The study of ethical decision-making has made significant advances, particularly with regard to the ways in which different types of processing are implicated. In recent decades, much of this advancement has been driven by the influence of dual-process theories of cognition. Unfortunately, the wealth of findings in this context can be confusing for management scholars and practitioners who desire to know how best to encourage ethical behavior. While some studies suggest that deliberate reflection leads to more ethical behavior, other studies (...) find, in contrast, that intuitive decision-making leads to more ethical results. The goal of this integrative conceptual review is to help make sense of such apparently contradictory findings by identifying the moderating influences that lead to more versus less ethical decisions, whether they are made via intuitive or deliberative processes. Based on our integrative review of moderators from different disciplines and eras, we develop a taxonomy that can aid researchers in the task of identifying when similar constructs have been studied under different names. We organize our findings concerning these influences in accordance with four emergent moderator categories—psychological, situational, social, and physiological. This work helps us identify patterns of moderating factors across both intuitive and deliberative ethical decision-making, gaps that suggest future research directions and practical implications. (shrink)

Interpersonal preemptive behavior means that a party undertakes a costly action that inflicts harm to another to remove or disable a potential threat. This present study examined the emotional mechanisms underlying interpersonal preemptive behavior. The findings revealed that in interpersonal interaction situations, individuals experienced higher levels of fear and hope when they perceived the potential threat of the gaming partner and were more likely to initiate preemptive behavior; fear and hope both mediated the relationship between potential threat and preemptive behavior, (...) but they had opposite effects, with fear increasing individuals’ preemptive behavior, while hope decreases individuals’ preemptive behavior. This study has important theoretical implications for a deeper understanding of the causes of interpersonal conflict. (shrink)