Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Chapter 12 Mixed Methodologies, Full-Cycle Research, and the Shortcomings of Behavioral Ethics
- Chapter 13 Applying Neuroscience to Business Ethics
- Case Study Approaches
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Chapter 12 - Mixed Methodologies, Full-Cycle Research, and the Shortcomings of Behavioral Ethics
from Contemporary Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2017
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Chapter 12 Mixed Methodologies, Full-Cycle Research, and the Shortcomings of Behavioral Ethics
- Chapter 13 Applying Neuroscience to Business Ethics
- Case Study Approaches
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility , pp. 191 - 198Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Ashforth, B. E., and Anand, V., “The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 25 (2003), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, C. M., Schaubroeck, J., Huth, M., and Ghumman, S.. “Lack of Sleep and Unethical Conduct,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2) (2011), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, C. B., Bohns, V. K., and Gino, F., “Good Lamps Are the Best Policez; Darkness Increases Dishonesty and Self-interested Behavior.” Psychological science, 21(3) (2010), 311–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S., and West, S. G.. “Improving the Dependability of Research in Personality and Social Psychology: Recommendations for Research and Educational Practice.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (2013), 3–12, 10.1177/1088868313507536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., and Salvador, R., ”How Low Does Ethical Leadership Flow? Test of a Trickle-down Model,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108 (2009), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, D. M. and Fernandes, M. F., “The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research,” Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11) (1991), 805–817.Google Scholar
Welsh, D., and Ordonez, L., “Conscience Without Cognition: The Effects of Subconscious Priming on Ethical Behavior,” Academy of Management Journal, 57(3) (2014), 723–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gino, F. and Pierce, L., “Robin Hood Under the Hood: Wealth-based Discrimination in Illicit Customer Help,” Organization Science, 21(6) (2010), 1176–1194.Google Scholar
Chatman, J. A., and Flynn, F. J., “Full-cycle Micro-organizational Behavior Research,” Organization Science, 16(4) (2005), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., and Treviño, L. K., “Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad Barrels: Meta-analytic Evidence About Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work,” Journal of applied Psychology, 95(1) (2010), 1.Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S., and Thompson, J. A., “The Call of the Wild: Zookeepers, Callings, and the Double-edged Sword of Deeply Meaningful Work,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1) (2009), 32–57.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P., Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, (2007).Google Scholar
Liljenquist, K., Zhong, C. B., and Galinsky, A. D., “The Smell of Virtue: Clean Scents Promote Reciprocity and Charity,” Psychological Science, 21(3) (2010), 381–383.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, 14(4) (1989), 532–550.Google Scholar
Trevino, L. K., “Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person–situation Interactionist Model,” Academy of Management Review, 11(3) (1986), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevino, L. K., “Experimental Approaches to Studying Ethical-unethical Behavior in Organizations,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2) (1992), 121–136.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., and Reynolds, S. J.. “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review.” Journal of Management, 32(6) (2006): 951–990.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., and Berger, M. T., Gaining Access: A Practical and Theoretical Guide for Qualitative Researchers, new edn. (Altamira Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., “Full-cycle Social Psychology,” Bickman, L. ed. Applied Social Psychology Annual, Vol. 1, (2009), 21–47.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., “Crossroads: The Virtues of Closet Qualitative Research.” Organization Science, 8(1) (1997), 97–106.Google Scholar
Jackall, R., “Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1(4) (1988), 598–614.Google Scholar
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J., and De Dreu, C. K., “Justified Ethicality: Observing Desired Counterfactuals Modifies Ethical Perceptions and Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2) (2011), 181–190.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S., “Emergence of Ethical Issues During Strategic Change Implementation,” Organization Science, 20(1) (2009), 223–239.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S., “The Role of Construction, Intuition, and Justification in Responding to Ethical Issues at Work: The Sensemaking-Intuition Model,” Academy of Management Review, 32(4) (2007), 1022–1040.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S., DeCelles, K. A., and Dutton, J. E., “It’s Not Easy Being Green: The Role of Self-Evaluations in Explaining Support of Environmental Issues,” Academy of Management Journal, 57(1) (2014), 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dholakia, U., “My Experience as an Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) Worker,” LinkedIn, 2016, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-experience-amazon-mechanical-turk-mturk-worker-utpal-dholakia.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. and Endler, N.S., (1977). Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977), pp. 333–352.Google Scholar