gray area <strong>in</strong> terms of social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus regard<strong>in</strong>g ethical norms. Both the legal and research literature reflect this ambiguity.<br />
“While the law <strong>in</strong> most countries is c<strong>on</strong>fus<strong>in</strong>g and out of date…the legal positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> the United<br />
States, for example, has been c<strong>on</strong>fused further by the widely vary<strong>in</strong>g judgments handed down by<br />
U.S. courts” (Forester and Morris<strong>on</strong> 1994). And, the legal debate surround<strong>in</strong>g protecti<strong>on</strong> of<br />
software c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>ues (e.g., Cady, 2003; Gomulkiewicz, 2002; 2003). The importance of the legal<br />
ambiguity is particularly acute as the revamp<strong>in</strong>g of copyright law may be <strong>on</strong> the horiz<strong>on</strong><br />
(Litman, 2008). A better understand<strong>in</strong>g of whether and how <strong>in</strong>dividuals perceive the issue as<br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g ethical standards could be <strong>in</strong>formative to this activity.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 6<br />
The academic literature <strong>on</strong> digital goods’ duplicati<strong>on</strong> is also ambiguous. Some researchers have<br />
implicitly adopted the corporate view (e.g., as argued by the Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Software Alliance 2006b)<br />
treat<strong>in</strong>g all such duplicati<strong>on</strong> as immoral. In l<strong>in</strong>e with this view, they c<strong>on</strong>strue unauthorized<br />
duplicati<strong>on</strong> to be a problem (Vitell and Davis, 1990), e.g., lead<strong>in</strong>g to proposed technical<br />
soluti<strong>on</strong>s to remedy its occurrences (Herzberg and P<strong>in</strong>ter, 1987; Naumovich and Mem<strong>on</strong>, 2003;<br />
Potlapally, 2002). Other research has adopted a different view, e.g., study<strong>in</strong>g disparities <strong>in</strong><br />
copyright enforcement between groups and <strong>in</strong>dividuals (Harbaugh and Khemka, 2001), and the<br />
potential benefits to software manufacturers (C<strong>on</strong>ner and Rumelt, 1991; Jiang and Sarkar, 2003).<br />
Even further, Logsd<strong>on</strong>, Thomps<strong>on</strong> and Reid (1994), and Strikwerda and Ross (1992) suggest that<br />
unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong> is not even viewed as an ethical issue by some. Individuals may<br />
approach duplicati<strong>on</strong> as a preference choice, with no pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, norms, or values be<strong>in</strong>g brought<br />
to bear <strong>on</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong> (Glass and Wood, 1996). The ambiguity aris<strong>in</strong>g from this lack of social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus is the primary motivati<strong>on</strong> for our theoretical account.<br />
The importance is further highlighted by studies <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g decisi<strong>on</strong>s with clear ethical c<strong>on</strong>tent.<br />
When decisi<strong>on</strong>s are judged to be str<strong>on</strong>gly ethical <strong>in</strong> nature (affect<strong>in</strong>g others and requir<strong>in</strong>g<br />
c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> of ethical norms, pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, and values), the applicati<strong>on</strong> of pr<strong>in</strong>ciples can trump<br />
other c<strong>on</strong>cerns. Where sacred values are <strong>in</strong>volved, standard compensatory procedures may not<br />
be applied at all (e.g., Bar<strong>on</strong> & Leshner, 2000; Tetlock 2003; Tetlock et al. 2000). The degree<br />
to which ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are <strong>in</strong> force is a judgment that guides the subsequent evaluati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
choice processes by which a moral <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is formed.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 7<br />
To c<strong>on</strong>cretely frame the issue, c<strong>on</strong>sider the general ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> framework illustrated by<br />
Figure 1. <strong>Ethical</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g, as opposed to decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g more generally, “<strong>in</strong>volves<br />
moral justificati<strong>on</strong> of the decisi<strong>on</strong>” (M<strong>in</strong>er and Petocz 2003, p. 12). Although a crisp def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong><br />
may not be available, from a theoretical perspective there are two generally agreed c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
that identify a decisi<strong>on</strong> as hav<strong>in</strong>g an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent. First is that <strong>in</strong> ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
an <strong>in</strong>dividual br<strong>in</strong>gs forth norms and pr<strong>in</strong>ciples to assess the degree of right or wr<strong>on</strong>g as a guide<br />
to acti<strong>on</strong> (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969). These norms are socially c<strong>on</strong>structed (e.g., Berger and<br />
Luckmann 1967), lead<strong>in</strong>g to the sec<strong>on</strong>d feature of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>Ethical</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>s are<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpers<strong>on</strong>al, hav<strong>in</strong>g a social aspect. “<strong>Moral</strong>ity is not c<strong>on</strong>structed <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d of any <strong>on</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual—as <strong>in</strong>dividual cognitive operati<strong>on</strong>—but negotiated am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dividuals, deliberated,<br />
and arrived at through agreement” (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau and Thoma 1999, p. 301).<br />
Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g at the left side of the figure, <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>on</strong> ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g, both<br />
reviews (e.g., Loe, Ferrell & Mansfield 2000) and theoretical frameworks (e.g., Hunt and Vitell<br />
1986; 1993) highlight the dual comp<strong>on</strong>ents of the <strong>in</strong>dividual decisi<strong>on</strong>-maker (who br<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples to bear <strong>on</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong> situati<strong>on</strong> and understands the implicati<strong>on</strong> of the decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong><br />
others) and the problem situati<strong>on</strong> (that c<strong>on</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s cues that trigger the decisi<strong>on</strong>-maker to recognize<br />
an ethical issue).<br />
<strong>Ethical</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g will not be activated unless an <strong>in</strong>dividual recognizes the moral<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ent of the situati<strong>on</strong>. This judgment that a decisi<strong>on</strong> is an ethical <strong>on</strong>e may be made<br />
implicitly or explicitly. This judgment governs whether and to what extent ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples will<br />
be <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to the decisi<strong>on</strong> process. In Figure 1 and <strong>in</strong> the bus<strong>in</strong>ess ethics literature, the<br />
categorizati<strong>on</strong> of a situati<strong>on</strong> as requir<strong>in</strong>g ethical reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g or not is captured by the c<strong>on</strong>struct of
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 8<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity is a measure of severity for a given situati<strong>on</strong> that directs an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual how to approach the decisi<strong>on</strong> process (J<strong>on</strong>es 1991). When moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is high<br />
enough, an <strong>in</strong>dividual activates ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g processes and br<strong>in</strong>gs ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples to<br />
bear <strong>on</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>. The higher is the moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, the higher the <strong>in</strong>fluence of these<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples up<strong>on</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong>. When moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is low, an <strong>in</strong>dividual will not activate ethical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g processes (i.e., the entire framework <strong>in</strong> Figure 1 is <strong>in</strong>applicable), <strong>in</strong>stead<br />
decid<strong>in</strong>g based up<strong>on</strong> other means, e.g., ec<strong>on</strong>omic rati<strong>on</strong>ality processes. In this way, moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity is characterized <strong>in</strong> the figure as a key moderator of whether and to what extent ethical<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are brought to bear.<br />
Note that this does not imply that a decisi<strong>on</strong> maker must first be highlighted to the fact that this<br />
may be a moral decisi<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>sequently judge that it is or is not. The assessment often<br />
happens implicitly—no significant moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is triggered, and so the decisi<strong>on</strong> maker is not<br />
alerted that the decisi<strong>on</strong> is an ethical <strong>on</strong>e. Both situati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>in</strong>dividual difference factors are<br />
expected to apply to this implicit judgment, as well as to when the judgment is explicit. For<br />
ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is the key comp<strong>on</strong>ent of the problem formulati<strong>on</strong> process,<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g whether this is an ethical type of decisi<strong>on</strong> or not. If an ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>, then<br />
ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are sought as part of the sec<strong>on</strong>d, <strong>in</strong>telligence-gather<strong>in</strong>g phase of decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
mak<strong>in</strong>g. As such, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity provides a central c<strong>on</strong>struct for the purposes of this review; its<br />
discussi<strong>on</strong> will be detailed <strong>in</strong> the next secti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
The third phase of decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g is com<strong>in</strong>g to c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s. C<strong>on</strong>sistent with the theory of<br />
reas<strong>on</strong>ed acti<strong>on</strong> (Fishbe<strong>in</strong> and Ajzen 1975), the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and<br />
related theories, behavior is framed <strong>in</strong> Figure 1 as preceded by an <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> that arises as part of a
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 9<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> process. For an ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>, this <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is characterized as a moral <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> by<br />
virtue of <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> about ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong>to the decisi<strong>on</strong> process. This moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is then an <strong>in</strong>put <strong>in</strong>to engag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the decided acti<strong>on</strong> (behavior), and the resultant<br />
outcomes. The f<strong>in</strong>al phase of the decisi<strong>on</strong>, of learn<strong>in</strong>g from experience, is captured by the<br />
feedback loop result<strong>in</strong>g from that acti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
*** Figure 1 about here. ***<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sistently with decisi<strong>on</strong> research <strong>in</strong> general, researchers have focused <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
phase of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g whereby a moral <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is formed (e.g., Peace, Galletta and<br />
Th<strong>on</strong>g, 2003). Our goal is to develop a theoretical framework for the earlier, critical stage of<br />
problem formulati<strong>on</strong>, specifically the judgment that ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are available and relevant,<br />
as highlighted <strong>in</strong> Figure 1 and captured <strong>in</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. Return<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
examples at the start of the paper, it is clear <strong>in</strong> each case that a decisi<strong>on</strong> is <strong>in</strong>volved. But, is it an<br />
ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>? And, how does <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>fluence the judgment of whether a decisi<strong>on</strong> is ethically<br />
charged?<br />
As noted, the questi<strong>on</strong> of how <strong>on</strong>e determ<strong>in</strong>es if a decisi<strong>on</strong> is an ethical <strong>on</strong>e or not is captured via<br />
a judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. This allows us to describe the primary research questi<strong>on</strong>s as:<br />
1. What is moral <strong>in</strong>tensity? Understand<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is understand<strong>in</strong>g the judgment of<br />
a decisi<strong>on</strong> as hav<strong>in</strong>g an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent. We provide a review of the existent literature<br />
<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and use it to develop the best current understand<strong>in</strong>g of this c<strong>on</strong>struct.<br />
2. What are important aspects of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as situati<strong>on</strong>al factors that <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity? It is understood that the recogniti<strong>on</strong> of a problem as hav<strong>in</strong>g an ethical<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ent depends up<strong>on</strong> both situati<strong>on</strong>al factors and characteristics of the decisi<strong>on</strong>
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 10<br />
maker. The features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods relevant to understand<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> an<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rich bus<strong>in</strong>ess envir<strong>on</strong>ment are analyzed.<br />
3. What <strong>in</strong>dividual differences can be usefully identified? In additi<strong>on</strong> to <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a situati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> the judgment of ethical relevance, <strong>in</strong>dividuals differ <strong>in</strong> their judgments. For<br />
some, the software example at the start of the paper raises ethical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s, for<br />
others it does not. We <strong>in</strong>corporate relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory <strong>in</strong>to our account as a socially-<br />
grounded theory captur<strong>in</strong>g important <strong>in</strong>dividual differences that we argue as relevant to<br />
the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. These are seen as play<strong>in</strong>g a particularly str<strong>on</strong>g role <strong>in</strong><br />
the implicit assessment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity: Our social view of the world <strong>in</strong>fluences<br />
whether ethical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s even arise as possibilities.<br />
4. What rati<strong>on</strong>ales support the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity? Although implicit judgments of<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity can apply, judgments also often <strong>in</strong>volve deliberati<strong>on</strong>, apply<strong>in</strong>g reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
from which the judgment derives. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Smith, Curley and Bens<strong>on</strong> (1991),<br />
judgment and reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g are acknowledged as two different methods by which humans<br />
arrive at c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s. Reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g uses arguments, grounded <strong>in</strong> our knowledge and<br />
beliefs, to derive c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s from data. (Brockriede and Ehn<strong>in</strong>ger, 1960; Toulm<strong>in</strong>,<br />
1958). Judgment is a scal<strong>in</strong>g activity <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g comparis<strong>on</strong>s, weigh<strong>in</strong>g, and/or<br />
c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong>, measur<strong>in</strong>g al<strong>on</strong>g some dimensi<strong>on</strong>. Whereas reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is an explicit<br />
process, <strong>on</strong>e can expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g, judgment is relatively mute. Because of their<br />
complementary uses, they can work <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cert as deliberative judgment. Reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
applies our knowledge and beliefs to draw c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s and judgment assesses these<br />
c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s, e.g., <strong>in</strong> a determ<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. To better understand deliberative<br />
judgments of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, an understand<strong>in</strong>g of the supportive reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is necessary.<br />
In this light, we expand the theory of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity by c<strong>on</strong>nect<strong>in</strong>g it to the theory of
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 11<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s, a socially-grounded theory of rati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>s applied <strong>in</strong> ethical<br />
situati<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Together, the elements brought to bear <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g these questi<strong>on</strong>s come together <strong>in</strong> a novel<br />
theory, <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T).<br />
Hav<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>ed the scope of the paper, we outl<strong>in</strong>e its organizati<strong>on</strong>. The next secti<strong>on</strong> provides a<br />
review of the theoretical and empirical research c<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, the paper’s central<br />
c<strong>on</strong>struct. It also elaborates the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods that are <strong>in</strong>strumental to the<br />
judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The review provides the background from which we identify the<br />
theory’s limitati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the present c<strong>on</strong>text, of judg<strong>in</strong>g whether a decisi<strong>on</strong> is ethically charged <strong>in</strong><br />
situati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g digital goods. We then successively develop the theory to address these<br />
limitati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the subsequent secti<strong>on</strong>s, expand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> the problem formulati<strong>on</strong> comp<strong>on</strong>ent of the<br />
framework <strong>in</strong> Figure 1. First, we c<strong>on</strong>nect the features of digital goods to moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
explicit what has been at most implicit before. Relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory is then described as a<br />
theory of the <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> a social sett<strong>in</strong>g, and c<strong>on</strong>nected to the theory of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity as a<br />
grounded account of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences. Then, the deliberative aspects of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity are<br />
developed, us<strong>in</strong>g neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as a basis. The theory is described, expanded, and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>nected to moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. We c<strong>on</strong>clude with a discussi<strong>on</strong> of the implicati<strong>on</strong>s of the theory<br />
and provide suggesti<strong>on</strong>s for future research.<br />
BACKGROUND: MORAL INTENS<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>Y AND <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Our first research questi<strong>on</strong> of this paper asks: What is moral <strong>in</strong>tensity? Before an <strong>in</strong>dividual will<br />
activate ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g, he/she must acknowledge that the situati<strong>on</strong> calls for an ethical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and social norms (M<strong>in</strong>er and Petocz 2003), otherwise the
decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g process may be governed by other pr<strong>in</strong>ciples (for example ec<strong>on</strong>omic<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 12<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples). Further al<strong>on</strong>g the same scale, the decisi<strong>on</strong> maker will assess the weight of these<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong>, if applied. The judgment of the degree of moral imperative with<strong>in</strong> a<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> is termed its moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity is an outcome of the problem formulati<strong>on</strong><br />
phase, as highlighted <strong>in</strong> Figure 1 and our focus here. The open<strong>in</strong>g situati<strong>on</strong>s of the paper po<strong>in</strong>t to<br />
potential differences <strong>in</strong> this judgment.. For example: the chair situati<strong>on</strong> generally calls to m<strong>in</strong>d<br />
social norms that prohibit tak<strong>in</strong>g others’ property without permissi<strong>on</strong>. Reacti<strong>on</strong>s to the situati<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g software are less c<strong>on</strong>sistent. Social norms are not as def<strong>in</strong>ite when it comes to<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods, and it may not even come to m<strong>in</strong>d that any ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is relevant. In<br />
particular, this leads to our questi<strong>on</strong>: How does <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>fluence whether an <strong>in</strong>dividual judges a<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> as hav<strong>in</strong>g an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent, as captured by the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s judgment, implicit or<br />
explicit, of the moral <strong>in</strong>tensity of the situati<strong>on</strong>? The background for this questi<strong>on</strong> draws up<strong>on</strong> the<br />
literature <strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and <strong>on</strong> features of digital goods that are afforded by <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and can<br />
potentially <strong>in</strong>fluence the judgment.<br />
In this secti<strong>on</strong> we beg<strong>in</strong> by def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, and critically review<strong>in</strong>g the theory of, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. Due<br />
to the lack of social c<strong>on</strong>sensus <strong>in</strong> many decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g digital goods, and the resultant<br />
ambiguity as to whether ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples apply, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is an important c<strong>on</strong>struct for<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s with respect to <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods. Follow<strong>in</strong>g this, we identify<br />
features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as developed <strong>in</strong> the literature that likely bear up<strong>on</strong> the judgment of<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. With these two comp<strong>on</strong>ents <strong>in</strong> place, we identify what is needed to develop a<br />
theory surround<strong>in</strong>g the questi<strong>on</strong> of how <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>fluences moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, and then beg<strong>in</strong> to develop<br />
such a theory.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 13<br />
Dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
The most <strong>in</strong>fluential theory of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is that of J<strong>on</strong>es (1991) which provides a useful<br />
start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t. He def<strong>in</strong>ed moral <strong>in</strong>tensity with respect to a potential acti<strong>on</strong> with<strong>in</strong> a situati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
as a multidimensi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>struct comprised of six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s, each afford<strong>in</strong>g degrees. The six<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s posited by J<strong>on</strong>es were:<br />
1. Proximity: the nearness (social, cultural, psychological, or physical) that the decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
maker has to those receiv<strong>in</strong>g the c<strong>on</strong>sequences;<br />
2. C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect: the <strong>in</strong>verse of the number of people affected by an acti<strong>on</strong> of a<br />
given magnitude;<br />
3. Magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences: the overall total c<strong>on</strong>sequences borne by those impacted by<br />
the acti<strong>on</strong>;<br />
4. Probability of effect: the jo<strong>in</strong>t probability that the acti<strong>on</strong> will take place and that the<br />
acti<strong>on</strong> will cause the predicted c<strong>on</strong>sequences;<br />
5. Temporal immediacy: the length of time between the acti<strong>on</strong> and the realizati<strong>on</strong> of the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences;<br />
6. Social c<strong>on</strong>sensus: the degree of social agreement as to whether the acti<strong>on</strong> is right or<br />
wr<strong>on</strong>g.<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong>forms an <strong>in</strong>dividual of how to approach the situati<strong>on</strong> and takes outcomes of the<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>to account through its dimensi<strong>on</strong>s. When moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is high, a situati<strong>on</strong> is<br />
classified as <strong>on</strong>e requir<strong>in</strong>g ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g. Return<strong>in</strong>g to our open<strong>in</strong>g examples: the chair<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> has a higher moral <strong>in</strong>tensity (social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, temporal immediacy, and proximity are<br />
arguably higher than <strong>in</strong> the software situati<strong>on</strong>). We now review the research <strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity;<br />
<strong>in</strong> so do<strong>in</strong>g, the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is brought <strong>in</strong>to sharper focus.<br />
In the Appendix, we have summarized the exist<strong>in</strong>g research by article. Overall, the research has<br />
shown that moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, as c<strong>on</strong>ceptualized by J<strong>on</strong>es, significantly affects ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-<br />
mak<strong>in</strong>g with the follow<strong>in</strong>g clarificati<strong>on</strong>s:<br />
1) J<strong>on</strong>es’s c<strong>on</strong>ceptualizati<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity has rarely been empirically validated <strong>on</strong> all<br />
six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s (e.g., Kelley and Elm 2003; Marshall and Dewe 1997; Paolillo and Vitell
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 14<br />
2002). In fact, some researchers have suggested that six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s may create<br />
<strong>in</strong>terference when try<strong>in</strong>g to measure the c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity because what affects<br />
<strong>on</strong>e dimensi<strong>on</strong> positively may affect another negatively (Sama and Shoaf 2002). It also<br />
makes <strong>in</strong>tuitive sense that six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s would be cognitively cumbersome to track<br />
when assess<strong>in</strong>g a situati<strong>on</strong>, because human be<strong>in</strong>gs use shortcuts and use decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>puts<br />
spar<strong>in</strong>gly (Sim<strong>on</strong> 1996). This leads to the sec<strong>on</strong>d po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />
2) J<strong>on</strong>es did not articulate how the various dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity were <strong>in</strong>terrelated,<br />
nor did he specify how to measure the c<strong>on</strong>struct. In that ve<strong>in</strong>, Valent<strong>in</strong>e and Silver (2001)<br />
have noted that there is no s<strong>in</strong>gle measure for all dimensi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Turn<strong>in</strong>g to this po<strong>in</strong>t, follow<strong>in</strong>g J<strong>on</strong>es and c<strong>on</strong>sistent with the research, we can identify two<br />
complementary steps that are relevant to the measurement of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The first is<br />
developed and related to moral <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> with<strong>in</strong> Hunt and Vitell’s (1986, 1993; Th<strong>on</strong>g and Yap<br />
1998) theory of bus<strong>in</strong>ess ethics that preceded J<strong>on</strong>es’s development. They dist<strong>in</strong>guished between<br />
teleological and de<strong>on</strong>tological approaches to ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s, a dist<strong>in</strong>cti<strong>on</strong> that has a l<strong>on</strong>g<br />
history <strong>in</strong> the philosophy of ethics. Us<strong>in</strong>g a teleological approach to ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s, morality<br />
is judged based <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sequences; from a de<strong>on</strong>tological approach, morality is judged based <strong>on</strong><br />
acti<strong>on</strong>s. This can be viewed as an ends (teleology) versus means (de<strong>on</strong>tology) dist<strong>in</strong>cti<strong>on</strong>. If <strong>on</strong>e<br />
is assess<strong>in</strong>g whether a decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>volves ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, it is useful to c<strong>on</strong>sider the approach or<br />
approaches to morality that the <strong>in</strong>dividual is c<strong>on</strong>sider<strong>in</strong>g. We develop this further with<strong>in</strong> our<br />
discussi<strong>on</strong> of the next major development toward measur<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
To address the ambiguous multidimensi<strong>on</strong>ality of J<strong>on</strong>es’s framework as noted above, McMah<strong>on</strong><br />
and Harvey (2006) executed a factor analysis of measures of the 6 posited dimensi<strong>on</strong>s. Based <strong>on</strong>
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 15<br />
their analysis, J<strong>on</strong>es’s orig<strong>in</strong>al moral <strong>in</strong>tensity c<strong>on</strong>struct was found to be reducible to a smaller<br />
number of dist<strong>in</strong>ct c<strong>on</strong>structs. Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with the most questi<strong>on</strong>able, social impact <strong>in</strong>corporates<br />
proximity and perhaps c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect. McMah<strong>on</strong> and Harvey did not f<strong>in</strong>d the items<br />
designed to measure c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect to be helpful. And, generally, these two dimensi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
have been the least studied (Appendix); c<strong>on</strong>sequently, the <strong>in</strong>fluence of either has not been clearly<br />
validated <strong>in</strong> any study. They are grouped together here for discussi<strong>on</strong> purposes as a tentative<br />
c<strong>on</strong>struct captur<strong>in</strong>g judged social impact.<br />
The next three dimensi<strong>on</strong>s (magnitude, probability, and immediacy) were found by McMah<strong>on</strong><br />
and Harvey to c<strong>on</strong>nect <strong>in</strong>to a s<strong>in</strong>gle c<strong>on</strong>struct of the acuteness or severity of the moral questi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
It is this factor that is usefully ref<strong>in</strong>ed as hav<strong>in</strong>g teleological (outcome-based) and de<strong>on</strong>tological<br />
(acti<strong>on</strong>/cause-based) aspects. J<strong>on</strong>es’s factors of Magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences and of Probability<br />
of effect most clearly c<strong>on</strong>vey the outcome-based, teleological aspect. If the situati<strong>on</strong> is not<br />
significant <strong>in</strong> its result, then its moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is zero. For example, us<strong>in</strong>g a company stapler to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>nect pers<strong>on</strong>al documents is a situati<strong>on</strong> that may <strong>in</strong>volve ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, because the use of<br />
company resources for pers<strong>on</strong>al bus<strong>in</strong>ess can be c<strong>on</strong>strued as steal<strong>in</strong>g. However, it is not likely<br />
to be characterized as hav<strong>in</strong>g any moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, because the outcome of us<strong>in</strong>g the stapler is not<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidered significant.<br />
Although it is miss<strong>in</strong>g from J<strong>on</strong>es’s account, the acti<strong>on</strong>-based, de<strong>on</strong>tological approach provides a<br />
potentially separable aspect of severity. The de<strong>on</strong>tological view of morality c<strong>on</strong>nects to the<br />
judged causality l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g behavior to effects, i.e., the means by which the effects obta<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Intenti<strong>on</strong>ality, the judged causality used where human acti<strong>on</strong> is present, captures this aspect.<br />
Immediacy, which is also a causal cue (cf. E<strong>in</strong>horn and Hogarth 1986), could be framed to cover
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 16<br />
de<strong>on</strong>tological c<strong>on</strong>cerns, as well, but as operati<strong>on</strong>alized has not d<strong>on</strong>e so. The item measures for<br />
immediacy used by McMah<strong>on</strong> and Harvey (2006), taken from others, were: (a) The decisi<strong>on</strong> will<br />
not cause any harm <strong>in</strong> the immediate future; and (b) the negative effects (if any) of the decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
will be felt very quickly. Each of these highlights the c<strong>on</strong>sequences, as prescribed by the<br />
teleological approach. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, the de<strong>on</strong>tological aspect of severity is <strong>on</strong>e area <strong>in</strong> which<br />
J<strong>on</strong>es’s framework needs to be enriched.<br />
The last dimensi<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is social c<strong>on</strong>sensus. Although the most studied, it is<br />
somewhat problematic compared to the others. There is a def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>al circularity to social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus as a factor: Social c<strong>on</strong>sensus arises from <strong>in</strong>dividuals decid<strong>in</strong>g that moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is<br />
high and also it is proposed as a c<strong>on</strong>tributor to assess<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. However, from an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual’s standpo<strong>in</strong>t, we use others as a guide <strong>in</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g morality ourselves. If the situati<strong>on</strong><br />
does not <strong>in</strong>volve any ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciple recognized by c<strong>on</strong>sensus, then its moral <strong>in</strong>tensity will be<br />
zero. For example, the decisi<strong>on</strong> to buy enterprise resource plann<strong>in</strong>g system software to <strong>in</strong>tegrate<br />
all areas of operati<strong>on</strong>s is a serious situati<strong>on</strong>, but does not <strong>in</strong>volve ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples. As such, the<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> is not characterized as hav<strong>in</strong>g any moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
Thus, four aspects are identified as potentially compris<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>dividual’s judgment of moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity. The dimensi<strong>on</strong>al def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s are summarized <strong>in</strong> the first two columns of Table 1:<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity captures the sum total of (a) the social impact of potential acti<strong>on</strong>s (possibly), (b)<br />
the severity of outcomes (teleological), (c) the severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s (de<strong>on</strong>tological), and (d) the<br />
degree of social c<strong>on</strong>sensus surround<strong>in</strong>g the ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples that are potentially <strong>in</strong>volved.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 17<br />
Hav<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>ed moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and the four aspects that moral <strong>in</strong>tensity captures, we move <strong>on</strong> to<br />
the next research questi<strong>on</strong>: How does <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>fluence the judgment of whether a decisi<strong>on</strong> is<br />
ethically charged? In the next secti<strong>on</strong>, we discuss features of digital goods that are afforded by<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and can potentially <strong>in</strong>fluence the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
Features of Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods<br />
Study<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> falls with<strong>in</strong> a stand<strong>in</strong>g traditi<strong>on</strong> of study<strong>in</strong>g envir<strong>on</strong>mental factors as <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g social (e.g., Bommer, Gratto, and Tuttle 1987; Husted, Dozier,<br />
McMah<strong>on</strong>, and Kattan 1996), cultural (e.g., Clark and Daws<strong>on</strong> 1996; Davis<strong>on</strong>, Mart<strong>in</strong>s<strong>on</strong>s, Lo<br />
and Kam, 2006), ec<strong>on</strong>omic (e.g., Harr<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong> 1989), legal (e.g., Bommer, Gratto, and Tuttle<br />
1987), professi<strong>on</strong>al (e.g., Bommer, Gratto, and Tuttle 1987; Hunt and Vitell 1993), and <strong>in</strong>dustrial<br />
factors (e.g., Hunt and Vitell 1986; 1993). Informati<strong>on</strong> technology applies a set of digital goods,<br />
i.e., products and services that centrally utilize <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> encodable as a stream of bits<br />
(Shapiro and Varian 1999) that make use of organized data to help a bus<strong>in</strong>ess achieve its goals.<br />
Five characteristics of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods that have been identified <strong>in</strong> the literature stand out as<br />
potential <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>on</strong> the recogniti<strong>on</strong> of a situati<strong>on</strong> as hav<strong>in</strong>g a moral comp<strong>on</strong>ent. The features<br />
are identified <strong>in</strong> this secti<strong>on</strong>. They are expressed here as fully operative, though we recognize<br />
that there is variability across goods and/or situati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> these features. To the degree that the<br />
feature holds <strong>in</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>, its effect will be greater or less.<br />
1) Cost Structure. The costs of produc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods are largely or fully associated<br />
with the sunk costs of develop<strong>in</strong>g the master copy (Shapiro and Varian 1999); later reproducti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
can be made at little or zero cost (e.g., the m<strong>in</strong>imal cost of a blank CD). In additi<strong>on</strong> to lower<br />
producti<strong>on</strong> costs, the Internet affords negligible storage and distributi<strong>on</strong> costs <strong>in</strong> the<br />
dissem<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> products and services.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 18<br />
2) Reproducti<strong>on</strong>. Informati<strong>on</strong> goods are easily reproduced, with no degradati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
quality of the product or service. Informati<strong>on</strong> goods can exist and be fully operati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong> two or<br />
more places at <strong>on</strong>e time (Th<strong>on</strong>g and Yap 1998). There is no perceived loss to the orig<strong>in</strong>al owner<br />
and there is no perceived difference between the copier’s good and the orig<strong>in</strong>al.<br />
3) Distance. The distributi<strong>on</strong> mechanism may distance <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> users from the<br />
producers (e.g., Moor 1995; Sama and Shoaf 2002; Sproull and Kielsler 1991). Where<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology is the medium for communicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> the distributi<strong>on</strong> process, there is a<br />
disassociati<strong>on</strong> between the parties <strong>in</strong>volved due to the limited social cues (facial expressi<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
voice, and t<strong>on</strong>e) exchanged (e.g., Denis and Kenny 1998). This dissociati<strong>on</strong> creates a gulf<br />
between causal acti<strong>on</strong>s and their effects (Bandura 1990), as well as makes the parties more<br />
abstract to each other, reduc<strong>in</strong>g the perceived social impacts of acti<strong>on</strong>s (Allen 1999).<br />
4) Intangibility. Digital <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods need not have any physical form. The medium<br />
of transferr<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> might be tangible (e.g., a disk); but need not be (e.g., a software<br />
download over the Internet).<br />
5) Protecti<strong>on</strong>. Although not syn<strong>on</strong>ymous, there is generally a degree of corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<br />
