Research Note

Moral Disengagement and Ethical

Decision-Making
The Moderating Role of Trait Guilt and Shame
James F. Johnson1 and Shane Connelly2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1
Air Force Personnel Center, Strategic Research & Assessment Branch, JBSA Randolph Air Force Base, TX, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Abstract: Process-focused models of ethical decision-making (EDM) have focused on individual and situational constraints influencing EDM
processes and outcomes. Trait affect and propensity to morally disengage are two individual factors that influence EDM. The current study
examines the moderating role of dispositional guilt and shame on the relationship between moral disengagement and EDM. Results indicate
that moderate and high levels of dispositional guilt attenuate the negative relationship between moral disengagement and EDM, while low guilt
does not. Dispositional shame does not moderate the relationship between moral disengagement and EDM. Implications for personnel
selection are discussed.

Keywords: moral disengagement, ethical decision-making, moral emotions, guilt, shame

Ethical decision-making (EDM) in an organizational con-
text is a difficult process. Ethical issues often involve uncer-
tain information and unclear guidelines, limiting utility of
purely rational approaches to EDM (Sonenshein, 2007).
The availability of multiple action pathways with different
advantages/drawbacks across stakeholders further compli-
cates EDM. Given ethical sensemaking involves intuitive-
emotional processes and cognitive interpretations to
preserve favorable identities (Detert, Trevio, & Sweitzer,
2008; Gaudine & Thorne, 2001), it is unsurprising emotion
and cognitive justification/rationalization influence EDM
processes. While evidence demonstrates affect and
moral disengagement independently influence EDM (cf.
MacDougall, Bagdasarov, Johnson, & Mumford, 2015),
few studies have examined the joint effects emotion and
cognitive rationalizations have on ethical decisions. There-
fore, this study examines the moderating effects trait moral
emotions guilt and shame have on the relationship between
moral disengagement and EDM. By investigating the mod-
erating effects of nomologically similar emotions like
guilt and shame, we develop a more realistic understanding
under which conditions moral disengagement is most likely
to impact ethical sensemaking cognitions and outcomes.
Practically, understanding differences in how trait moral
emotions moderate moral disengagement has significant
implications for personnel selection systems and promoting
organizational ethics.
Given their complexity, we make sense of ethical
situations by attending to and interpreting streams of
information to form actionable mental models (Thomas,
Clark, & Gioia, 1993). Sonenshein (2007) proposes moral
sensemaking involves post-hoc interpretations of non-
rational, visceral biases and emotions. In contrast, Mumford
and colleagues (2008; 2006) emphasize ethical sensemaking
requires active identification, interpretation, and regulation of
personal and situational constraints. Critically, both authors
acknowledge the deleterious effects of derailing cognitions
and unregulated affect on ethical sensemaking and EDM.
Cognitive mechanisms like moral disengagement nega-
tively impact ethical sensemaking and EDM (Detert et al.,
2008; Thiel, Bagdasarov, Harkrider, Johnson, & Mumford,
2012) by reducing critical analysis and inhibiting self-
regulation (Bandura, 1999). Similarly, equivocality of ethi-
cal dilemmas increases likelihood of emotions influencing
sensemaking and EDM (Connelly, Helton-Fauth, &
Mumford, 2004; Gaudine & Thorne, 2001). Research
shows successful regulation of disruptive emotion reduces
their deleterious effects on ethical sensemaking and EDM
(Bagdasarov, MacDougall, Johnson, & Mumford, 2015;
Kligyte, Connelly, Thiel, & Devenport, 2013).
Moral Disengagement
Social cognitive theory frames moral agency as self-
regulation via external rules and norms as well as internal
moral reasoning, willpower, and self-sanctioning (Bandura,
1999, 2015). As moral agents, people regulate actions to

