The Regulatory Function of Empathy, Shame and Guilt Proneness in Moral Judgement in Organizational Life

Dan Florin STĂNESCU

Abstract


Moral judgment and moral dilemmas are a pervasive part of organizational life and every decision-maker can and will encounter them at some point. Whether people make the utilitarian decision (preferring to maximize overall welfare) or the deontological one (choosing to adhere to moral rules), depends both on the contextual aspects, as well as on individual traits such as empathy and so-called moral emotions - guilt and shame.  This paper aims to study the differences between the utilitarian and the deontologists employees in relation with empathy, guilt and shame proneness. In order to discriminate the two categories (utilitarian and deontologist), the well-established “Trolley problem” was used. In the Switch version, the task can be accomplished by using a lever to switch the train track, such that the train only kills one person. On the other hand, in the Footbridge version, pushing a very fat man off a bridge, using his body to stop the train, can save the five. The following questionnaires were used on a sample of 61 participants (47 females and 14 males, aged between M=20,88, AS=1,81): Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and The Guilt and Shame Proneness scale. Results showed a significant difference between the utilitarian and deontologist on the fantasy and empathic-concern scales for the Switch version. However, no significant differences were observed for guilt or shame proneness. As for the Bridge version, the differences were identified only on the empathic-concern scale and on the Guilt‐Negative‐Behavior‐Evaluation scale of GASP

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ausubel, D.P. (1955). Relationships between shame and guilt in the socializing process. Psychological Review, 62(5), 378-390.

Barish, K., Gerrity, W.C., Pakula, A.J., and Starge, M. (Producer), & Pakula, A.J. (Director). (1983). Sophie’s Choice [Motion Picture]. United States: Incorporated Television Company (ITC).

Brinkmann, J. (2005). Understanding Insurance Customer Dishonesty: Outline of a Situational Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), 183–197.

Cohen, T.R., Wolf, S.T., Panter, A.T., and Insko, C.A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947‐966.

Combs, D.J.Y., Campbell, G., Jackson, M. and Smith, R.H. (2010). Exploring the Consequences of Humiliating a Moral Transgressor. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 128-143.

Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. (2012). Simulating murder: the aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12(1), 2–7.

Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Fischer, J.M., and Ravizza, M. (eds.) (1992). Ethics: Problems and Principles. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Foot, P. (1978). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (pp.19-32). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gleichgerrcht, E., and Young, L. (2013). Low Levels of Empathic Concern Predict Utilitarian Moral Judgment. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e60418.

Greene, J.D. (2014). Beyond Point‐and‐Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro) Science Matters for Ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695–726.

Greene, E., and Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517-523.

Greene, J.D., et al. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.

Greene, J.D., et al. (2009). Pushing Moral Buttons: The Interaction Between Personal Force and Intention in Moral Judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371.

Greenspan, P.S. (1983). Moral Dilemmas and Guilt. Philosophical Studies, 43(1), 117–125.

Gowans, C.W. (1994). Innocence Lost: An Examination of Inescapable Moral Wrongdoing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed a Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, New York: Harper Collins/Ecco.

Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kidder, R. (2005). Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are Put to the Test, New York: William Morrow.

Kvalnes, Ø. (2015). Moral reasoning at work: Rethinking ethics in organizations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Leith, K.P., and Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66(1), 1–37.

Lewis, H.B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press.

Majdandžić, J., et al. (2012). The human factor: behavioral and neural correlates of humanized perception in moral decision making. PLoS One, 7(10): e47698

Mill, J. S., and Sher, G. (2001). Utilitarianism, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Molchanov, S.V. (2014). Empathy as the Factor of Moral Dilemma Solving in Adolescence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 146, 89-93.

Smith, R.H., Webster, J.M., Parrott, W.G., and Eyre, H.L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 138-159.

Stuewig, J., et al. (2010). Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 91-102.

Tangney, J.P. (1990). Assessing Individual Differences in Proneness to Shame and Guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 102-111.

Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 598-607.

Tangney, J.P. (1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(9), 741-754.

Tangney, J.P. (2003). Self-relevant emotions. In J.P. Tangney & M.R. Leary (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp.384-400). New York: Guilford Press.

Tangney, J.P., and Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., and Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345-372.

Thomson, J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.

Tracy, J.L., and Robins, R.W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125.

Ugazio, G., Lamm, C., and Singer, T. (2012). The role of emotions for moral judgments depends on the type of emotion and moral scenario. Emotion, 12(3), 579-590.

Waldmann, M.R., and Dieterich, J.H. (2007). Throwing a bomb on a person versus throwing a person on a bomb: Intervention myopia in moral intuitions. Psychological Science, 18(3), 247–253.

Wolf, S.T., Cohen, T.R., Panter, A.T., and Insko, C.A. (2010). Shame proneness and guilt proneness: Toward the further understanding of reactions to public and private transgressions. Self & Identity, 9(4), 337-362.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E. and Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© Faculty of Management (SNSPA)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC

The opinions expressed in the papers published are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of the editors of this journal. The authors assume all responsibility for the ideas expressed in the materials published.

ISSN 2392-8042 (online)