between ethical and legal standards. For example, laws can be adopted as ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
and/or reflect the accepted social norms of a community. However, the legal perspective is<br />
unclear with respect to <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods (Forester and Morris<strong>on</strong> 1994; Horovitz 1985). Despite<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g classified as a crim<strong>in</strong>al act by the No Internet Theft (NET) Act <strong>in</strong> 1997, the Digital<br />
Millennium Copyright Act <strong>in</strong> 1998, and the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages<br />
Improvement Act <strong>in</strong> 1999 (e.g., Moores and Chang 2006), the unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong> of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods does not carry a clear crim<strong>in</strong>al stigma and the legal status surround<strong>in</strong>g<br />
software protecti<strong>on</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>s unsettled (e.g., Cady 2003; Gomulkiewicz 2002; 2003).<br />
Furthermore, detecti<strong>on</strong> of cases is problematic, translat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to low expectati<strong>on</strong>s of detecti<strong>on</strong> for
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 19<br />
reproducti<strong>on</strong> violati<strong>on</strong> and lack of vigorous prosecuti<strong>on</strong>. These realities lead to a percepti<strong>on</strong> of<br />
limited protecti<strong>on</strong> associated with digital goods.<br />
In this secti<strong>on</strong> we have def<strong>in</strong>ed the central c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and reviewed the<br />
literature, del<strong>in</strong>eat<strong>in</strong>g the four dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity that arise from the exist<strong>in</strong>g literature<br />
We have also summarized the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods that have been identified <strong>in</strong> the<br />
literature and that are identified as potentially <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The result<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s and features are summarized <strong>in</strong> the rows and columns, respectively, of Table 1.<br />
However, to date there is no literature l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g these features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods to the four<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, fill<strong>in</strong>g out the body of Table 1. This is <strong>on</strong>e of several needs for<br />
further develop<strong>in</strong>g the theory describ<strong>in</strong>g the role of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, as outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the next<br />
secti<strong>on</strong>. Follow<strong>in</strong>g this, we develop a theory that addresses the identified needs.<br />
*** Table 1 about here. ***<br />
Theoretical Needs<br />
How does <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>fluence whether an <strong>in</strong>dividual judges a situati<strong>on</strong> as hav<strong>in</strong>g an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent?<br />
There are three primary limitati<strong>on</strong>s to our understand<strong>in</strong>g of this questi<strong>on</strong> that our theory will<br />
address. First is the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> between the two theoretical backgrounds just discussed. The<br />
c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity provides precisi<strong>on</strong> to the questi<strong>on</strong> by identify<strong>in</strong>g what it means to<br />
recognize a problem as ethically charged. The descriptive representati<strong>on</strong> of digital goods<br />
provides an understand<strong>in</strong>g of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a situati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>put to the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
However, s<strong>in</strong>ce these two literatures have developed <strong>in</strong>dependently, there is no account<br />
explor<strong>in</strong>g their c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>, theoriz<strong>in</strong>g how the technology factors might <strong>in</strong>fluence the<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 20<br />
Sec<strong>on</strong>d is the role of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences. Rec<strong>on</strong>sider the scenarios at the start of the paper. In<br />
the chair scenario, even if people may differ as to the f<strong>in</strong>al course of acti<strong>on</strong>, there is likely to be<br />
general agreement that there is an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent to the decisi<strong>on</strong>. In c<strong>on</strong>trast, with the<br />
software scenario there is less c<strong>on</strong>sensus regard<strong>in</strong>g the ethical stand<strong>in</strong>g of the decisi<strong>on</strong>. The<br />
theory of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity developed as a situati<strong>on</strong>al and decisi<strong>on</strong>al account. It does not<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporate <strong>in</strong>dividual differences <strong>in</strong>to the theory; but, clearly they exist, particularly where <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> is<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved. One comm<strong>on</strong> approach to the study of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences is to use comm<strong>on</strong><br />
demographic variables as potential factors, e.g., gender, age, and <strong>in</strong>come. Such <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
are relatively easy to do and can be useful; however, they have been l<strong>on</strong>g criticized as generally<br />
lack<strong>in</strong>g a theoretical base (e.g., with respect to gender: Belle, 1985; Deaux, 1984). Here, we<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporate a theory-driven approach to <strong>in</strong>dividual differences—relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory—<br />
motivated by the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g a social perspective.<br />
The third limitati<strong>on</strong> arises from a recogniti<strong>on</strong> that ethical judgment can arise implicitly or with<br />
accompany<strong>in</strong>g reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a more deliberative process (Krebs 2008). This view is c<strong>on</strong>sistent<br />
with a dist<strong>in</strong>cti<strong>on</strong> that has been made <strong>in</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong> literature generally (cf. Chaiken and Trope<br />
1999; Kahneman and Frederick 2002; Stanovich and West 2000). An implicit judgment of moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity can arise effortlessly from automatic processes; alternatively, the judgment can arise<br />
from accompany<strong>in</strong>g reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g processes carried out <strong>in</strong> an effortful and c<strong>on</strong>scious manner<br />
(Kahneman 2003). For our theory to accommodate the deliberative judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity,<br />
an account of the relevant reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is needed. Such reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>itely has a c<strong>on</strong>text-specific<br />
aspect; the particular arguments that are brought to bear are bound to have situati<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>tent.<br />
However, a general approach to characteriz<strong>in</strong>g the nature of the arguments is suggested by
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 21<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory, a theory of rati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>s as employed <strong>in</strong> ethical situati<strong>on</strong>s. In order to<br />
apply the theory when <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> is <strong>in</strong>volved, an expansi<strong>on</strong> of the theory will be required; however, as a<br />
socially grounded theory of reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g, it provides a str<strong>on</strong>g basis for <strong>in</strong>corporati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>to our<br />
theoretical account. To <strong>in</strong>tegrate and account for all of these <strong>in</strong>terrelated theories and to meet all<br />
of these theoretical needs, we propose <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T).<br />
MORAL INTENS<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>Y W<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>H TECHNOLOGY THEORY (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T)<br />
In this secti<strong>on</strong>, we c<strong>on</strong>struct the <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T), as illustrated<br />
by Figure 2. The goal of the theory is to expla<strong>in</strong> the judgment as to whether and to what degree a<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> has an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent directed at situati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and digital goods. Central<br />
to the theory is the multidimensi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity (represented by the baseball<br />
mitt <strong>in</strong> Figure 2). Situati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>in</strong>dividual difference elements are shown as the <strong>in</strong>puts to the<br />
judgment. The features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods are shown as the baseballs—cost structure,<br />
reproducti<strong>on</strong>, distance, <strong>in</strong>tangibility, and protecti<strong>on</strong>—are situati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>puts to the judgment. To<br />
these are added a socially-grounded theory of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences (relati<strong>on</strong>al models<br />
represented as the players), and an expanded versi<strong>on</strong> of a theory of social justificati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
(neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as the backstop) to accommodate deliberative judgment, the back<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
judgment with reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g. This secti<strong>on</strong> builds each of these <strong>in</strong>to the theory, <strong>in</strong> turn. We use<br />
software duplicati<strong>on</strong> as a c<strong>on</strong>crete test example while discuss<strong>in</strong>g the theory s<strong>in</strong>ce this acti<strong>on</strong><br />
varies <strong>in</strong> severity, and the social c<strong>on</strong>sensus (i.e., accepted norms/pr<strong>in</strong>ciples) regard<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
practice is open to debate. Unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong> is viewed as hav<strong>in</strong>g advantages (e.g.,<br />
Harbaugh and Khemka 2001; Jiang and Sarkar 2003; Slive and Bernhardt 1998) as well as<br />
disadvantages (e.g., Herzberg and P<strong>in</strong>ter 1987; Naumovich and Mem<strong>on</strong> 2003; Vitell and Davis<br />
1990). The exist<strong>in</strong>g academic literature <strong>in</strong> its present form is a set of useful but fragmented
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 22<br />
theories, which do not accurately describe the entire process whereby the recogniti<strong>on</strong> of the<br />
moral comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> a decisi<strong>on</strong> is formed. M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T br<strong>in</strong>gs the different perspectives together and<br />
expands them to c<strong>on</strong>struct a unified theory.<br />
*** Figure 2 about here. ***<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> for Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods<br />
Features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods comprise situati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>puts <strong>in</strong>to the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
The special features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as they affect the dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity are<br />
summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 1. (The moderat<strong>in</strong>g relati<strong>on</strong>ships <strong>in</strong> brackets [] are discussed <strong>in</strong> a later<br />
secti<strong>on</strong>.) They are discussed here organized by the dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity as identified <strong>in</strong><br />
the last secti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Social C<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Informati<strong>on</strong> goods often have m<strong>in</strong>imal or no marg<strong>in</strong>al cost. Once produced, a piece of software<br />
can be copied, even without a disc, with no cost bey<strong>on</strong>d the brief amount of time taken to make<br />
the copy. As many people may not have a clear understand<strong>in</strong>g of the resources that go <strong>in</strong>to the<br />
development of the first copy, they may not agree that it is wr<strong>on</strong>g to obta<strong>in</strong> unauthorized copies,<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g social c<strong>on</strong>sensus. Informati<strong>on</strong> goods also show no degradati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> reproducti<strong>on</strong> for<br />
either party, owner or copier. Informati<strong>on</strong> goods can exist <strong>in</strong> two (or more) places with no<br />
apparent decrease <strong>in</strong> the value. <strong>Ethical</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g theft are less clear where costs and<br />
losses are hidden.<br />
In additi<strong>on</strong>, the distributi<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods is such that social cues between transactors can<br />
be reduced. Software can be obta<strong>in</strong>ed over the Internet or from a third party, distanc<strong>in</strong>g the user
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 23<br />
from the producer and developer. The use of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology can separate people, and<br />
make their <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>s seem less real. Computer-mediated communicati<strong>on</strong>s provide an example.<br />
Computer technologies such as email and text messag<strong>in</strong>g suppress social cues, c<strong>on</strong>text cues, and<br />
feedback (Dennis and Kenny 1998; Walther 1995). The result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> between <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />
who use these technologies may c<strong>on</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> language and communicati<strong>on</strong> patterns that would be<br />
unacceptable <strong>in</strong> face-to-face dialogue (e.g., flam<strong>in</strong>g—Chenault 1998; Riva 2002). The distance<br />
feature of a lack of social cues masks the social c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> of c<strong>on</strong>sensus.<br />
In c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong>, the <strong>in</strong>tangibility of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods reduces the percepti<strong>on</strong> of the applicability<br />
of ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples surround<strong>in</strong>g theft. Users can disassociate themselves from their acti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
mediated by technology. Download<strong>in</strong>g software from the Internet, with no physical commodity<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved, may not be seen as “real,” <strong>in</strong> its physicality or c<strong>on</strong>sequences, as steal<strong>in</strong>g a car or<br />
m<strong>on</strong>ey.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, there are no fortified or c<strong>on</strong>sistent protecti<strong>on</strong> strategies <strong>in</strong> place. This reduces social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus. After all, if the act was “wr<strong>on</strong>g,” then clear preventative mechanisms would be <strong>in</strong><br />
place to ensure compliance, as is the case for physical goods. Differences across<br />
cultures/c<strong>on</strong>texts exacerbate the applicati<strong>on</strong> of preventative strategies, with cultures operat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with different pr<strong>in</strong>ciples.<br />
Put together, the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods c<strong>on</strong>sistently tend to m<strong>in</strong>imize the social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus c<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>in</strong>g ethical behavior with <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 24<br />
Severity of Outcomes and Acti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Recall that severity has both teleological and de<strong>on</strong>tological aspects. The teleological comp<strong>on</strong>ent<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cerns the severity of the outcomes; de<strong>on</strong>tology captures the severity of the acti<strong>on</strong>s, i.e., the<br />
<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>ality and causal directness of the acti<strong>on</strong>s lead<strong>in</strong>g to the c<strong>on</strong>sequences. Informati<strong>on</strong><br />
technology can <strong>in</strong>fluence either of these aspects of severity: The judged c<strong>on</strong>sequences may be<br />
lessened and/or an <strong>in</strong>dividual may not be aware of the c<strong>on</strong>sequences of her/his acti<strong>on</strong> or the<br />
effects <strong>on</strong> others due to the presence of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology.<br />
The negligible marg<strong>in</strong>al cost structure of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods clearly dim<strong>in</strong>ishes the severity of<br />
outcomes <strong>in</strong> terms of the magnitude of loss and the probability of effect (Logsd<strong>on</strong>, Thomps<strong>on</strong>,<br />
and Reid 1994). People may tend to believe that as l<strong>on</strong>g as the software is developed, the time<br />
and cost <strong>in</strong>vestment has already been made and the developers have already been paid <strong>in</strong> full for<br />
their work, mak<strong>in</strong>g harm m<strong>in</strong>imal and/or unlikely.<br />
The lack of degradati<strong>on</strong> when reproduced, particularly of the orig<strong>in</strong>al user’s product, also<br />
m<strong>in</strong>imizes the severity of outcomes. If the orig<strong>in</strong>al owner has not lost anyth<strong>in</strong>g, this gives the<br />
impressi<strong>on</strong> that no others are affected by the unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong>. Both legitimate and<br />
illegitimate users have functi<strong>on</strong>al copies, the legitimate user is oblivious to the illegitimate use<br />
and no <strong>on</strong>e is deprived. As such, the magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences and probability of effect<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity are lower.<br />
The distance feature of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods would more likely <strong>in</strong>fluence severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
severity <strong>in</strong> the de<strong>on</strong>tological sense. The absence of social cues weakens the causal cha<strong>in</strong>
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 25<br />
between producer and user. The user may have no sense of the producer or creator of software;<br />
the lack of social cues promotes n<strong>on</strong>-<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>ality and a lack of temporal immediacy.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>tangibility feature would reduce severity both through the teleology and de<strong>on</strong>tology. The<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences are less visible, reduc<strong>in</strong>g the perceived magnitude and judged probability of<br />
effects. Also, <strong>in</strong>tangibility weakens the ability to track the causal cha<strong>in</strong>. As noted by Logsd<strong>on</strong>,<br />
Thomps<strong>on</strong>, and Reid (1994), “the length of time between the act of [unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong>]<br />
and the <strong>on</strong>set of c<strong>on</strong>sequences, if <strong>in</strong>deed there are any c<strong>on</strong>sequences, is quite l<strong>on</strong>g” (p. 855).<br />
The limited protecti<strong>on</strong> for <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods is expected to operate similarly to its <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong><br />
social c<strong>on</strong>sensus. A lack of str<strong>on</strong>g, c<strong>on</strong>sistent legal and technical protecti<strong>on</strong>s signals a lower<br />
magnitude of severity and also affords more un<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>al behaviors. Thus, these aspects of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods tend to reduce moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> terms of severity <strong>in</strong> terms of outcomes and<br />
acti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
So, overall the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods generally tend to lower the moral <strong>in</strong>tensity of a<br />
situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> terms of the severity of the moral questi<strong>on</strong>, as well, although not as c<strong>on</strong>sistently<br />
across all features for both teleological and de<strong>on</strong>tological severity.<br />
Social Impact<br />
Although less verified as a dimensi<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, we complete the discussi<strong>on</strong> of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity by c<strong>on</strong>sider<strong>in</strong>g how the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods would be<br />
expected to <strong>in</strong>fluence social impact <strong>in</strong> terms of proximity (how psychologically close to me are<br />
those affected?) and c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect (fewer people affected at a given magnitude).
