1. Are Groups Less Ethical than Individuals?
R. Scott Tindale, Zhenyan Shi, Katharina Kluwe,
& Jeremy Winget – Loyola University Chicago
Introduction
Method continued
Results
Conclusion
Study 1 - SVO
In Study 1, groups responded more competitively and less prosocially than did individuals. This was also found for group members so simply putting people in an intergroup setting seemed to create the more competitive mindset. In addition, group members who favored the competitive option seemed to be more influential in the group consensus process as compared to members who favored the prosocial option. Groups were also more likely than individuals to make the unethical choice for the insider trading dilemma. However, no differences were found for the second scenario. Preliminary analyses of group discussions indicate that groups were afraid of being caught I the second scenario.
In study 2, groups chose less ethically than individuals and group processes favored the less ethical choices. Thus, groups do seem less ethical than individuals when they see it as in their best interests.
There is now a fair amount of evidence that groups tend to be less cooperative and more competitive compared to individuals acting alone (Wildschut et al, 2003). There is also evidence that when in intergroup situations, groups will act unethically for their own benefit (Stawiski et al., 2009). However, it is unclear whether groups will be less ethical than individuals in situations that are not directly competitive. This is the questions we attempted to address in the following two studies.
Study 2
Individuals and four-person groups were asked to role play in a corporate decision making scenario. The scenario was based on the “Panalba” case where Upjohn Pharmaceutical company is deciding what to do about one of their best selling drugs. The drug was approved many years before but has potentially life threatening side effects. New drugs on the market (but not yet sold or produced by Upjohn) treat the same ailments but without the deadly side effects. Individuals played the role of Board Chairperson while group members played one of four roles: Board Chair, Board Vice Chair, President, or Vice President and Director of business operations.
Individuals and groups has six choices for decision options ranging from least ethical (lobby the FDA to keep approval and market drug intensely until it is no longer approved) to most ethical (immediately pull Panalba off the market and destroy all inventories).
Individuals made their initial choice, list the reasons for their choice, and then made their choice a second time. Group members made an initial individual choice and then groups were asked to discuss and reach a consensus on which option they should choose. Comparisons were made between group choices and individual second choices. “
Individuals and groups were coded as prosocial, proself, or competitive if they responded to six of the nine games in the same way. Individuals were most likely to choose the prosocial option (even outcomes) while groups were most likely to choose the competitive option (max difference in outcomes). Also, for groups, majorities favoring competition were far more likely to win (72%) than majorities favoring prosocial (59%).
Study 1 Ethical Dilemma 1
Method
For the first ethical dilemma (insider trading), groups were less likely than individuals to make the ethical choice – less than half of the groups chose not to use the information. No differences between individuals and groups were found for the second ethical dilemma problem.
Study 1
Individuals and three-person groups were asked to first respond to the nine decomposed prisoner’s dilemma games that make up the measure of Social Value Orientation (Van Lange et al., 1997). Groups were asked to assume they were playing against another group. Group members made individual choices prior to group discussion and consensus.. After responding to the SVO items, both individuals and groups responded to two ethical dilemma scenarios. The first scenario asked them to decide whether to make an investment based on insider information that they accidentally obtained. The second scenario asked them to decide whether to disclose new pricing information after reaching a negotiated agreement based on higher prices for needed materials.
Study 2 – Ethical Choices
References
For Study 2, groups were more likely to make less ethical choices compared to individuals. No individuals made the least ethical choice and no groups made the most ethical choice. After dividing choice options into least (A, B, & C) and most (D, E, & F) ethical, majorities favoring the less ethical options were more likely to win (96%) than were majorities favoring the most ethical options (62%).
Stawiski, S., Tindale, R. S., & Dykema-Engblade, A. (2009). The effects of ethical climate on group and individual level deception in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20,
Van lange P. A. M., Otten W., De Brun. E. M. N., and Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A. & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5),