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189 2016 Hogrefe Publishing

DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000166
 J. F. Johnson & S. Connelly, Moral Disengagement and Ethical Decision-Making
avoid external sanctions and because adherence to self-
imposed moral standards is rewarding. However, self-
regulation is vulnerable to mechanisms like moral
disengagement, the process whereby cognitive links
between unethical behavior and moral self-sanctions are
selectively activated or severed (Bandura, 1999, 2015).
Moral disengagement occurs via cognitive reconstrual of
reprehensible behavior, obscuring/distorting effects of
harmful actions, and reducing identification with or blaming
victims (Bandura, 1999, 2015). Once disengaged, individu-
als increasingly engage in and support atrocities with abated
cognitive distress. Organizationally, moral disengagement is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
associated with unethical organizational behavior and cor-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ruption via reframing, facilitating, and maintaining an any-
thing goes approach to success (Moore, 2008).
Moral Emotions
Organizational ethical dilemmas can trigger negative emo-
tions including anger, fear, and guilt. Moral emotions are
linked to the welfare of others, involving prosocial action
tendencies benefitting the greater social order (Haidt,
2003). Self-conscious moral guilt and shame both involve
negative self-evaluations in response to violations of moral
and social norms, but differ in display, direction, and inten-
sity (Tangney, Mashek, & Stuewig, 2005; Tangney,
Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). Self-focused moral emotions
are particularly important to examine in conjunction with
moral disengagement as the latter reduces or eliminates
self-sanctioning. Unlike other-focused emotions like anger
that focus attention on others, self-oriented emotions focus
attention inward making thoughts, intentions, and behavior
more salient. Thus, self-focused emotions and moral disen-
gagement are potentially competing forces acting on ethical
behavior. Tangney et al. (2005; 1996; 2007) define guilt
and shame as distinct emotions given significant differ-
ences in how each promote or inhibit moral cognitions
and behaviors (Haidt, 2003). That trait guilt and shame
exhibit significant differences in action tendencies despite
nomological similarities make them fitting for this study.
Trait-based guilt increases propensity for negative self-
evaluations of norm-violating behavior, focusing cognitions
on reparative behavior to reestablish social cohesiveness
with those affected (Tangney et al., 2005). Despite initial
negative self-evaluations, guilt facilitates ameliorative
actions, acceptance of responsibility, and socially reparative
behavior (Tangney et al., 2007). In contrast, trait-based
shame increases propensity for negative self-evaluations
of self- worth, and is associated with negative, critical exam-
inations of ones self-concept and feeling intimately
exposed (Tangney et al., 2005). These feelings promote
withdrawal, zealous self-preservation, aggression, and
externalization of blame (Stuewig, Tangney, Heigel, Harty,
2016 Hogrefe Publishing
185
& McCloskey, 2010). While guilt facilitates prosocial
responses, shame promotes maladaptive, self-destructive
responses and isolation (Tangney et al., 2005).
A significant difference between guilt and shame is
co-morbidity with empathic consideration, perspective-
taking, and co-experiencing others affective states (Cohen,
2010). Tangney (1991) shows empathy correlates positively
with guilt but negatively with shame, suggesting empathy
and guilt help people distinguish between the self, ones
behavior, and effects on others. With shame, that differen-
tiation fails to occur, resulting in negative self-evaluations
and producing a self-oriented distress response (Tangney
& Dearing, 2003).
Moral Emotions as Moderators of Moral
Disengagement and EDM
Considering the prosocial, ameliorative actions associated
with moral guilt, we propose guilt moderates moral disen-
gagement and EDM. Trait guilt is associated with promo-
tion of personal responsibility and reparative behaviors,
clarifying cognitive links between ones transgressive
actions and harmful outcomes (Neumann, 2000). These
self-identifying cognitions spotlight ones transgressive
actions, making evasion of responsibility via moral disen-
gagement difficult. Furthermore, guilt is associated with
increased empathetic concern, humanizing other parties
and enabling perspective-taking (Cohen, 2010; Tangney
et al., 2005). Therefore, individuals high in guilt will be
more likely to put themselves in the positions of others
and accept responsibility for transgressions, countering the
negative influence of moral disengagement cognitions on
EDM. In contrast, individuals low in guilt will not experience
the positive, attenuating effects of moral guilt, allowing the
negative impact of moral disengagement on EDM to persist.
Hypothesis 1: High levels of trait guilt will attenuate
the negative relationship between moral disengage-
ment and EDM while low levels will not.
In contrast, we propose shame exacerbates moral disen-
gagement cognitions effect on EDM. Shame involves
maladaptive coping strategies including ego-centric focus
and zealous self-preservation via attacking others, self-
depreciation, withdrawal, and avoidance (Stuewig et al.,
2010). These maladaptive coping strategies may obfus-
cate personal responsibility and reduce moral self-
sanctioning to avoid further self-scrutiny, allowing
disengaging cognitions to manifest and persist. The self-
oriented distress response and lack of empathetic concern
associated with shame (Tangney, 1991) may intensify the
negative relationship between moral disengagement and
EDM. Therefore, those high in shame are likely to
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189
 186 J. F. Johnson & S. Connelly, Moral Disengagement and Ethical Decision-Making

minimize consequences of their harmful actions, blame scored as unethical (1) moderately ethical (2), and
victims, and diffuse/distort responsibility to reduce self- highly ethical (3) choices. An average EDM score was cal-
depreciating cognitions and affect (Cohen, 2010; culated across items.
Tangney & Dearing, 2003).