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 26<br />
Social impact is expected primarily to be affected by the distance feature of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods,<br />
the absence of social cues. As Logsd<strong>on</strong>, Thomps<strong>on</strong>, and Reid (1994) recognized: “‘Victims’ of<br />
the act [of unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong>], i.e., <strong>in</strong>dividual software developers or companies, are<br />
perceived as far removed and impers<strong>on</strong>al to the copier” (p. 855). Also, because most<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology producers are large and an<strong>on</strong>ymous, the percepti<strong>on</strong> of the c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect can be reduced. The loss of a s<strong>in</strong>gle <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology will be dispersed across a<br />
large number of n<strong>on</strong>-identifiable people reduc<strong>in</strong>g the c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of any loss.<br />
From the literature and as background to our theory, we were able to identify four dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity (i.e., social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, severity of outcomes, severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s, and possibly<br />
social impact) and five relevant features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods (i.e., the cost structure,<br />
reproducti<strong>on</strong>, distance, <strong>in</strong>tangibility, and protecti<strong>on</strong>). The <strong>in</strong>volvement of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> with <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
goods is a situati<strong>on</strong>al factor <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. This secti<strong>on</strong> has<br />
del<strong>in</strong>eated the specific impacts of the <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods’ features up<strong>on</strong> the different dimensi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, as summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 1. Now we turn to the sec<strong>on</strong>d ma<strong>in</strong> category of <strong>in</strong>put<br />
to the moral <strong>in</strong>tensity judgment, that of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences. What <strong>in</strong>dividual differences can<br />
be usefully identified that <strong>in</strong>fluence the ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g process, and how do they<br />
operate?<br />
Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models Theory<br />
A variety of decisi<strong>on</strong>-maker characteristics can <strong>in</strong>fluence the decisi<strong>on</strong> process, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g factors<br />
of age, educati<strong>on</strong>, gender (e.g., Harr<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong> 1989; J<strong>on</strong>es and Hiltebeitel 1995), and pers<strong>on</strong>ality<br />
(e.g., Hegarty and Sims 1978; Reiss and Mitra 1998). One shortcom<strong>in</strong>g of these <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
difference factors is that they are generally <strong>in</strong>vestigated <strong>in</strong> a theory-free manner, us<strong>in</strong>g a more
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 27<br />
exploratory empirical approach. In this secti<strong>on</strong> we apply a theory-grounded view of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual decisi<strong>on</strong> maker and c<strong>on</strong>nect it to the <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> of the characteristics of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
goods and dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity as just detailed.<br />
As noted earlier, ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s by def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> imply that the <strong>in</strong>dividual is operat<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> a<br />
social envir<strong>on</strong>ment. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, we outl<strong>in</strong>e and employ Fiske’s (1990; 1991; 2004) relati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
models theory, a socially-grounded theory of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences, as <strong>in</strong>formative of ethical<br />
reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g. The theory has been widely studied and supported <strong>in</strong> various cultures and c<strong>on</strong>texts<br />
(e.g., Fiske, Haslam and Fiske 1991; Haslam and Fiske 1999; Lickel, Hamilt<strong>on</strong> and Sherman<br />
2001; Realo, Kastik and Allik 2004). A relati<strong>on</strong>al model captures the decisi<strong>on</strong>-maker’s<br />
worldview from which norms are generated and prioritized (i.e., the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and values used<br />
for reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g) with<strong>in</strong> a situati<strong>on</strong>. The relati<strong>on</strong>al models may<br />
prescribe different acti<strong>on</strong>s; so for <strong>in</strong>dividuals who use c<strong>on</strong>flict<strong>in</strong>g models, their respective<br />
def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s of “right” and “wr<strong>on</strong>g” will clash. Similarly, the models will <strong>in</strong>fluence whether and<br />
to what extent the situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>volves such pr<strong>in</strong>ciples at all, i.e., <strong>on</strong>e’s judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
The theory posits four basic models of social <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> by which <strong>in</strong>dividuals motivate and<br />
coord<strong>in</strong>ate their activities, and understand and resp<strong>on</strong>d to each others’ acti<strong>on</strong>s. These models are<br />
understood to represent our world-view of a situati<strong>on</strong>. As such, they are expected to operate both<br />
implicitly <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g a pers<strong>on</strong>’s judgment, as well as explicitly to <strong>in</strong>fluence the arguments<br />
that are generated. We first describe the four relati<strong>on</strong>al models: Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g, Authority<br />
Rank<strong>in</strong>g, Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g, and Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g. Follow<strong>in</strong>g this, we c<strong>on</strong>nect the models to the<br />
features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods and the dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. In so do<strong>in</strong>g, we focus up<strong>on</strong><br />
the <strong>in</strong>fluence that <strong>on</strong>e’s social world-view has up<strong>on</strong> the implicit judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 28<br />
Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g is a model <strong>in</strong> which no <strong>on</strong>e participant is dist<strong>in</strong>guished from another <strong>in</strong> the<br />
group. Membership is duty-based hav<strong>in</strong>g a sense of altruism and c<strong>on</strong>sensus. Group members<br />
take <strong>on</strong> work based up<strong>on</strong> their <strong>in</strong>dividual abilities, and benefits are distributed am<strong>on</strong>g members<br />
based up<strong>on</strong> need or <strong>in</strong>terest. Acti<strong>on</strong>s that <strong>in</strong>tend to dist<strong>in</strong>guish a pers<strong>on</strong> from others <strong>in</strong> the group<br />
are c<strong>on</strong>sidered wr<strong>on</strong>g.<br />
Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g is a hierarchical model of <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> that values obedience to the law.<br />
Privilege is used to distribute benefits accord<strong>in</strong>g to a cha<strong>in</strong> of command. Higher rank<strong>in</strong>g<br />
members are resp<strong>on</strong>sible for protect<strong>in</strong>g lower rank<strong>in</strong>g members, and lower rank<strong>in</strong>g members are<br />
to obey higher rank<strong>in</strong>g members. In Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g, it is wr<strong>on</strong>g to defy the hierarchy.<br />
Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g is characterized by dist<strong>in</strong>ct peer members that c<strong>on</strong>tribute and take turns <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>s. Reciprocity is valued and failure to equally reciprocate the benefits and harms is<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidered wr<strong>on</strong>g.<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g is characterized by a rati<strong>on</strong>al system of exchange to coord<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
with<strong>in</strong> a market system. Values are determ<strong>in</strong>ed by price/utility and the idea of proporti<strong>on</strong>al<br />
exchange. Agreement with<strong>in</strong> the system is c<strong>on</strong>sidered important, while tak<strong>in</strong>g advantage through<br />
violat<strong>in</strong>g proporti<strong>on</strong>al equality is wr<strong>on</strong>g.<br />
Fiske (2004) also c<strong>on</strong>ceived the four models of social <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> as fall<strong>in</strong>g al<strong>on</strong>g a c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>uum.<br />
The models vary as to the degree of flexibility (precisi<strong>on</strong> of coord<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong>) and the <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
costs required of the model. The Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g model has the most flexibility and fewest
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 29<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> needs. Decreas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> flexibility and <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> needs are, <strong>in</strong> order,<br />
Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g, Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g, and, the model with the least flexibility and most<br />
precisi<strong>on</strong>, Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
For <strong>in</strong>dividuals with<strong>in</strong> Western organizati<strong>on</strong>s participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a capitalistic ec<strong>on</strong>omic system,<br />
social <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g ownership of physical goods are presumably dom<strong>in</strong>ated by the<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g model. However this dom<strong>in</strong>ance does not necessarily extend to <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
goods; and the models used vary across <strong>in</strong>dividuals and situati<strong>on</strong>s (Fiske, 1990). Although<br />
largely untested, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> features identified <strong>in</strong> the previous secti<strong>on</strong> are expected to capture<br />
differences between physical and <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods that can <strong>in</strong>fluence the use of alternative<br />
relati<strong>on</strong>al models. This <strong>in</strong>fluence is shown by the vertical arrow at the left of Figure 2; the<br />
details of the predicted <strong>in</strong>fluences are summarized by Table 2.<br />
*** Table 2 about here. ***<br />
To be specific, the cost structure feature (low marg<strong>in</strong>al cost) should weaken the use of Market<br />
Pric<strong>in</strong>g models <strong>in</strong> particular. The model h<strong>in</strong>ges <strong>on</strong> proporti<strong>on</strong>al exchange, match<strong>in</strong>g costs and<br />
benefits. Where costs are n<strong>on</strong>-existent, exchange is irrelevant. The reproducti<strong>on</strong> feature (no<br />
degradati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> quality) would serve to make shar<strong>in</strong>g a more feasible opti<strong>on</strong>, and thereby bolster<br />
the use of Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g models. The distance feature (weakened social cues) offers no<br />
implicati<strong>on</strong>s for any of the particular social models, <strong>in</strong>stead it should tend to weaken social<br />
perspectives generally. Thus, less applicati<strong>on</strong> of all social models would be <strong>in</strong>dicated, with the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual tak<strong>in</strong>g a more <strong>in</strong>dividualistic, egoistic view of the situati<strong>on</strong>. The <strong>in</strong>tangibility feature<br />
(no loss <strong>in</strong> value with duplicati<strong>on</strong>) lends a sense of abstracti<strong>on</strong> to the process. An exchange for<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g "less real" than a physical good is not <strong>in</strong>tuitive to people who have (until now) dealt
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 30<br />
primarily <strong>in</strong> the physical. This is expected to lessen the use of Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g models by mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the proporti<strong>on</strong>al exchange aspect less certa<strong>in</strong>. F<strong>in</strong>ally, the limited protecti<strong>on</strong> associated with<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods should particularly <strong>in</strong>fluence the applicability of the Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g<br />
model. If hierarchical authority can not be or is not enforced, its use is less likely <strong>in</strong> social<br />
<strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce all of these features may be operable simultaneously for <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> an organizati<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sett<strong>in</strong>g, the different <strong>in</strong>fluences may come together <strong>in</strong> different ways. At the very least, we<br />
should expect to see more variety <strong>in</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>al models employed with <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as<br />
opposed to physical goods. This observati<strong>on</strong> heightens our <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fluence that each<br />
model is expected to have up<strong>on</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. We now<br />
discuss the relati<strong>on</strong>al models (i.e., Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g, Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g, Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g, and<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g) as moderators of the <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>ships up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The expected<br />
moderat<strong>in</strong>g relati<strong>on</strong>ships are shown by the arrow <strong>in</strong> Figure 2 from the Social View node at the<br />
upper left, and the predicted moderat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluences are summarized with<strong>in</strong> Table 1 <strong>in</strong> square<br />
brackets [].<br />
Relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory is a theory of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences, characteriz<strong>in</strong>g the social view that<br />
an <strong>in</strong>dividual br<strong>in</strong>gs to a particular situati<strong>on</strong>. As such, it is presumed that, for a given <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
at a specific time, at most <strong>on</strong>e model will be applied. We expect the <strong>in</strong>fluence of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> up<strong>on</strong> moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity to differ systematically for <strong>in</strong>dividuals carry<strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> worldviews with<strong>in</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
situati<strong>on</strong>. This is expected to manifest itself <strong>in</strong> analyses stratified by the decisi<strong>on</strong> makers’<br />
worldviews: For <strong>in</strong>dividuals characterized as operat<strong>in</strong>g from with<strong>in</strong> a particular relati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
model, the <strong>in</strong>fluence of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is lesser or greater relative to those us<strong>in</strong>g other
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 31<br />
models. These hypothesized moderat<strong>in</strong>g effects can also be observed at a more aggregate level:<br />
In situati<strong>on</strong>s for which a particular relati<strong>on</strong>al model is more prevalent, the proposed <strong>in</strong>fluence of<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is lesser or greater relative to situati<strong>on</strong>s for which other models<br />
predom<strong>in</strong>ate. We describe the expected moderat<strong>in</strong>g relati<strong>on</strong>ships as would be observed us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
latter analysis, with the understand<strong>in</strong>g that comparable expectati<strong>on</strong>s can be formulated for the<br />
former analysis.<br />
When those with a Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g view are more prevalent, more <strong>in</strong>dividuals have a n<strong>on</strong>-<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualistic attitude and see people as more c<strong>on</strong>nected. In this situati<strong>on</strong>, the <strong>in</strong>fluence of the<br />
distance feature of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> weakens the causal l<strong>in</strong>k between producer and user. This, <strong>in</strong> turn,<br />
heightens the social impact of the decisi<strong>on</strong>. When there are more <strong>in</strong>dividuals hav<strong>in</strong>g a communal<br />
view of the world that are sensitive to social impact, this effect of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> is expected to be greater.<br />
When Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g is high, more <strong>in</strong>dividuals are sensitive to protecti<strong>on</strong> strategies, s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
these strategies match the hierarchical worldview associated with this social model. Thus we<br />
expect greater sensitivity <strong>in</strong> these sett<strong>in</strong>gs to the limited protecti<strong>on</strong> aspect of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>. This should<br />
affect all of the hypothesized <strong>in</strong>fluences of protecti<strong>on</strong>--up<strong>on</strong> social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, severity of<br />
outcomes, and severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s—relative to situati<strong>on</strong>s when Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g is lower.<br />
When Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g is high, more <strong>in</strong>dividuals are sensitive to reciprocity. However,<br />
reciprocity does not have a clear bear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> any of the features of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Thus, we have no clear<br />
expectati<strong>on</strong> for <strong>in</strong>dividuals hold<strong>in</strong>g this worldview <strong>in</strong> terms of its <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> any of the<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 32<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, when Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g is high, more <strong>in</strong>dividuals are sensitive to proporti<strong>on</strong>al equity<br />
relative to an exchange system. We expect <strong>in</strong>dividuals subscrib<strong>in</strong>g to this worldview to be more<br />
cognizant of the hidden fixed producti<strong>on</strong> costs associated with <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods. That is, when<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g is high, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> cost structure will be less ignored, lower<strong>in</strong>g the effect of this<br />
feature up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, both <strong>in</strong> terms of its proposed <strong>in</strong>fluence up<strong>on</strong> social c<strong>on</strong>sensus and<br />
up<strong>on</strong> outcome severity.<br />
To this po<strong>in</strong>t, we have def<strong>in</strong>ed and ref<strong>in</strong>ed moral <strong>in</strong>tensity as a key c<strong>on</strong>struct <strong>in</strong> the problem<br />
formulati<strong>on</strong> phase of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g that forms the doma<strong>in</strong> of the theory M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T. <strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity is framed as a c<strong>on</strong>struct compris<strong>in</strong>g several dimensi<strong>on</strong>s: social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, severity of<br />
outcomes, severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s, and possibly social impact. Two general <strong>in</strong>puts <strong>in</strong>to ethical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g are c<strong>on</strong>sidered as part of the theory: situati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>in</strong>dividual difference<br />
factors. In c<strong>on</strong>trast to prior work, we have taken a theory-grounded approach to these <strong>in</strong>puts.<br />
Situati<strong>on</strong>ally, we have focused <strong>on</strong> aspects of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as afforded by <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> as key<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cerns <strong>in</strong> the present c<strong>on</strong>text. Five features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods have been extracted from the<br />
literature (cost structure, reproducti<strong>on</strong>, distance, <strong>in</strong>tangibility, and protecti<strong>on</strong>); and, <strong>in</strong> this secti<strong>on</strong><br />
their <strong>in</strong>fluences up<strong>on</strong> the dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity have been developed. F<strong>in</strong>ally, relati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
models theory has been used as a theory of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences that is c<strong>on</strong>sistent with the<br />
social aspect of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g. The four models and their associated worldviews were<br />
described and c<strong>on</strong>nected as moderators to the posited <strong>in</strong>fluences of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. To<br />
this po<strong>in</strong>t, the theory applies to the determ<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity both implicitly (as an<br />
<strong>in</strong>tuitive process) and explicitly (as part of a deliberative process). In the latter case, when moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity is c<strong>on</strong>sidered deliberately, reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is employed to argue whether and to what extent<br />
moral reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g applies <strong>in</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>. In the next secti<strong>on</strong>, M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T is now expanded to
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 33<br />
encompass the reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g that can be employed <strong>in</strong> support of the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity,<br />
address<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al research questi<strong>on</strong>: What rati<strong>on</strong>ales support the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity?<br />
Aga<strong>in</strong>, we take an approach grounded <strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g, relevant, validated theory.<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> Theory<br />
As discussed, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is a judgment whereby the decisi<strong>on</strong> maker assesses the degree of<br />
moral imperative present <strong>in</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>. Features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods as a situati<strong>on</strong>al factor<br />
and relati<strong>on</strong>al models as an <strong>in</strong>dividual factor have been developed as <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g judged moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity. The formulati<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity as a judgment can also <strong>in</strong>volve reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g, the use<br />
of arguments for and aga<strong>in</strong>st the moral c<strong>on</strong>tent of the situati<strong>on</strong>, from which the judgment derives<br />
(cf. Smith, Bens<strong>on</strong> and Curley 1991). We apply and expand a theory of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s to<br />
usefully capture this aspect of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
Sykes and Matza (1957) developed neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as a modificati<strong>on</strong> of the theory of<br />
differential associati<strong>on</strong> 2 (Sutherland 1955). Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques are argument(s) or<br />
rati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>s used to expla<strong>in</strong> circumstances for the temporary removal of an otherwise<br />
accepted norm, and/or qualify its suspensi<strong>on</strong>, to legitimize <strong>on</strong>e’s acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> order to rebut<br />
accusati<strong>on</strong>s of wr<strong>on</strong>gdo<strong>in</strong>g. When an <strong>in</strong>dividual acts <strong>in</strong> a manner that violates agreed-up<strong>on</strong><br />
norms of <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>, s/he can use neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques to expla<strong>in</strong> why the norm does not<br />
apply to her/ him, thereby reduc<strong>in</strong>g or escap<strong>in</strong>g sancti<strong>on</strong> for the violati<strong>on</strong> and negative feel<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
(Ashforth and Kre<strong>in</strong>er 1999; Copes 2003; Orbuch 1997; Strutt<strong>on</strong>, Vitell, and Pelt<strong>on</strong> 1994).<br />
In the software scenario that opens this paper, alleviat<strong>in</strong>g resp<strong>on</strong>sibility by appeal<strong>in</strong>g to a higher<br />
loyalty to others or deny<strong>in</strong>g that the software company will be harmed are examples of<br />
2 The theory of differential associati<strong>on</strong> posits that an <strong>in</strong>dividual needs to learn crim<strong>in</strong>al methods as well as attitudes<br />
favorable to law violati<strong>on</strong>, which <strong>in</strong>clude rati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>s.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 34<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques. Such neutralizati<strong>on</strong> rati<strong>on</strong>ales work to lower the moral <strong>in</strong>tensity,<br />
reduc<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s activati<strong>on</strong> of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g processes, and reduc<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
weight and/or use of ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
In deliberative judgment where ethical ambiguity is present, neutralizati<strong>on</strong> rati<strong>on</strong>ales are<br />
expected to be particularly pr<strong>on</strong>ounced. Rob<strong>in</strong>s<strong>on</strong> and Kraatz (1998) suggest that there are three<br />
c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s that enable neutralizati<strong>on</strong>: 1) when norms around an issue are not rigid, or ambiguous,<br />
2) when there is no effective method of fully m<strong>on</strong>itor<strong>in</strong>g norm violati<strong>on</strong>s, and 3) when acti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>in</strong> two or more ways (i.e., unauthorized duplicati<strong>on</strong> of software is<br />
<strong>in</strong>appropriate, keep<strong>in</strong>g company expenditures low is appropriate). Thus, <strong>in</strong> general, a situati<strong>on</strong> is<br />
ambiguous <strong>in</strong> its values when there are two (or more) ethical stances that potentially have social<br />
acceptance as recognized by the decisi<strong>on</strong>-maker, lead<strong>in</strong>g to c<strong>on</strong>tradictory courses of acti<strong>on</strong>. This<br />
further corroborates the applicability of neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as part of the M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T model. Where<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology leads to more ambiguity <strong>in</strong> ethical problem formulati<strong>on</strong>, the reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
deliberative judgment can be characterized by neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory.<br />
Sykes and Matza identified five types of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s: Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility, Denial of<br />
Injury, Denial of Victim, C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of the C<strong>on</strong>demners, and Appeal to Higher Loyalty.<br />
In Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility the <strong>in</strong>dividual exploits society’s dist<strong>in</strong>cti<strong>on</strong> between <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>al and<br />
un<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>al outcomes. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I didn’t mean it. I had no other<br />
choice. They forced my hand. It’s not my fault.”
