Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:17:29.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facing ethical dilemmas in industrial-organizational psychology: The case for the principle of double effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2021

John Fiset  and
Erin Oldford
John Fiset*
Affiliation:
Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Canada
Erin Oldford
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 350 - 352
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bogen, M. (2019, May 6). All the ways hiring algorithms can introduce bias. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/05/all-the-ways-hiring-algorithms-can-introduce-bias Google Scholar
Burke, L. (2020, December 14). The death and life of an admissions algorithm. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/12/14/u-texas-will-stop-using-controversial-algorithm-evaluate-phd Google Scholar
Cavanaugh, T. A. (2006). Double-effect reasoning: Doing good and avoiding evil (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, D., Sherman, R. A., & Hogan, R. (2016). New talent signals: Shiny new objects or a brave new world? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(3), 621–640. https://doi:10.1017/iop.2016.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastin, J. (2018, October 9). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2004). Double effect, double intention, and asymmetric warfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 3(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570410006183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2021). Forms of ethical dilemmas in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14(3), 297–319.Google Scholar
Lindblad, A., Lynöe, N., & Juth, N. (2014). End-of-life decisions and the reinvented rule of double effect: A critical analysis. Bioethics, 28(7), 368–377. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 9–22.Google Scholar
Monge, R., & Hsieh, N. H. (2020). Recovering the logic of double effect for business: Intentions, proportionality, and impermissible harms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(3), 361–387. doi: 10.1017/beq.2019.39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group. Google Scholar