Hypothesis 2: High levels of trait shame will exacer- Covariates

bate the negative relationship between moral disen-
gagement and EDM while low levels will not.
Method
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Verbal reasoning significantly impacts EDM quality in case-
based ethics measures (Mumford et al., 2008; 2006), and
was assessed using the logic-based 30-item Employee Apti-
tude Survey. Participants indicated whether presented fac-
tual statements were true, false, or unsure (Ruch &
Ruch, 1980).

Sample and Procedure

A sample of 229 undergraduates from a Midwest university
completed the study for course credit. After removing 25 Results
participants for incomplete or random responding, the final
sample size was 204. The sample was 32% male and 74% Moderation Effects of Moral Emotions
female (Mage = 19), and 84% of subject pool participants on Moral Disengagement to EDM
indicated being employed at least once with 2.003.11 years
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabilities for
of work experience (Griffith, Connelly, & Thiel, 2011).
study variables. Two hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted to examine moderating effects of guilt and
shame on the moral disengagement to EDM relationship
Measures
(Tables 2 and 3). Covariates and mean-centered main
Trait Guilt and Shame
Trait guilt and shame were measured using the scenario-
Table 1. Correlation matrix for all study variables
based Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA-3). Questions
included a stem and set of sample responses set on a Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

5-point Likert scale (Not Likely to Very Likely) (Tangney, 1 Verbal reasoning 22.14 6.77 .89
Dearing, Wagner, & Gramzow, 2000). 2 Trait guilt 4.13 0.44 .07 .77
3 Trait shame 3.06 0.56 .03 .44** .74
Moral Disengagement 4 Moral dis. 1.92 0.44 .08 .46** .14* .87
Trait moral disengagement was assessed using Detert and 5 EDM 2.13 0.18 .23** .19** .04 .18** .78
colleagues (2008) 32-item moral disengagement scale. Notes. N = 204; *p < .05; **p < .01; Cronbachs alpha reliabilities are
Questions assessed eight disengagement mechanisms, reported in bold on the diagonal; EDM reliability was assessed using a
split-half method with a Spearman-Brown correction.
including items like If someone leaves something lying
around, its their fault if it gets stolen, rated on a 5-point
Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). An aver-
age disengagement score was calculated across items. Table 2. Moderating effects of guilt on the moral disengagement-EDM
relationship
Ethical Decision-Making Guilt as moderator
Ethical decision-making was assessed via a 12-item case- SE t R2 R2
based measure for undergraduates adapted by Kligyte
Step one: covariates and main effects
et al. (2013) from Mumford and colleagues (2008; 2006).
Verbal reasoning1 .21** .07 3.00
The measure featured reduced technical language and
Trait shame1 .15** .08 1.99
complexity, presenting ethical dilemmas in a quasi-
Trait guilt2 .22* .09 2.49
academic organization. The measure included 12 scenarios
Moral disengagement2 .08 .08 0.98 .13**
presenting gray ethical dilemmas like data management,
Step two: interaction effect
professional conduct, and conflicts-of-interest. Scenario
Guilt  Moral disengagement .14* .07 1.98 .15* .02*
content was based on a taxonomy of ethicality derived from
Notes. n = 197; *p < .05; **p < .01; Main effect and interaction variables are
subject matter experts (SMEs) (Helton-Fauth et al., 2003). mean-centered; 1denotes variable is a covariate and 2denotes variable is a
Participants selected the best two of eight response options main effect.

Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189 2016 Hogrefe Publishing

 J. F. Johnson & S. Connelly, Moral Disengagement and Ethical Decision-Making
Table 3. Moderating effects of shame on the moral disengagement-
EDM relationship
Shame as moderator
SE t R 2
Step one: covariates and main effects
Verbal reasoning1 .22** .07 3.12
Trait guilt1 .20* .09 2.31
2 -0.1
Trait shame .17* .08 2.15
Moral disengagement2 .10 .08 1.32 .12**
Step two: interaction effect
Shame  Moral disengagement .06 .07 0.87 .124
Notes. n = 197; *p < .05; **p < .01; Main effect and interaction variables are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mean-centered; 1denotes variable is a covariate and 2denotes variable is a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
main effect.
effects were entered in step one, and interaction terms were
entered in step two. The guilt by moral disengagement
interaction significantly predicted EDM, while the shame
by moral disengagement interaction did not.
Simple slopes analysis further examined the significant
guilt by moral disengagement interaction. Slopes for moral
disengagement were examined at high (+1 SD), moderate
(mean), and low ( 1 SD) levels of trait guilt (Figure 1),
showing a significant, negative relationship between moral
disengagement and EDM at low levels of trait guilt,
= .22, t(196) = 2.20, p = .029, but not at moderate
( = .08, t(196) = .98, p = .33) or high ( = .06,
t(196) = .54, p = .59) levels. Results support hypothesis
one but not hypothesis two.
Discussion
Findings
This studys purpose was to better understand the moderat-
ing effects trait guilt and shame have on the relationship
between moral disengagement and EDM. High and moder-
ate levels of trait guilt attenuate the negative relationship
between trait moral disengagement and EDM while low
levels do not. As trait guilt is associated with increased
empathetic concern and personal responsibility, individuals
with moderate to high trait guilt are more likely to identify
cause-and-effect links between unethical behavior and out-
comes, allowing reengagement in self-regulation and self-
sanctioning inhibited by disengagement cognitions (Moore,
Detert, Trevio, Baker, & Mayer, 2012; Neumann, 2000).
In contrast, shame did not moderate moral disengagement
and EDM. This may be partially due to participants exhibit-
ing only modest levels of shame (M = 3.06). Moderating
effects may only be observable at higher levels of trait
shame. Second, the self-focused, complex nature of shame
2016 Hogrefe Publishing
187
Influence of Moral Disengagement on EDM at
Levels of Trait Guilt
0.4
0.3
R 2
Ethical Decision Making
0.2
0.1
0
+1 SD
Mean
-0.2
-1 SD
-0.3
-0.4
.004
-0.5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Moral Disengagement
Figure 1. Simple slopes visualization comparing moral disengagement
and EDM at different levels of trait guilt.
suggests other factors like depression and narcissism influ-
ence expressions of aggression (Stuewig et al., 2010;
Tangney et al., 2007) and potentially moral disengagement.
When self-focus is pervasive and awareness of others lim-
ited, cognitive distortion may be exacerbated.
Implications
Our findings provide a starting point toward delineating
complexities between moral emotions, moral disengage-
ment, and EDM. Sensemaking models of EDM suggest
utility in examining joint influences of affective and cogni-
tive traits on ethical sensemaking (MacDougall et al., 2015).
Results contribute to the ethical sensemaking literature by
demonstrating, beyond direct influences on EDM (Kligyte
et al., 2013), self-focused emotions shame and guilt differ-
entially moderate the effects of other cognitive processes
on EDM. Future research could examine how other moral
emotions like anger, disgust, or compassion differentially
moderate the moral disengagement to EDM relationship.
Findings also have practical implications for personnel
selection and identification of risky traits. In light of per-
sistent organizational failures (Trevio, den Nieuwenboer,
& Kish-Gephart, 2014), organizations have a vested interest
in promoting ethical behavior. Selection systems increas-
ingly incorporate non-cognitive measures of personality,
biodata, and integrity. Findings suggest trait moral disen-
gagement reduces EDM in those with low levels of trait
guilt; therefore, assessing trait moral emotions like guilt
may compliment traditional integrity measures as viable
selection criteria. While additional research should like-
wise determine negative organizational repercussions of
high levels of trait guilt, eliminating applicants with below
average trait guilt may reduce the impact of destructive
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189
 188 J. F. Johnson & S. Connelly, Moral Disengagement and Ethical Decision-Making
moral disengagement cognitions on organizational EDM.
Considering the interactive effects of selection factors like
guilt and moral disengagement on ethical sensemaking
and EDM, organizations would benefit viewing individual
differences as complex, interrelated constructs instead of
independent selection factors.
Limitations
Limitations should be noted. Scenarios used ethical dilem-
mas set in a quasi-academic organizational context, so find-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ings should be replicated using non-academic cases.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Additionally, while ethical scenarios presented realistic
organizational ethical issues (Kligyte et al., 2013), the use
of undergraduates limit generalizability to more experi-
enced organizational populations and real-world high
fidelity encounters. Finally, while study results are framed
via the sensemaking model of EDM, we focus on individual
constraints, and prior studies show situational factors also
influence sensemaking and EDM (MacDougall et al., 2015).
Acknowledgments
Views expressed are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily represent the views of the United States Air Force.
References
Bagdasarov, Z., MacDougall, A. E., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford,
M. D. (2015). In case you didnt know: Recommendations for
case-based ethics training. In R. Wolf & T. Issa (Eds.),