In Denial of Injury the <strong>in</strong>dividual proclaims no harm no foul; if there is no <strong>in</strong>jury, no<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 35<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences should be exacted. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I didn’t really hurt<br />
anybody. No harm d<strong>on</strong>e. I was just borrow<strong>in</strong>g it (as opposed to steal<strong>in</strong>g it).”<br />
In Denial of Victim the <strong>in</strong>dividual describes negative acti<strong>on</strong>(s) as a deserved punishment. The<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “They had it com<strong>in</strong>g to them. They deserve worse than that. It’s<br />
their own fault.”<br />
In C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of C<strong>on</strong>demners the <strong>in</strong>dividual diverts attenti<strong>on</strong> from del<strong>in</strong>quency to the<br />
behaviors and motives of those who disapprove by giv<strong>in</strong>g the impressi<strong>on</strong> that the rules are be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
unfairly applied. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “Everybody is pick<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> me. Everybody<br />
else is do<strong>in</strong>g it. You all do it too.”<br />
In Appeal to Higher Loyalty the <strong>in</strong>dividual states that s/he subscribes to a different set of norms<br />
that outweigh society’s agreed-up<strong>on</strong> norms. Here, the <strong>in</strong>dividual values another norm higher than<br />
the <strong>on</strong>e s/he is be<strong>in</strong>g accused of violat<strong>in</strong>g. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I didn’t do it for<br />
myself. There is a higher purpose.”<br />
Not all research has been restricted to Sykes and Matza’s orig<strong>in</strong>al five neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques,<br />
though they have been most c<strong>on</strong>sistently studied (see Zamo<strong>on</strong> 2006 for a more detailed review of<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> studies). Some studies have <strong>in</strong>cluded a porti<strong>on</strong> of the techniques (e.g., Agnew<br />
1994; Harr<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong> 2000; Holl<strong>in</strong>ger 1991), or developed alternate techniques (e.g., Copes 2003;<br />
Cromwell and Thurman 2003). However, arguably the alternative techniques are <strong>on</strong>ly variati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of the orig<strong>in</strong>al five. For example, Metaphor of the Ledger (e.g., Holl<strong>in</strong>ger 1991; Lim 2002) is a
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 36<br />
technique where the <strong>in</strong>dividual claims that s/he has d<strong>on</strong>e enough good <strong>in</strong> the past to allow for<br />
this s<strong>in</strong>gle bad acti<strong>on</strong>. This is a different form of Denial of Injury because the <strong>in</strong>dividual is<br />
claim<strong>in</strong>g the “net” effect of his/ her acti<strong>on</strong> is still benefit<strong>in</strong>g the other pers<strong>on</strong>. Denial of<br />
Humanity (Alvarez 1997) is a technique used to exclude certa<strong>in</strong> people from the human race.<br />
This technique is ak<strong>in</strong> to Denial of Victim; because, if there is no pers<strong>on</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g harmed, then<br />
there is no victim and less of a reas<strong>on</strong> to scrut<strong>in</strong>ize the acti<strong>on</strong>. In Defense of Necessity (Copes<br />
2003), the <strong>in</strong>dividual claims, although the acti<strong>on</strong> could be wr<strong>on</strong>g, it should not be judged as such<br />
because it was necessary. As such Defense of Necessity echoes sentiments of Denial of<br />
Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility, where there is a sense of compulsi<strong>on</strong> rather than <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>al behavior.<br />
Before apply<strong>in</strong>g neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory with<strong>in</strong> M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T, we expand the theory to more fully capture<br />
the reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g that will be employed <strong>in</strong> deliberative judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The next<br />
secti<strong>on</strong> does so by pair<strong>in</strong>g counter-arguments to each of the neutralizati<strong>on</strong> argument types.<br />
Counter-Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> Techniques<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory was developed around acti<strong>on</strong>s where there was a clear def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of<br />
acceptable behavior accord<strong>in</strong>g to the social envir<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>in</strong> which the <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong>teracts (e.g.,<br />
physical theft, assault, or vandalism). In such cases, the offenders who apply neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>ue to subscribe to the dom<strong>in</strong>ant values (cf. M<strong>in</strong>or 1981), even though it is a qualified<br />
versi<strong>on</strong> of those values. They respect those who abide by the law, and are careful when select<strong>in</strong>g<br />
victims, so as not to offend those who would judge the acti<strong>on</strong>. However, where <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
goods are <strong>in</strong>volved as detailed earlier, norms are more ambiguous. In these situati<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
deliberative reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is not as <strong>on</strong>e-sided as <strong>in</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>s for which neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory has<br />
been traditi<strong>on</strong>ally applied. If neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory was the <strong>on</strong>ly force operat<strong>in</strong>g, then <strong>in</strong>dividuals
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 37<br />
would tend to c<strong>on</strong>tradict ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples. S<strong>in</strong>ce this is not the case, there must exist a counter<br />
force. To apply the theory to the more general case, we expand neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory to <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
the counterarguments, as well. For each neutralizati<strong>on</strong> technique, we posit a corresp<strong>on</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> technique as described below. The neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and counter-<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques are represented <strong>in</strong> Figure 2 as the backstop, provid<strong>in</strong>g support or<br />
back<strong>in</strong>g for the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
In Accepted Accountability (counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> for Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility), the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
challenges the claim of un<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>al negative acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the basis of his/ her choice and the<br />
existence of alternatives. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I did mean it. There were other<br />
opti<strong>on</strong>s I didn’t pursue. I am resp<strong>on</strong>sible. It is my fault.”<br />
In Expectati<strong>on</strong> of Injury (counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> for Denial of Injury), the <strong>in</strong>dividual supports the<br />
logical expectati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>jury. That is, follow<strong>in</strong>g the natural progressi<strong>on</strong> of the acti<strong>on</strong> leads to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences where <strong>in</strong>jury is foreseeable. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I did hurt<br />
some<strong>on</strong>e. Harm was d<strong>on</strong>e.”<br />
In Fairness of System (counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> for Denial of Victim), the <strong>in</strong>dividual challenges <strong>on</strong><br />
the basis of the appropriateness of the exist<strong>in</strong>g system, so that the retributive acti<strong>on</strong> is<br />
unwarranted. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “The system <strong>in</strong> place is fair. Law – not<br />
vigilantism—is fair.”
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 38<br />
In Equality of C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> (counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> for C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of the C<strong>on</strong>demner), the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual challenges based up<strong>on</strong> equal applicati<strong>on</strong> of the system. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
like “Everybody is treated equally. Not everybody else does it.”<br />
In Reducti<strong>on</strong> to Self Interest (counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> for Appeal to Higher Loyalty), the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual challenges based <strong>on</strong> the counter-claim that the <strong>in</strong>dividual acts are selfish, mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
others worse-off. The <strong>in</strong>dividual may say th<strong>in</strong>gs like “I did this for myself. There is no higher<br />
purpose recognized. People are worse-off because of the acti<strong>on</strong>.”<br />
Thus, there are five argument/counterargument pairs that are predicted to <strong>in</strong>fluence the moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> deliberative judgment. The next secti<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>nects these arguments to their effects <strong>on</strong><br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and Counter-Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Deliberative Judgment<br />
We have expla<strong>in</strong>ed that the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity could be supported by deliberative<br />
reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g processes. The theory of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s provides a grounded basis for analyz<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
arguments used. Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s are arguments that counter or reduce the urge to <strong>in</strong>voke ethical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> processes; and, counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s support the adopti<strong>on</strong> of an ethical positi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Different aspects of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity (i.e., social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, severity of outcomes, severity of<br />
acti<strong>on</strong>s, and social impact) are <strong>in</strong>fluenced depend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> the neutralizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>volved. For each<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong>/counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> pair, we identify the expected primary <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity, as summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 3.<br />
Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility/ Accepted Accountability are expected to primarily <strong>in</strong>fluence the<br />
severity dimensi<strong>on</strong>, particularly through its de<strong>on</strong>tological (severity of acti<strong>on</strong>) aspect. These
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 39<br />
rati<strong>on</strong>ales questi<strong>on</strong> or support whether any choice was made or harm was <strong>in</strong>tended. They are<br />
directed at the causal nature of the assessed acti<strong>on</strong> and its <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>ality.<br />
Similarly Denial of Injury/ Expectati<strong>on</strong> of Injury <strong>in</strong>fluence severity, however via the teleological<br />
aspects (severity of outcomes). These rati<strong>on</strong>ales questi<strong>on</strong> or support whether any harm has really<br />
been d<strong>on</strong>e. They are directed at the potential c<strong>on</strong>sequences.<br />
Denial of Victim/ Fairness of System focus <strong>on</strong> the victims of the acti<strong>on</strong> and their fair treatment.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sequently, these arguments are expected to primarily <strong>in</strong>fluence the social impact dimensi<strong>on</strong>,<br />
the proximity and number of victims play<strong>in</strong>g a role <strong>in</strong> the assessment of their fair treatment.<br />
In c<strong>on</strong>trast, the other two neutralizati<strong>on</strong>/counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> pairs address the norms be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
applied and so most closely relate to the social c<strong>on</strong>sensus dimensi<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of C<strong>on</strong>demners/ Equality of C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> derive from a justice-oriented norm<br />
for which there is social c<strong>on</strong>sensus. Equal applicati<strong>on</strong> of sancti<strong>on</strong>s is expected. When not<br />
present, the neutralizati<strong>on</strong> arises; if present (the counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>), the norm is <strong>in</strong> force.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, Appeal to Higher Loyalty/ Reducti<strong>on</strong> to Self Interest apply to other, alternative, social-<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensual norms, replac<strong>in</strong>g the current norm with a different pr<strong>in</strong>ciple show<strong>in</strong>g a higher<br />
purpose. The counter is a questi<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the alternate norm or its applicability. In either case, it<br />
is the social c<strong>on</strong>sensus of the alternative pr<strong>in</strong>ciple that the argument is directed toward.<br />
Thus, M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T <strong>in</strong>corporates the <strong>in</strong>fluence of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s and counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s as<br />
arguments used <strong>in</strong> the deliberative judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. Left out of the theory are the
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 40<br />
situati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>in</strong>dividual difference <strong>in</strong>fluences up<strong>on</strong> the use of neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s and counter-<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s, specifically: What leads an <strong>in</strong>dividual to predom<strong>in</strong>antly employ neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
versus counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s or visa versa? The answer can comprise <strong>in</strong>dividual factors,<br />
situati<strong>on</strong>al factors, or a mix of both. There is no research address<strong>in</strong>g this issue; so this aspect of<br />
the model is left outside the scope of our model and for future study.<br />
A related questi<strong>on</strong> is the relative use of different neutralizati<strong>on</strong>/counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong> strategies.<br />
There is evidence that neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s are offense specific (Agnew 1994; Copes 2003; McCarthy<br />
and Stewart 1998): Different types of offenses will favor different neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques. For<br />
example, defraud<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>surance company out of funds might <strong>in</strong>voke Denial of Injury<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s, whereas violent behavior might <strong>in</strong>voke Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
With <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods, any of the neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s is potentially applicable, though some may be<br />
more prevalent. Zamo<strong>on</strong> and Curley (2008) provide a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for situati<strong>on</strong>al differences <strong>in</strong><br />
apply<strong>in</strong>g neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s and counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>text of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods.<br />
They <strong>in</strong>vestigated neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s us<strong>in</strong>g newspaper reports <strong>on</strong> software piracy as data.<br />
Newspaper articles were used as a reflecti<strong>on</strong> of public op<strong>in</strong>i<strong>on</strong>, appropriate for the c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong><br />
of ethical reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Articles from 1989-2004 report<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> software piracy <strong>in</strong> the five highest<br />
circulati<strong>on</strong> U.S. newspapers were analyzed for rati<strong>on</strong>ales cited for and aga<strong>in</strong>st unauthorized<br />
software duplicati<strong>on</strong>, as reflect<strong>in</strong>g the pr<strong>in</strong>cipled reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g employed toward unauthorized<br />
software duplicati<strong>on</strong> as an ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>. These rati<strong>on</strong>ales were specifically coded with<br />
respect to neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s and counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s. The results showed that the arguments for<br />
and aga<strong>in</strong>st unauthorized copy<strong>in</strong>g argued from n<strong>on</strong>-corresp<strong>on</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and counter-<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> strategies, mak<strong>in</strong>g communicati<strong>on</strong> problematic. Specifically, anti-copy<strong>in</strong>g
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 41<br />
rati<strong>on</strong>ales <strong>in</strong> the articles largely used the Expectati<strong>on</strong> of Injury counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s (61% of<br />
the counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s used). Pro-copy<strong>in</strong>g rati<strong>on</strong>ales were more varied with a much flatter<br />
distributi<strong>on</strong> across the different neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s. Although <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g, note that this study is<br />
limited by its use of articles as the unit of analysis, not <strong>in</strong>dividual software users. How and<br />
whether these results exactly translate to <strong>in</strong>dividuals’ behavior is another area for future study.<br />
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH<br />
Technology has developed too quickly for social norms to keep pace. The result is a c<strong>on</strong>text<br />
which is a powerful and important <strong>in</strong>stantiati<strong>on</strong> of a general case <strong>in</strong> which there is ambiguity as<br />
to whether or not decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volve ethical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s. Sama and Shoaf (2002) have shown<br />
that ethical rati<strong>on</strong>ales (based <strong>on</strong> normative philosophies) <strong>in</strong> “new media” (for example the web)<br />
are largely n<strong>on</strong>-existent when compared with more traditi<strong>on</strong>al sett<strong>in</strong>gs which do not <strong>in</strong>volve<br />
<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technologies. Many decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g digital goods have (thus far) not developed<br />
usage norms. Still, there are decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g digital goods that are identified by at least some<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuals as ethical <strong>in</strong> nature. What then are the ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>on</strong> whether a decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> is identified as hav<strong>in</strong>g a moral comp<strong>on</strong>ent?<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity is a judgment as to the degree to which a situati<strong>on</strong> has an ethical comp<strong>on</strong>ent. As<br />
moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong>creases, the relevance of moral pr<strong>in</strong>ciples to the decisi<strong>on</strong> rises, affect<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
approach taken to the problem. At <strong>on</strong>e extreme, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is zero and moral pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are<br />
not c<strong>on</strong>sidered, the problem is handled us<strong>in</strong>g standard approaches, e.g., compensatory or<br />
ec<strong>on</strong>omic approaches. At the other extreme, moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is high and ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are<br />
paramount; we are <strong>in</strong> the realm of taboo tradeoffs where the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples cannot be <strong>in</strong>fluenced by<br />
any other factors.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 42<br />
Us<strong>in</strong>g this c<strong>on</strong>struct, we develop a theory focus<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> the role of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong> the recogniti<strong>on</strong> phase of<br />
ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g and the judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. The <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with<br />
Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T) is summarized <strong>in</strong> Figure 2, show<strong>in</strong>g the ma<strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>structs and their<br />
relati<strong>on</strong>ships. The relati<strong>on</strong>ships are keyed to Tables 1-3 that detail the nature of each. M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T<br />
deals with the ethical problem formulati<strong>on</strong> phase of decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g (highlighted <strong>in</strong> Figure 1)<br />
and focuses <strong>on</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fluence of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, the judgment of the degree to which a<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> is an ethical <strong>on</strong>e.<br />
