Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers
Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to th...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Bateman, Connie Rae [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2002 |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics - Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982, 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:36 ; year:2002 ; number:1-2 ; month:03 ; pages:119-140 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2044522330 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2044522330 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503011054.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2002 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1023/A:1014229124279 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2044522330 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 300 |a 330 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 3,2 |a 0 |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 85.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Bateman, Connie Rae |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2002 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Fraedrich, John Paul |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Iyer, Rajesh |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of business ethics |d Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 |g 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 |w (DE-627)130668133 |w (DE-600)868017-6 |w (DE-576)018279333 |x 0167-4544 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:36 |g year:2002 |g number:1-2 |g month:03 |g pages:119-140 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4029 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4318 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 85.00 |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 36 |j 2002 |e 1-2 |c 03 |h 119-140 | ||
| author_variant |
c r b cr crb j p f jp jpf r i ri |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:01674544:2002----::rmnefcsihnhehcleiinaig |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2002 |
| bklnumber |
85.00 |
| publishDate |
2002 |
| allfields |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 doi (DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Bateman, Connie Rae verfasserin aut Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers 2002 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. Fraedrich, John Paul aut Iyer, Rajesh aut Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 85.00 VZ AR 36 2002 1-2 03 119-140 |
| spelling |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 doi (DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Bateman, Connie Rae verfasserin aut Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers 2002 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. Fraedrich, John Paul aut Iyer, Rajesh aut Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 85.00 VZ AR 36 2002 1-2 03 119-140 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 doi (DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Bateman, Connie Rae verfasserin aut Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers 2002 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. Fraedrich, John Paul aut Iyer, Rajesh aut Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 85.00 VZ AR 36 2002 1-2 03 119-140 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 doi (DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Bateman, Connie Rae verfasserin aut Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers 2002 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. Fraedrich, John Paul aut Iyer, Rajesh aut Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 85.00 VZ AR 36 2002 1-2 03 119-140 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 doi (DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Bateman, Connie Rae verfasserin aut Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers 2002 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. Fraedrich, John Paul aut Iyer, Rajesh aut Enthalten in Journal of business ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 (DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 0167-4544 nnns volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 85.00 VZ AR 36 2002 1-2 03 119-140 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of business ethics 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of business ethics 36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140 volume:36 year:2002 number:1-2 month:03 pages:119-140 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| dewey-raw |
300 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Bateman, Connie Rae @@aut@@ Fraedrich, John Paul @@aut@@ Iyer, Rajesh @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2002-03-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
130668133 |
| dewey-sort |
3300 |
| id |
OLC2044522330 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2044522330</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503011054.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2002 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1023/A:1014229124279</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2044522330</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bateman, Connie Rae</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fraedrich, John Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iyer, Rajesh</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of business ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982</subfield><subfield code="g">36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130668133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)868017-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)018279333</subfield><subfield code="x">0167-4544</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:36</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2002</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-2</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:119-140</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4318</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">36</subfield><subfield code="j">2002</subfield><subfield code="e">1-2</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">119-140</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Bateman, Connie Rae |
| spellingShingle |
Bateman, Connie Rae ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| authorStr |
Bateman, Connie Rae |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)130668133 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
300 - Social sciences 330 - Economics |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0167-4544 |
| topic_title |
300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| topic |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 |
| topic_browse |
ddc 300 ssgn 3,2 bkl 85.00 |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
130668133 |
| dewey-tens |
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology 330 - Economics |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of business ethics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)130668133 (DE-600)868017-6 (DE-576)018279333 |
| title |
Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2044522330 (DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p |
| title_full |
Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| author_sort |
Bateman, Connie Rae |
| journal |
Journal of business ethics |
| journalStr |
Journal of business ethics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2002 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
119 |
| author_browse |
Bateman, Connie Rae Fraedrich, John Paul Iyer, Rajesh |
| container_volume |
36 |
| class |
300 330 VZ 3,2 0 1 ssgn 85.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Bateman, Connie Rae |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 |
| dewey-full |
300 330 |
| title_sort |
framing effects within the ethical decision making process of consumers |
| title_auth |
Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| abstract |
Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed. © Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4318 |
| container_issue |
1-2 |
| title_short |
Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Fraedrich, John Paul Iyer, Rajesh |
| author2Str |
Fraedrich, John Paul Iyer, Rajesh |
| ppnlink |
130668133 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1023/A:1014229124279 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:51:29.704Z |
| _version_ |
1803603872016498688 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2044522330</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503011054.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2002 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1023/A:1014229124279</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2044522330</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)A:1014229124279-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="a">0</subfield><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bateman, Connie Rae</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Framing Effects Within the Ethical Decision Making Process of Consumers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract There has been neglect of systematic conceptual development and empirical investigation within consumer ethics. Scenarios have been a long-standing tool yet their development has been haphazard with little theory guiding their development. This research answers four questions relative to this gap: Do different scenario decision frames encourage different moral reasoning styles? Does the way in which framing effects are measured make a difference in the measurement of the relationship between moral reasoning and judgment by gender? Are true framing effects likely to vary with the situation? and Are true framing effects likely to vary by gender? The conclusions reached were that (1) different scenario frames encourage both types of reasoning, but rule based moral reasoning is dominant regardless of frame, (2) accounting for formal equivalency in the measurement of true framing effects is likely to enhance the interpretation of studies in moral reasoning and judgment, (3) True framing effects are more likely to occur in situations with low to moderate perceived ethicality, and (4) true framing effects are not likely to vary by gender. Explanations as to why these results occurred are discussed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fraedrich, John Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iyer, Rajesh</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of business ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982</subfield><subfield code="g">36(2002), 1-2 vom: März, Seite 119-140</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)130668133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)868017-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)018279333</subfield><subfield code="x">0167-4544</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:36</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2002</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-2</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:119-140</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014229124279</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4318</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">85.00</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">36</subfield><subfield code="j">2002</subfield><subfield code="e">1-2</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">119-140</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.402297 |