International Business Ethics and Growth Opportunities (pp.
224249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of
inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
193209. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
Bandura, A. (2015). Moral disengagement: How people do harm
and live with themselves. New York, NY: Worth.
Cohen, T. R. (2010). Moral emotions and unethical bargaining: The
differential effects of empathy and perspective taking in
deterring deceitful negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 94,
569579. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0338-z
Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). A
managerial in-basket study of the impact of trait emotions on
ethical choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 245267.
doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000032494.51162.d3
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disen-
gagement in ethical decision-making: A study of antecedents
and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374391.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-
making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175187.
doi: 10.1023/A:1010711413444
Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., & Thiel, C. E. (2011). Leader deception
influences on leader-member exchange and subordinate
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189
organizational commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
tional Studies, 18, 508521. doi: 10.1177/1548051811403765
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.
Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective
sciences (pp. 852870). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G. M., Mumford, M. D.,
Devenport, L. D., Connelly, S., & Brown, R. P. (2003). A new
approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work.
Accountability in Research, 10, 205228. doi: 10.1080/
714906104
Kligyte, V., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Devenport, L. (2013). The
influence of anger, fear, and emotion regulation on ethical
decision-making. Human Performance, 26, 297326.
MacDougall, A. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford,
M. D. (2015). Managing workplace ethics: An extended con-
ceptualization of ethical sensemaking and the facilitative role
of human resources. In R. M. Buckley (Ed.), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 121189).
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organiza-
tional corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 129139.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M.
(2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and
unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 148.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill,
J. H., Antes, A. L., . . . Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking
approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence
of training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 315339.
doi: 10.1080/10508420802487815
Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S.,
Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of
ethical decision-making measures: Evidence for a new set
of measures. Ethics & Behavior, 16, 319345. doi: 10.1207/
s15327019eb1604_4
Neumann, R. (2000). The causal influences of attributions on
emotions: A procedural priming approach. Psychological
Science, 11, 179182. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00238
Ruch, F. L., & Ruch, W. W. (1980). Employee aptitude survey. Los
Angeles, CA: Psychological Services.
Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and
justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The
sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 10221040. doi: 10.2307/20159354
Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Heigel, C., Harty, L., & McCloskey, L.
(2010). Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links
among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and
aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 91102.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.005
Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598607.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.598
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2003). Shame and guilt. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (2000).
The Test of Self-Conscious Affect3 (TOSCA-3). Fairfax, VA:
George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Mashek, D. J., & Stuewig, J. (2005). Shame, guilt,
and embarrassment: Will the real emotion please stand up?
Psychological Inquiry, 16, 4449.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996).
Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 12561269.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256
2016 Hogrefe Publishing
 J. F. Johnson & S. Connelly, Moral Disengagement and Ethical Decision-Making 189

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions Received September 25, 2014
and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345372. Revision received March 11, 2016
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 Accepted March 16, 2016
Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L. N., Johnson, J. F., & Published online July 22, 2016
Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in
organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business
Ethics, 107, 4964. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1 James F. Johnson
Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic United States Air Force
sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among Air Force Personnel Center/DSYX
scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of 550 C Street West
Management Journal, 36, 239270. doi: 10.2307/256522 JBSA Randolph Air Force Base, TX 78150
Trevio, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. USA
(2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of james.johnson.271@us.af.mil
Psychology, 65, 635660. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-
143745
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2016 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology (2016), 15(4), 184189