As a first step to develop<strong>in</strong>g M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T, the c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is expanded, review<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
ty<strong>in</strong>g together the literature surround<strong>in</strong>g this c<strong>on</strong>struct. One major general c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> of our<br />
theory is to clarify this central c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. J<strong>on</strong>es (1991) provided a sound<br />
framework, recogniz<strong>in</strong>g the multidimensi<strong>on</strong>ality of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and provid<strong>in</strong>g the basis for a<br />
program of research that is summarized above and <strong>in</strong> the Appendix. McMah<strong>on</strong> and Harvey<br />
(2006) recently helped to ref<strong>in</strong>e the multidimensi<strong>on</strong>ality of the c<strong>on</strong>struct, identify<strong>in</strong>g c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
am<strong>on</strong>g the orig<strong>in</strong>al dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and reduc<strong>in</strong>g the dimensi<strong>on</strong>ality of the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>struct. However, a still notable absence was a dist<strong>in</strong>cti<strong>on</strong> between teleological and<br />
de<strong>on</strong>tological approaches to ethical reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g, a differentiati<strong>on</strong> that a number of researchers have<br />
found useful and to which adult decisi<strong>on</strong> makers are sensitive. Although further research to<br />
ref<strong>in</strong>e the c<strong>on</strong>struct is still needed, the evidence supports the follow<strong>in</strong>g dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity: social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, severity of outcomes, severity of acti<strong>on</strong>s, and possibly social impact.<br />
Relevant features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods are then identified and related to moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T<br />
provides <strong>in</strong>sights both directly <strong>in</strong>to the factors <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g the determ<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 43<br />
where <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods are c<strong>on</strong>cerned; and, more broadly, it enhances our understand<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
related theories and issues. The c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s between features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods and moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity are summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 1. At best, these relati<strong>on</strong>ships have been implicit <strong>in</strong> the<br />
literature to date. By br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g the c<strong>on</strong>struct of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong>to the discussi<strong>on</strong>, M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T makes<br />
explicit the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s between aspects of digital goods and the applicati<strong>on</strong> of ethical reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g,<br />
open<strong>in</strong>g them to a more structured <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
The model also builds <strong>in</strong> a theory of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences, relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory, as<br />
dependent <strong>on</strong> the features of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> goods and serv<strong>in</strong>g as a moderat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> the role<br />
of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> up<strong>on</strong> moral <strong>in</strong>tensity. Many studies look<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>in</strong>dividual differences use easy-to-gather<br />
demographic variables, e.g., gender and age, with little or no theoretical rati<strong>on</strong>ale. Relati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
models provide a theoretical basis grounded <strong>in</strong> social relati<strong>on</strong>s. S<strong>in</strong>ce ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s by<br />
def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> have a social aspect, relati<strong>on</strong>al models theory is <strong>in</strong>tegrated as a relevant theory-<br />
grounded explanati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>dividual differences. The models provide social worldviews from<br />
which the nature of relati<strong>on</strong>ships is understood by an <strong>in</strong>dividual. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, they are<br />
theorized to <strong>in</strong>fluence the implicit judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, as a socially grounded judgment.<br />
Whereas sometimes the ethical nature of a decisi<strong>on</strong> is judged implicitly without c<strong>on</strong>scious<br />
deliberati<strong>on</strong>, at other times reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g is employed to more c<strong>on</strong>sciously c<strong>on</strong>sider the moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity of a situati<strong>on</strong>. To accommodate deliberative judgment of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, the c<strong>on</strong>struct<br />
is c<strong>on</strong>nected to neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as a theory of argument. Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory itself is<br />
expanded to <strong>in</strong>corporate counter-neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s. These are counterarguments that provide a<br />
fuller account of the reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g used <strong>in</strong> to situati<strong>on</strong>s like those <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> that are potentially<br />
ambiguous <strong>in</strong> their ethical implicati<strong>on</strong>s. Applicati<strong>on</strong>s of neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory to bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong> the
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 44<br />
presence of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> technology are scarce. In fact, the <strong>on</strong>ly directly relevant study <strong>on</strong><br />
workplace deviance <strong>in</strong> the presence of technology was d<strong>on</strong>e by Lim (2002), where she stated:<br />
Our results provide encourag<strong>in</strong>g evidence which suggests that neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory may<br />
be useful <strong>in</strong> shedd<strong>in</strong>g light <strong>on</strong> why workplace deviance c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>ues to be a pervasive<br />
problem <strong>in</strong> organizati<strong>on</strong>s. To date, however, <strong>on</strong>ly a few studies have attempted to utilize<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory as a framework for understand<strong>in</strong>g employees’ behavior at the<br />
workplace (e.g. Holl<strong>in</strong>ger 1991, Dabney 1995). (p. 688)<br />
Thus, M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T pulls together and expands a number of theories and models to create a novel,<br />
detailed theory of ethical problem formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rich situati<strong>on</strong>s. Earlier works deal<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
the subject of ethics and morality have been challenged <strong>on</strong> several fr<strong>on</strong>ts. Criticism <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
mix<strong>in</strong>g descriptive and normative types of <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong>s, not expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g underly<strong>in</strong>g assumpti<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
and fail<strong>in</strong>g to realize the <strong>in</strong>herent complexity <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g and implement<strong>in</strong>g decisi<strong>on</strong>s of an ethical<br />
character (Th<strong>on</strong>g and Yap 1998; M<strong>in</strong>er and Petocz 2003). Laud<strong>on</strong>’s (1995) dissatisfacti<strong>on</strong> with<br />
the then exist<strong>in</strong>g IS ethical literature was that it was not well grounded <strong>in</strong> theory, and<br />
disorganized. We believe we have addressed all these deficiencies <strong>in</strong> this work: 1) This paper<br />
takes a purely descriptive approach to the <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong>. 2) This paper is specific about its scope<br />
and limitati<strong>on</strong>s (recognized ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s, adult choice, bus<strong>in</strong>ess c<strong>on</strong>text, use of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong><br />
technology). 3) This paper centers its <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong> at issue characteristics (i.e., moral <strong>in</strong>tensity<br />
as opposed to <strong>in</strong>dividual characteristics). 4) This paper makes use of various sources of literature<br />
to positi<strong>on</strong> and buttress the work. 5) This paper provides a theoretical framework, bridg<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
expand<strong>in</strong>g theories of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, neutralizati<strong>on</strong>, and relati<strong>on</strong>al models.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 45<br />
As noted <strong>in</strong> the discussi<strong>on</strong> of Figure 1, problem formulati<strong>on</strong>—the focus of this paper—is part of<br />
a general ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> process. Follow<strong>in</strong>g problem formulati<strong>on</strong> and the judgment of moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity, a moral <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is formed after gather<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> and evaluat<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
As the decisi<strong>on</strong> literature has widely shown, the fram<strong>in</strong>g of the problem <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tial pahse is<br />
critical to how decisi<strong>on</strong>s are made (e.g., see Kahneman and Tversky 2000). If moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is<br />
judged to be zero, then ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are not brought to bear, and the decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> is<br />
amoral <strong>in</strong> nature, based <strong>on</strong> other c<strong>on</strong>cerns, e.g., cost-benefit analyses. Where moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is<br />
positive, moral pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are brought to bear as part of the <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> gather<strong>in</strong>g lead<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
formati<strong>on</strong> of an moral <strong>in</strong>tent. The degree of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity will determ<strong>in</strong>e the extent to which<br />
these pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong>fluence the decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>tent. In the extreme, high moral <strong>in</strong>tensity can lead to<br />
“taboo tradeoffs,” decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g made entirely <strong>on</strong> ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, with no tradeoffs al<strong>on</strong>g<br />
other dimensi<strong>on</strong>s be<strong>in</strong>g possible (e.g., Tetlock et al. 2000). Understand<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity, as the<br />
key output of the problem formulati<strong>on</strong> phase <strong>in</strong> ethical decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g, is an important step for<br />
further<strong>in</strong>g our understand<strong>in</strong>g of ethical decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and bey<strong>on</strong>d. In this paper, we<br />
have highlighted theory-grounded throughout the paper c<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>in</strong>g moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and its<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g factors. Empirical validati<strong>on</strong> can now follow <strong>in</strong> a structured manner.<br />
As just <strong>on</strong>e case of the applicability of the theory, we have used software duplicati<strong>on</strong> as an<br />
exemplar throughout the paper. Scholars and practiti<strong>on</strong>ers alike have noted that despite cost<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the software, music, and film <strong>in</strong>dustries billi<strong>on</strong>s of dollars a year, piracy still enjoys a high<br />
degree of tolerance and is not necessarily perceived as an “ethical” issue (Glass and Wood 1996;<br />
Logsd<strong>on</strong>, Thomps<strong>on</strong> and Reid 1994; Strikwerda and Ross 1992). Sykes and Matza’s<br />
neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques have not previously been explored <strong>in</strong> digital duplicati<strong>on</strong>. In fact, the<br />
closest behaviors to which neutralizati<strong>on</strong> theory has been applied are to shoplift<strong>in</strong>g and theft. By
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 46<br />
describ<strong>in</strong>g what rati<strong>on</strong>ales people use to justify their behavior and understand<strong>in</strong>g how the moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity of an issue can be <strong>in</strong>fluenced, we can determ<strong>in</strong>e why certa<strong>in</strong> products are categorized as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g lower moral <strong>in</strong>tensity and how those percepti<strong>on</strong>s could be altered. These percepti<strong>on</strong>s are<br />
also expected to <strong>in</strong>teract with the relati<strong>on</strong>al models employed and <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> characteristics, as<br />
described. Empirical <strong>in</strong>vestigati<strong>on</strong>s also can aid academic understand<strong>in</strong>g of the issues. Practical<br />
implicati<strong>on</strong>s may <strong>in</strong>clude adjustments to legal and bus<strong>in</strong>ess strategies as well as affect<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
populati<strong>on</strong>’s and/or <strong>in</strong>dustry’s ethical stances <strong>on</strong> unauthorized copy<strong>in</strong>g. We see the theory<br />
elaborated <strong>in</strong> this paper as an important step toward understand<strong>in</strong>g questi<strong>on</strong>s like these, and as<br />
offer<strong>in</strong>g a positive directi<strong>on</strong> forward.
REFERENCES<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 47<br />
Agnew, R. 1994. “The Techniques of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and Violence,” Crim<strong>in</strong>ology (32:4), pp.<br />
555-580.<br />
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Behavior and Human<br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong> Processes (50:2), pp. 179-211.<br />
Allen GN. May 1999. Software Piracy: Why H<strong>on</strong>est People Cheat. Work<strong>in</strong>g paper, University<br />
of M<strong>in</strong>nesota.<br />
Alvarez, A. 1997. “Adjust<strong>in</strong>g to Genocide: The Techniques of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and the<br />
Holocaust,” Social Science History (21:2), pp. 139-187.<br />
Ashforth, B. E., and Anand, V. 2003. “The Normalizati<strong>on</strong> of Corrupti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong>s,”<br />
Research <strong>in</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Behavior (25:X), pp. 1-52.<br />
Ashforth, B. E., and Kre<strong>in</strong>er, G. E. 1999. “‘How Can You Do It?’: Dirty Work and the Challenge<br />
of C<strong>on</strong>struct<strong>in</strong>g a Positive Identity,” Academy of Management Review (24:3), pp. 413-434.<br />
Bandura, A. 1990. “Selective Activati<strong>on</strong> and Disengagement of <strong>Moral</strong> C<strong>on</strong>trol,” Journal of<br />
Social Issues (46:1), pp. 27-46.<br />
Bar<strong>on</strong>, J., and Lesher, S. 2000. “How Serious are Expressi<strong>on</strong>s of Protected values?” Journal of<br />
Experimental Psychology: Applied, (6:3), pp. 183–194.<br />
Barnett, T. 2001. “Dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> and <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g: An Empirical<br />
Study,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology (31:5), pp. 1038-1057.<br />
Bennett, R., and Blaney, R. 2002. “Social C<strong>on</strong>sensus, <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> and Will<strong>in</strong>gness to Pay to<br />
Address a Farm Animal Welfare Issue,” Journal of Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Psychology (24:4), pp. 501-520.<br />
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> of Reality: A Treatise <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books<br />
Bommer, M., Gratto, J., and Tuttle, M. 1987. “A Behavioral Model of <strong>Ethical</strong> and Unethical<br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (6), pp. 265-280.<br />
Brockriede, W., and Ehn<strong>in</strong>ger, D. 1960. “Toulm<strong>in</strong> <strong>on</strong> Argument: An Interpretati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
Applicati<strong>on</strong>,” Quarterly Journal of Speech (46), pp. 44-53.<br />
Cady, J. 2003. “Copyright<strong>in</strong>g Computer Programs: Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g Expressi<strong>on</strong> from Ideas,”<br />
Temple Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Law and Technology Journal (22), pp. 15-63.<br />
Chaiken, S., and Trope, Y. (eds.). 1999. Dual-Process Theories <strong>in</strong> Social Psychology. New<br />
York: Guilford Press.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 48<br />
Chenault, B. G. 1998. “Develop<strong>in</strong>g Pers<strong>on</strong>al and Emoti<strong>on</strong>al Relati<strong>on</strong>ships Via Computer-<br />
Mediated Communicati<strong>on</strong>,” CMC Magaz<strong>in</strong>e (5.5: 95) 10 Feb. 2006.<br />
<br />
Chia, A., and Mee, L. S. 2000. “The Effect of Issue Characteristics <strong>on</strong> the Recogniti<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Moral</strong><br />
Issues,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (27:3), pp. 255-269.<br />
Clark J.W., and Daws<strong>on</strong>, L.E. 1996. “Pers<strong>on</strong>al Religiousness and <strong>Ethical</strong> Judgment: An<br />
Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (15), pp. 359-372.<br />
Copes, H. 2003. “Societal Attachments, Offend<strong>in</strong>g Frequency, and Techniques of<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>,” Deviant Behavior, (24:2), pp. 101-127.<br />
Cromwell, P., and Thurman, Q. 2003. “The Devil Made Me Do It: Use of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> by<br />
Shoplifters,” Deviant Behavior (24:6), pp. 535-550.<br />
Dabney, D. 1995. “Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and Deviance <strong>in</strong> the Workplace: Theft of Supplies and<br />
Medic<strong>in</strong>es by Hospital Nurses,” Deviant Behavior: An Interdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary Journal (16), pp. 313-<br />
331.<br />
Davis<strong>on</strong>, R. M., Mart<strong>in</strong>s<strong>on</strong>s, M. G., Lo, H. W. H., and Kam, C. S. P. 2006. “<strong>Ethical</strong> Values of <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Professi<strong>on</strong>als: Evidence from H<strong>on</strong>g K<strong>on</strong>g,” IEEE Transacti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g Management<br />
(53:1), pp. 48-58.<br />
Denis, A. R., and Kenney, S. T. 1998. “Test<strong>in</strong>g Media Richness Theory <strong>in</strong> the New Media: The<br />
Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality,” Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems Research (9:3), pp.<br />
256-274.<br />
Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Williams, L. E., Francus, B., and Ha<strong>in</strong>es, V. J.<br />
1996. “College Cheat<strong>in</strong>g: Ten Years Later,” Research <strong>in</strong> Higher Educati<strong>on</strong> (37:4), pp. 487-502.<br />
Dukerich, J. M., Waller, M. J. George, E., and Huber, G. P. 2000. “<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> and<br />
Managerial Problem Solv<strong>in</strong>g,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (24:1), pp. 29-38.<br />
Dunford, F. W., and Kunz, P. R. 1973. “The Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> of Religious Diss<strong>on</strong>ance,” Review of<br />
Religious Research (15:1), pp. 2-9.<br />
E<strong>in</strong>horn, H. J., and Hogarth, R. M. 1986. “Judg<strong>in</strong>g Probable Cause,” Psychological Bullet<strong>in</strong><br />
(99), pp. 3-19.<br />
Fishbe<strong>in</strong>, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intenti<strong>on</strong> and Behavior: An Introducti<strong>on</strong> to<br />
Theory and Research. Read<strong>in</strong>g, MA: Addis<strong>on</strong>-Wesley.<br />
Fiske, A. P. 1990. “Relativity with<strong>in</strong> Moose (‘Moosi’) Culture: Four Incommensurable Models<br />
for Social Relati<strong>on</strong>ships,”Ethos (18:2), pp. 180-204.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 49<br />
Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relati<strong>on</strong>s:<br />
Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g, Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g, Equality Match<strong>in</strong>g, Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g. New York City,<br />
New York: The Free Press.<br />
Fiske, A. P. 2004. “Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models Theory 2.0,” <strong>in</strong> Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models Theory: A<br />
C<strong>on</strong>temporary Overview, N. Haslam (ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3-25.<br />
Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., and Fiske, S. T. 1991. “C<strong>on</strong>fus<strong>in</strong>g One Pers<strong>on</strong> with Another: What<br />
Errors Reveal about Elementary Forms of Social Relati<strong>on</strong>s,” Journal of Pers<strong>on</strong>ality and Social<br />
Psychology (60:5), pp. 656-674.<br />
Forester, T.G., and Morris<strong>on</strong>, P. 1994. Computer Ethics: Cauti<strong>on</strong>ary Tales and <strong>Ethical</strong><br />
Dilemmas <strong>in</strong> Comput<strong>in</strong>g (2 nd ed). Cambridge, MA: M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> Press.<br />
Frey, B. F. 2000a. “The Impact of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>on</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a Bus<strong>in</strong>ess C<strong>on</strong>text,”<br />
Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (26:3), pp. 181-195.<br />
Frey, B. F. 2000b. “Investigat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with the World-Wide Web: A Look at<br />
Participant Reacti<strong>on</strong>s and a Comparis<strong>on</strong> of Methods,” Behavior Research Methods and<br />
Instruments and Computer (32:3), pp. 423-431.<br />
Glass, R. S., and Wood, W. A. 1996. “Situati<strong>on</strong>al Determ<strong>in</strong>ants of Software Piracy: An Equity<br />
Theory Perspective,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (15), pp. 1189-1198.<br />
Gomulkiewicz, R. W. 2002. “Legal Protecti<strong>on</strong> for Software: Still a Work <strong>in</strong> Progress,” Texas<br />
Wesleyan Law Review (8), pp. 445-545.<br />
Gomulkiewicz, R. W. 2003. “After 30 years, Debate over Software is Still Noisy. Do Current<br />
Laws Protect Too Little or Too Much?,” Nati<strong>on</strong>al Law Journal (25:34), pp. 10-15.<br />
Ha<strong>in</strong>es, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., and Clark, R. E. 1986. “College Cheat<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Immaturity, Lack of Commitment, and the Neutraliz<strong>in</strong>g Attitude,” Research <strong>in</strong> Higher Educati<strong>on</strong><br />
(25:4), pp. 342-354.<br />
Harbaugh, R., and Khemka, R. 2001. “Does Copyright Enforcement Encourage Piracy?”<br />
Clarem<strong>on</strong>t Colleges Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers <strong>in</strong> Ec<strong>on</strong>omics (August), pp.1-23.<br />
Harr<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong> S. J. 1989. “Why People Copy Software and Create Computer Viruses: Individual<br />
Characteristics or Situati<strong>on</strong>al Factors?” Informati<strong>on</strong> Resources Management Journal (2), pp. 28-<br />
37.<br />
Harr<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong>, S. J. 2000. “Software Piracy: Are Rob<strong>in</strong> Hood and Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility Denial at Work?”<br />
<strong>in</strong> Challenges of Informait<strong>on</strong> Technology Management <strong>in</strong> the 21 st Century, M. Khosrowpour<br />
(ed.), Hershey, PA: Ideas Group Publish<strong>in</strong>g, pp. 83-87.<br />
Haslam, N., and Fiske, A. P. 1999. “Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models Theory: A C<strong>on</strong>firmatory Factor<br />
Analysis,” Pers<strong>on</strong>al Relati<strong>on</strong>ships (6:2), pp. 241-250.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 50<br />
Hegarty, W. H., and Sims, H. P. 1978. “Some Determ<strong>in</strong>ants of Unethical Decisi<strong>on</strong> Behaviour:<br />
An Experiment,” Journal of Applied Psychology (63:4), pp. 451-457.<br />
Heltsley, M., and Calhoun, T. C. 2003. “The Good Mother: Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> techniques Used by<br />
Pageant Mothers,” Deviant Behavior: An Interdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary Journal (24), pp. 81-100.<br />
Herzberg, A., and P<strong>in</strong>ter, S. S. 1987. “Public Protecti<strong>on</strong> of Software,” ACM Transacti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong><br />
Computer Systems (5:4), pp. 371-393.<br />
Holl<strong>in</strong>ger, R. C. 1991. “Neutraliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Workplace: An Empirical Analysis of Property Theft<br />
and Producti<strong>on</strong> Deviance,” Deviant Behavior: An Interdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary Journal (12), pp. 169-202.<br />
Horovitz, B. L. 1985. "Computer software as a good under the uniform commercial code: Tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a byte out of the <strong>in</strong>tangibility myth," Bost<strong>on</strong> University Law Review (65), pp. 129–164.<br />
Hunt SD and Vitell SJ. 1986. “A General Theory of Market<strong>in</strong>g Ethics,” Journal of<br />
Macromarket<strong>in</strong>g, 6 (spr<strong>in</strong>g), pp. 5-16.<br />
Hunt SD and Vitell SJ. 1993. “The General Theory of Market<strong>in</strong>g Ethics: A Retrospective and<br />
Revisi<strong>on</strong>,” In Smith NC and Quelch JA (eds.), Ethics <strong>in</strong> Market<strong>in</strong>g, pp. 775-784. Richard D.<br />
Irw<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Husted BW, Dozier JB, McMah<strong>on</strong> JT and Kattan MW. 1996. “The Impact of Cross-Nati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Carriers of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics <strong>on</strong> Attitudes about Questi<strong>on</strong>able Practices and form of <strong>Moral</strong><br />
Reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g,” Journal of Internati<strong>on</strong>al Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Studies (27:2), pp. 391-411.<br />
Jiang, Z., and Sarkar, S. 2003. “Free Software Offer and Software Diffusi<strong>on</strong>: The M<strong>on</strong>opolist<br />
Case” Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the Twenty-Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>ference of Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems,<br />
Seattle, Wash<strong>in</strong>gt<strong>on</strong>, pp. 881-887.<br />
J<strong>on</strong>es, S. J., and Hiltebeitel, K. M. 1995 “Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Influence <strong>in</strong> a Model of the <strong>Moral</strong><br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong> Process of Accountants,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (14), pp. 417-431.<br />
J<strong>on</strong>es T. M. 1991. “<strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g by Individuals <strong>in</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong>s: An Issue-<br />
C<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gent Model,” Academy of Management Review (16), pp. 366-395.<br />
Kahneman, D. 1973. Attenti<strong>on</strong> and Effort, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall.<br />
Kahneman, D., and Frederick, S. 2002. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
Intuitive Judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griff<strong>in</strong> & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases:<br />
The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, New York : Cambridge University Press, pp.49-81.<br />
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (eds.). 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge:<br />
Cambridge University Press.<br />
Keller, M., Edelste<strong>in</strong>, W., Schmid, C., Fang, F., and Fang, G. 1998. “Reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g about<br />
Resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities and Obligati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> Close Relati<strong>on</strong>ships: A Comparis<strong>on</strong> Across two Cultures,”<br />
Developmental Psychology (34:4), pp. 731-741.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 51<br />
Kelley, P. C., and Elm, D. R. 2003. “The Effects of C<strong>on</strong>text <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> of <strong>Ethical</strong> Issues:<br />
Revis<strong>in</strong>g J<strong>on</strong>es’s Issue-C<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gent Model,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (48:2), pp. 139-154.<br />
Kohlberg, L. 1969. “Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to<br />
Socializati<strong>on</strong>”, <strong>in</strong> DA Gosl<strong>in</strong> (ed.), Handbook of Socializati<strong>on</strong> Theory and Research, Chicago,<br />
IL: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 347-480.<br />
Krebs, D. L. 2008. <strong>Moral</strong>ity: An evoluti<strong>on</strong>ary account. Perspectives <strong>on</strong> Psychological Science,<br />
(3:3), pp. 149-172.<br />
Laud<strong>on</strong>, K. C. 1995. “<strong>Ethical</strong> C<strong>on</strong>cepts and Informati<strong>on</strong> Technology,” Communicati<strong>on</strong>s of the<br />
ACM (38:12), pp. 49-67.<br />
Lickel, B., Hamilt<strong>on</strong>, D. L., and Sherman, S. J. 2001. “Elements of Lay Theory of Groups: Types<br />
of Groups, Relati<strong>on</strong>al Styles, and the Percepti<strong>on</strong> of Group Entitativity,” Pers<strong>on</strong>ality and Social<br />
Psychology Review (5:2), pp. 129-140.<br />
Lim, V. K. G. 2002. “The <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> Way of Loaf<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> the Job: Cyberloaf<strong>in</strong>g, neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
organizati<strong>on</strong>al justice,” Journal of Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Behavior (23:5), pp. 675-694.<br />
Litman, J. (2008). “Reth<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Copyright,” paper presented at University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota Law<br />
School, Intellectual Property Workshop, April 10 2008.<br />
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., and Mansfield, P. 2000. “A Review of Empirical Studies Assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Bus<strong>in</strong>ess,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (25), pp. 185-204.<br />
Logsd<strong>on</strong>, J. M, Thomps<strong>on</strong>, J. K., and Reid, R. A. 1994. “Software Piracy: Is it Related to Level<br />
of <strong>Moral</strong> Development?” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (13), pp. 849-857.<br />
Marshall, B., and Dewe, P. 1997. “An Investigati<strong>on</strong> of the Comp<strong>on</strong>ents of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong>,”<br />
Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (16: 5), pp. 521-529.<br />
McCarthy, J. G., and Stewart, A. L. 1998. “Neutralisati<strong>on</strong> as a Process of Graduated<br />
Desensitisati<strong>on</strong>: <strong>Moral</strong> Values of Offenders,” Internati<strong>on</strong>al Journal of Offender Therapy and<br />
Comparative Crim<strong>in</strong>ology (42:4), pp. 278-290.<br />
McDevitt, R., and Van Hise, J. 2002. “<str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Dilemmas of Increas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Intensity</strong>,”<br />
Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (40), pp. 261-274.<br />
McMah<strong>on</strong>, J. M., Harvey, R. J. 2006. “An Analysis of the Factor Structure of J<strong>on</strong>es’ <strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>Intensity</strong> C<strong>on</strong>struct,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (64), 381-404.<br />
M<strong>in</strong>er, M., and Petocz, A. 2003. “<strong>Moral</strong> Theory <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g: Problems,<br />
Clarificati<strong>on</strong>s and Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s from a Psychological Perspective,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
Ethics (42), pp. 11-25.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 52<br />
M<strong>in</strong>or, W. W. 1981. “Techniques of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>: A Rec<strong>on</strong>ceptualizati<strong>on</strong> and Empirical<br />
Exam<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong>,” Journal of Research <strong>in</strong> Crime and Del<strong>in</strong>quency (18), pp. 295-318.<br />
Mitchell, J., and Dodder, R. A. 1980. “An Exam<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of Types of Del<strong>in</strong>quency Through Path<br />
Analysis,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence (9:3), pp. 239-248.<br />
Mitchell, J., and Dodder, R. A. 1983. “Types of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and Types of Del<strong>in</strong>quency,”<br />
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (12:4), pp. 307-318.<br />
Moor, J. H. 1995. “What is Computer Ethics?,” <strong>in</strong> D. G. Johns<strong>on</strong> and H. Nissenbaum (Eds)<br />
Computer Ethics and Social Values, Prentice Hall, New Jersey pp. 7-15.<br />
Moores, T. T., and Chang, J. C. 2006. “<strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Software Piracy: Initial<br />
Development and Test of a Four-Comp<strong>on</strong>ent Model,” MIS Quarterly (30:1), pp. 167-180.<br />
Morris, S., and McD<strong>on</strong>ald, R. 1995. “The Role of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> Judgments: An<br />
Empirical Investigati<strong>on</strong> ,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (14:9), pp. 715-726.<br />
Naumovich, G., and Mem<strong>on</strong>, N. 2003. “Prevent<strong>in</strong>g Piracy, Reverse Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
Tamper<strong>in</strong>g,” Computer (36), pp. 64-71.<br />
Neumann, M., Simps<strong>on</strong>, T. A. 1997. “Smuggled Sound: Bootleg Record<strong>in</strong>g and the Pursuit of<br />
Popular Memory,” Symbolic Interacti<strong>on</strong> (20:4), pp. 319-341.<br />
Orbuch, T. L. 1997. “People’s Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts,” Annual Review of<br />
Sociology (23), pp. 455-478.<br />
Paolillo, J. G. P., and Vitell, S. J. 2002. “An Empirical Investigati<strong>on</strong> of the Influence of Selected<br />
Pers<strong>on</strong>al, Organizati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> Factors <strong>on</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g,” Journal of<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (35), pp. 65-74.<br />
Peace, A. G., Galletta, D. F., and Th<strong>on</strong>g, J. Y. L. 2003. "Software Piracy <strong>in</strong> the Workplace: A<br />
Model and Empirical Test," Journal of Management Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems, (20: 1), pp. 153-177.<br />
Persh<strong>in</strong>g, J. L. 2003. “To Snitch or Not to Snitch? Apply<strong>in</strong>g the C<strong>on</strong>cept of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong><br />
Techniques to the Enforcement of Occupati<strong>on</strong>al Misc<strong>on</strong>duct,” Sociological Perspectives (46:2),<br />
pp. 149-178.<br />
Realo, A., Kastik, L., and Allik, J. 2004. “The Relati<strong>on</strong>ships between Collectivist Attitudes and<br />
Elementary Forms of Human Relati<strong>on</strong>s: Evidence from Est<strong>on</strong>ia,” Journal of Social and Pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
Relati<strong>on</strong>ships (21:6), pp. 779-794.<br />
Reiss, M. C., and Mitra, K. 1998. “The Effects of Individual Difference Factors <strong>on</strong> the<br />
Acceptability of <strong>Ethical</strong> and Unethical Workplace Behaviors,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (17),<br />
pp. 1581-1593.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 53<br />
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., and Thoma, S. 1999. “A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> Judgment: An Overview of Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Issues Test Research,” Educati<strong>on</strong>al Psychology<br />
Review (11:4), pp. 291-324.<br />
Riva, G. 2002. “The Sociocognitive Psychology of Computer-Mediated Communicati<strong>on</strong>: The<br />
Present and Future of Technology-Based Interacti<strong>on</strong>s,” CyberPsychology and Behavior (5:6), pp.<br />
581-598.<br />
Rob<strong>in</strong>s<strong>on</strong>, S. L., and Kraatz, M. S. 1998. “C<strong>on</strong>struct<strong>in</strong>g the Reality of Normative Behavior: The<br />
Use of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> Strategies by Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Deviants,” <strong>in</strong> R. W Griff<strong>in</strong>, A. O’Leary-<br />
Kelly, and J. M. Coll<strong>in</strong>s (Eds) Dysfuncti<strong>on</strong>al Behavior <strong>in</strong> Organizati<strong>on</strong>s: Violent and Deviant<br />
Behavior (Part B), pp. 203-220.<br />
Russo J. E., and Schoemaker, P. J. H. 2002. W<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g Decisi<strong>on</strong>s, New York: Currency Books.<br />
Sama, L. M., and Shoaf, V. 2002. “Ethics <strong>on</strong> the Web: Apply<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Moral</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
New Media,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (36), pp. 93-103.<br />
Shapiro, C., and Varian, H. R. 1999. Informati<strong>on</strong> Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network<br />
Ec<strong>on</strong>omy. Harvard Bus<strong>in</strong>ess School Press. Bost<strong>on</strong>, Massachusetts. no page #??<br />
Shaw, T. R. 2003. “The <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> of Privacy: An Empirical Study of Webmater’s<br />
Attitudes,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (46:4), pp. 301-318.<br />
Sim<strong>on</strong>, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial (3 rd Editi<strong>on</strong>). Cambridge, MA: M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> Press.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger, M. S. 1996. “The Role of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> and Fairness Percepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Judgments of<br />
<strong>Ethical</strong>ity: A Comparis<strong>on</strong> of Managerial Professi<strong>on</strong>als and the General Public,” Journal of<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (15:4), pp. 469-474.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger, M., Mitchell, S., and Turner, J. 1998. “C<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ethical</strong><br />
Judgments: Its Relati<strong>on</strong>ship with Whistle-Blow<strong>in</strong>g and Need-For-Cogniti<strong>on</strong>,” Developmental<br />
Psychology, (34:4), pp. 731-741.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger, M. S., and S<strong>in</strong>ger, A. E. 1997. “Observer Judgments about <strong>Moral</strong> Agents’ <strong>Ethical</strong><br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong>s: The Role of Scope of Justice and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong>,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics, (16:5),<br />
pp. 473-484.<br />
Slive, J., and Bernhardt, D. 1998. “Pirated for Profit,” The Canadian Journal of Ec<strong>on</strong>omics (3:4),<br />
pp. 886-899.<br />
Smith, G. F., Bens<strong>on</strong>, P. G., and Curley, S. C. 1991. “Belief, Knowledge, and Uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty: A<br />
Cognitive Perspective <strong>on</strong> Subjective Probability,” Organizati<strong>on</strong>al Behavior and Human Decisi<strong>on</strong><br />
Processes (48), pp. 291-321.<br />
Sproull, L. , and Kielsler, S. B. 1991. C<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s: New Ways of Work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Networked<br />
Organizati<strong>on</strong>, Cambridge, MA: M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> Press.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 54<br />
Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F. 2000. “Individual Differences <strong>in</strong> Reas<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g: Implicati<strong>on</strong>s for<br />
the Rati<strong>on</strong>ality Debate,” Behavioral and Bra<strong>in</strong> Sciences, 23, pp. 645–665.<br />
Strikwerda, R. A., and Ross, J. M. 1992. “Software and <strong>Ethical</strong> Softness,” Collegiate<br />
Microcomputer (10), pp. 129-136.<br />
Strutt<strong>on</strong>, D., Vitell, S. J., and Pelt<strong>on</strong>, L. E. 1994. “How C<strong>on</strong>sumers May Justify Inappropriate<br />
Behavior <strong>in</strong> Market Sett<strong>in</strong>gs—An Applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Techniques of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>,” Journal of<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Research (30:3), pp. 253-260.<br />
Sutherland, E. H. (Revised by D. R. Cressey). 1955. Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of Crim<strong>in</strong>ology (5 th ed.). J. B.<br />
Lipp<strong>in</strong>cott Company, Chicago, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois.<br />
Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>: A Theory of Del<strong>in</strong>quency,”<br />
American Sociological Review (22), pp. 664-670.<br />
Tetlock, P. E. 2003. “Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g the Unth<strong>in</strong>kable: Sacred Values and Taboo Cogniti<strong>on</strong>s,”<br />
TRENDS <strong>in</strong> Cognitive Sciences, (7:7), pp. 320-324.<br />
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Els<strong>on</strong>, Green, M. C., and Lerner, J. S. 2000. “The Psychology of<br />
the Unth<strong>in</strong>kable: Taboo Trade-offs, Forbidden Base Rates, and Heretical Counterfactuals,”<br />
Journal of Pers<strong>on</strong>ality and Social Psychology, (78:5), pp. 853–870.<br />
Th<strong>on</strong>g, J. Y. L., and Yap, C. S. 1998. “Test<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g Theory: the Case of<br />
Softlift<strong>in</strong>g,” Journal of Management Informati<strong>on</strong> Systems (15), pp. 213-237.<br />
Thurman, Q. C. 1984. “Deviance and the Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Moral</strong> Commitment: An Empirical<br />
Analysis,” Deviant Behavior (5), pp. 291-304.<br />
Toulm<strong>in</strong>, S.E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.<br />
Turiel, E. 1974. “C<strong>on</strong>flict and Transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Adolescent <strong>Moral</strong> Development,” Child<br />
Development, (45:1), pp. 14-29.<br />
Turiel, E. 1977. “C<strong>on</strong>flict and Transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Adolescent <strong>Moral</strong> Development, II: The Resoluti<strong>on</strong><br />
of Disequilibrium through Structural Reorganizati<strong>on</strong>,” Child Development, (48:2), pp. 634-637.<br />
Valent<strong>in</strong>e, S., and Silver, L. 2001. “Assess<strong>in</strong>g the Dimensi<strong>on</strong>ality of the S<strong>in</strong>ghapakdi, Vitell, and<br />
Kraft Measure of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong>,” Psychological Reports (88:1), pp. 291-284.<br />
Vitell, S., and Davis, D. 1990. “<strong>Ethical</strong> Beliefs of MIS Professi<strong>on</strong>als: The Frequency and<br />
Opportunity for Unethical Behavior,” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (9), pp. 63-70.<br />
Walther, J. B. 1995. “Relati<strong>on</strong>al Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communicati<strong>on</strong>s: Experimental<br />
Observati<strong>on</strong> Over Time,” Organizati<strong>on</strong> Science (6:2), pp. 186-203.<br />
Whitman, M.E., and Hendricks<strong>on</strong>, A.R. 1996. “IS <strong>Ethical</strong> Issues for Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Management,”<br />
Ethics and Critical Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Quarterly Journal (38:408), pp. 60-98.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 55<br />
Zamo<strong>on</strong>, S. 2006. “Software Piracy: Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> Techniques that Circumvent <strong>Ethical</strong><br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong> Mak<strong>in</strong>g.” Doctoral dissertati<strong>on</strong>, University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota.<br />
Zamo<strong>on</strong>, S., and Curley, S. P. (2008) “Ripped from the Headl<strong>in</strong>es: What Can Popular Press<br />
Teach us about Software Piracy?” Journal of Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ethics (18), pp. 515-533.
Appendix: Summary of Research <strong>on</strong> <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Authors<br />
and Year<br />
Morris and<br />
McD<strong>on</strong>ald<br />
(1995)<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger<br />
(1996)<br />
Marshall<br />
and Dewe<br />
(1997)<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger and<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ger<br />
(1997)<br />
<strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Dimensi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
Populati<strong>on</strong> and<br />
Method<br />
Undergraduate<br />
students<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire,<br />
(manipulate two<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s per<br />
scenario)<br />
Managers of<br />
commercial firms vs.<br />
public (n<strong>on</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess)<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
Executive MBA<br />
students<br />
Questi<strong>on</strong>naire with<br />
scenarios<br />
Undergraduate<br />
students<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 56<br />
F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
Studies exam<strong>in</strong>ed the relati<strong>on</strong>ship of moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity to moral judgment; found that<br />
variati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> moral judgments across situati<strong>on</strong><br />
were expla<strong>in</strong>ed by magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences and social c<strong>on</strong>sensus <strong>in</strong><br />
additi<strong>on</strong> to a third (scenario dependent)<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>. Perceived dimensi<strong>on</strong>s varied from<br />
scenario to scenario. <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity was found<br />
to <strong>in</strong>fluence judgment and magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences; social c<strong>on</strong>sensus outweighed<br />
the other four dimensi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Managers’ evaluati<strong>on</strong> processes emphasize:<br />
social c<strong>on</strong>sensus (prevail<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
practices), magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences, and<br />
likelihood of acti<strong>on</strong>. Public evaluati<strong>on</strong><br />
processes emphasize: magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences.<br />
All people do not c<strong>on</strong>sistently use moral<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensity’s six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s when describ<strong>in</strong>g an<br />
ethical situati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Overall ethicality rat<strong>in</strong>gs of a situati<strong>on</strong> were<br />
best predicted by the social c<strong>on</strong>sensus and<br />
magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences.
S<strong>in</strong>ger,<br />
Mitchell,<br />
and Turner<br />
(1998)<br />
Chia and<br />
Mee (2000)<br />
Dukerich,<br />
Waller,<br />
George, and<br />
Huber<br />
(2000)<br />
Frey (2000<br />
a)<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
Employees<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong><br />
S<strong>in</strong>gapore<br />
Questi<strong>on</strong>naire and<br />
open ended questi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Managers<br />
Interview<br />
New Zealand bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
managers<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire (via<br />
snail mail)<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 57<br />
Overall ethicality of a situati<strong>on</strong> was <strong>in</strong>fluenced<br />
by magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences closely<br />
followed by social c<strong>on</strong>sensus. Furthermore,<br />
people use different issue characteristics when<br />
outcomes will be beneficial (social c<strong>on</strong>sensus,<br />
magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sequences, temporal<br />
immediacy) vs. harmful (social c<strong>on</strong>sensus,<br />
likelihood of acti<strong>on</strong>).<br />
Recogniti<strong>on</strong> of a moral issue is <strong>on</strong>ly affected<br />
by social c<strong>on</strong>sensus and magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences.<br />
“J<strong>on</strong>es (1991) model of moral <strong>in</strong>tensity may<br />
not portray a unitary c<strong>on</strong>struct…c<strong>on</strong>structed a<br />
new variable … add<strong>in</strong>g the values of<br />
magnitude of c<strong>on</strong>sensus, social c<strong>on</strong>sensus,<br />
proximity, and c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect<br />
[Organizati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong>]” (p. 33).<br />
Proposed moral <strong>in</strong>tensity is multidimensi<strong>on</strong>al,<br />
not unitary c<strong>on</strong>struct.<br />
Found social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences, likelihood of effect <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong><br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g. <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity best<br />
described by a <strong>on</strong>e factor soluti<strong>on</strong>, because<br />
J<strong>on</strong>es’ six dimensi<strong>on</strong>s do not fall <strong>in</strong>to reliably<br />
orthog<strong>on</strong>al dimensi<strong>on</strong>s, but rather <strong>on</strong>e<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong> with comp<strong>on</strong>ents.
Frey<br />
(2000b)<br />
Barnett<br />
(2001)<br />
Bennet and<br />
Blaney<br />
(2002)<br />
McDevitt<br />
and Van<br />
Hise (2002)<br />
Paolillo and<br />
Vitell (2002)<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
New Zealand<br />
Universities and UK<br />
mail base<br />
Web based email of<br />
qualitative (opti<strong>on</strong>al)<br />
resp<strong>on</strong>ses and<br />
scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire (via web<br />
random email)<br />
Undergraduates<br />
Scenarios and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
Undergraduates<br />
Questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
Employees enrolled at<br />
graduate class<br />
Scenario and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
Bus<strong>in</strong>ess managers<br />
Questi<strong>on</strong>naire (snail<br />
mail)<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 58<br />
Found social c<strong>on</strong>sensus, magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences, likelihood of effect <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong><br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Social c<strong>on</strong>sensus al<strong>on</strong>e affects recogniti<strong>on</strong> of<br />
issue. Seriousness of c<strong>on</strong>sequences and<br />
social c<strong>on</strong>sensus effect moral judgment, and<br />
social c<strong>on</strong>sensus <strong>in</strong>fluences behavior<br />
<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Higher social c<strong>on</strong>sensus leads to higher<br />
will<strong>in</strong>gness to pay to address an issue.<br />
Measured moral <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>in</strong> terms of the dollar<br />
value of the ethical breach, where larger<br />
amounts <strong>in</strong>dicated more serious offenses.<br />
Dilemmas <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g less m<strong>on</strong>ey perceived as<br />
less important.<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity expla<strong>in</strong>s variati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> ethical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong>-mak<strong>in</strong>g.
Sama and<br />
Shoaf<br />
(2002)<br />
Kelley and<br />
Elm (2003)<br />
Shaw<br />
(2003)<br />
McMah<strong>on</strong><br />
and Harvey<br />
(2006)<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Proximity<br />
Social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Magnitude of<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 59<br />
N/A Theoretical article stat<strong>in</strong>g there are no clear<br />
normative standards of behavior for the Web.<br />
“MI elements are <strong>on</strong>ly weakly evident <strong>in</strong><br />
bus<strong>in</strong>ess c<strong>on</strong>ducted over the Internet,<br />
particularly with reference to social c<strong>on</strong>sensus,<br />
temporal immediacy and proximity” (p. 99).<br />
Social service<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istrators<br />
Interview<br />
Webmasters<br />
Questi<strong>on</strong>naire (webbased)<br />
Undergraduate<br />
students<br />
Surveys and<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>naire (Study 2<br />
<strong>on</strong>l<strong>in</strong>e)<br />
Organizati<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>text effects moral <strong>in</strong>tensity<br />
and there is <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g its dimensi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
When decid<strong>in</strong>g issues of privacy, webmasters<br />
do c<strong>on</strong>sider social norms and outcomes.<br />
Measures of c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> of effect not<br />
reliable. Exploratory and c<strong>on</strong>firmatory factor<br />
analyses suggested three factors: social<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus, proximity, and probable magnitude<br />
of c<strong>on</strong>sequences (comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the other 3<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s).
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
Probability of<br />
effect<br />
Temporal<br />
immediacy<br />
Proximity<br />
C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of effect<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 60
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 61<br />
Table 1: <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> of Features of Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods <strong>on</strong> Dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> [as Moderated by Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models]<br />
Dimensi<strong>on</strong> of<br />
<strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Social<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Severity of<br />
Outcomes<br />
Severity of<br />
Acti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of Dimensi<strong>on</strong><br />
(c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s to<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s posited by<br />
J<strong>on</strong>es, 1991)<br />
The existence of<br />
developed relevant ethical<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples al<strong>on</strong>g with the<br />
degree of social<br />
agreement up<strong>on</strong> them<br />
(Social C<strong>on</strong>sensus)<br />
Teleological (Ends) –<br />
magnitude, likelihood and<br />
promptness of the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>in</strong>volved<br />
(Magnitude of<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sequences, Probability<br />
of Effect, Temporal<br />
Immediacy)<br />
De<strong>on</strong>tological (Means) –<br />
<strong>in</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>ality of harm and<br />
strength of causal l<strong>in</strong>k<br />
between acti<strong>on</strong> and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences<br />
(Temporal Immediacy)<br />
Nearness to those affected<br />
and their fewness <strong>in</strong><br />
(Social Impact)* number<br />
(Proximity, C<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><br />
of Effect)<br />
Cost<br />
Structure<br />
(Lower costs)<br />
Lower<br />
[less with Market<br />
Pric<strong>in</strong>g]<br />
Lower<br />
[less with<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g]<br />
Features of Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods<br />
Reproducti<strong>on</strong> Distance Intangibility<br />
(No quality<br />
degradati<strong>on</strong>)<br />
(disassociati<strong>on</strong><br />
am<strong>on</strong>g parties<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved)<br />
(n<strong>on</strong>-physical)<br />
Lower Lower Lower<br />
Lower Lower<br />
Lower Lower<br />
Lower<br />
[more with<br />
Communal<br />
Shar<strong>in</strong>g]<br />
* The dimensi<strong>on</strong> of Social Impact is more tentative and may not obta<strong>in</strong> up<strong>on</strong> further study.<br />
Protecti<strong>on</strong><br />
(m<strong>in</strong>imal legal<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences)<br />
Lower<br />
[greater sensitivity<br />
with Authority<br />
Rank<strong>in</strong>g]<br />
Lower<br />
[greater sensitivity<br />
with Authority<br />
Rank<strong>in</strong>g]<br />
Lower<br />
[greater sensitivity<br />
with Authority<br />
Rank<strong>in</strong>g]
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 62<br />
Table 2: Primary <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> of Features of Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods <strong>on</strong> Relati<strong>on</strong>al Models<br />
Feature of Informati<strong>on</strong> Good Influence <strong>on</strong> Relati<strong>on</strong>al Model<br />
Cost Structure<br />
(zero marg<strong>in</strong>al cost)<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g lessened<br />
Reproducti<strong>on</strong><br />
(no degradati<strong>on</strong>)<br />
Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g bolstered<br />
Distance<br />
(no social cues)<br />
All social models lessened<br />
Intangibility<br />
(n<strong>on</strong>-phyiscal)<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g lessened<br />
Protecti<strong>on</strong><br />
(limited)<br />
Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g lessened<br />
Table 3: Primary <str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s and Counter-Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> Dimensi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Dimensi<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Social C<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
Severity of Outcomes<br />
(teleological)<br />
Severity of Acti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
(de<strong>on</strong>tological)<br />
Social Impact<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Influences</str<strong>on</strong>g> of Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> and Counter-<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Dimensi<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of C<strong>on</strong>demners/ Equality of C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong><br />
Appeal to Higher Loyalty/ Reducti<strong>on</strong> to Self Interest<br />
Denial of Injury/ Expectati<strong>on</strong> of Injury<br />
Denial of Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility/ Accepted Accountability<br />
Denial of Victim/ Fairness of System
Figure 1: <strong>Ethical</strong> Decisi<strong>on</strong>-Mak<strong>in</strong>g Model<br />
Individual<br />
Decisi<strong>on</strong> Maker<br />
?<br />
Problem<br />
Situati<strong>on</strong><br />
with <str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Problem Formulati<strong>on</strong><br />
(detail <strong>in</strong> Figure 2)<br />
<strong>Moral</strong><br />
<strong>Intensity</strong><br />
<strong>Ethical</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
<strong>Moral</strong><br />
Intent<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 63<br />
Feedback<br />
Behavior Outcomes
Figure 2: <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong> with Technology Theory (M<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g>T)<br />
Social View<br />
Table 2<br />
Communal Shar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Authority Rank<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Equity Match<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Market Pric<strong>in</strong>g<br />
[Table 1]<br />
Table 1<br />
Informati<strong>on</strong> Goods<br />
Cost structure (zero marg<strong>in</strong>al cost)<br />
Reproducti<strong>on</strong> (no degradati<strong>on</strong>)<br />
Distance (no social cues)<br />
Intangibility (n<strong>on</strong>-physical)<br />
Protecti<strong>on</strong> (limited)<br />
<strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Table 3<br />
SC<br />
SO<br />
SA<br />
(SI)<br />
Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s /<br />
Counter-Neutralizati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
SC- Social C<strong>on</strong>sensus<br />
ST- Severity of Outcomes (teleological)<br />
SD- Severity of Acti<strong>on</strong>s (de<strong>on</strong>tological)<br />
(SI- Social Impact) [tentative]<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>IT</str<strong>on</strong>g> and <strong>Moral</strong> <strong>Intensity</strong><br />
Page 64<br />
Denial of resp<strong>on</strong>sibility /<br />
Accepted accountability<br />
Denial of <strong>in</strong>jury /<br />
Expectati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>in</strong>jury<br />
Denial of victim /<br />
Fairness of system<br />
C<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> of c<strong>on</strong>demners /<br />
Equality of c<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong><br />
Appeal to higher loyalty /<br />
Reducti<strong>on</strong> to self-<strong>in</strong>terest