*New* get it cheaper: . Three pages of summarized theory are all you need to pass your exam. For years I have made complete summaries as small as possible and now I am extending this to the MSc Finance & Investments. The summaries are high quality and respectful of your intelligence and time, perfe...
This is joke, how short it is. Definitely not complete
By: thomaskonings • 3 year ago
I'm sorry it did not meet your expectations. The summary does not cover all extensive details, instead the goal is to cover 90% of theory as short as possible. If an exam is particularly detail heavy then this is not sufficient, as no summary will be. I will update the description to reflect this.
By: timothydeschuttere • 3 year ago
By: thomaskonings • 3 year ago
Hi Timothy, I'm sorry you were disappointed with the summary. I hope you still had a good use for the summary as a study tool.
By: andychen1 • 3 year ago
By: thomaskonings • 3 year ago
Thanks Andy! Good luck preparing for the exam.
By: fernandosica • 3 year ago
By: thomaskonings • 3 year ago
Thanks Fernando! Good luck preparing for the exam.
By: danielgrtzbach • 3 year ago
By: thomaskonings • 3 year ago
Thanks Daniel! Best of luck with your preparation for the exam.
Show more reviews
Seller
Follow
thomaskonings
Reviews received
Content preview
Complete & Concise: Business Ethics
By Thomas Konings
Module 1: Workshop 1 + Paper
Paper: Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior
1. When exposed to dishonesty: readjust likelihood of getting caught, i.e. if you see someone
cheat that does not get caught then you adjust the likelihood downward.
Rational crime theory: likelihood is input in decision to cheat ➔ “Cost-Benefit Analysis”
2. If observe dishonesty: more aware of own moral standards, and actively avoid breaking
them, categorize yourself more rigidly → less cheating ➔ “Saliency”
Note: believe in free will decreased cheating, determinism increased it
3. Social norms: descriptive (what most people do) vs. injunctive (what people approve of)
Social context determines which of the two is followed. In-group dishonesty: others will be
more likely to be dishonest. Out-group dishonesty: more honesty, actively distance
themselves from the bad apple
Experiment 1: Four conditions: (1) No opportunity to cheat [control] (2) shredder condition
(opportunity to cheat, cannot observe dishonesty) (3) in-group cheater (4) out-group cheater
Cost benefit: increase, regardless of in-group or out-group cheater Saliency: decrease, regardless of
in-group or out-group cheater Social norms: highest in-group cheater, lowest out-group cheater
Result: support of social norm theory (in-group high, out-group low)
Experiment 2: From Experiment 1 it was clear that cost-benefit could not hold (in this setting) as we
did not see an increase regardless of in/out group. But saliency could still hold (wasn't really tested).
Experiment 2 tests independent effect of saliency.
Three conditions: (1) Control, (2) Shredder (3) Saliency [confederate asked if it was okay to cheat, to
which experiment answered "you can do whatever you want"] → If anything cost benefit should
have increased cheating here ➔ Result: saliency decreases cheating
Workshop
Ethics: ethics/moral philosophy involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of
right and wrong behavior → resolve questions of human morality by defining good and evil.
Integrity: practice of being honest and showing consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong
moral and ethical principles and values. In ethics: accuracy of one's actions.
Compliance: conforming to a rule, such as specification, policy, standard or law.
Rational actor theory: money would add incentive to cheat fully especially when answers shredded
but did not add extra over non-money scenario → something (moral radar) holding people back.
Influences till now: ethical radar, evaluation of cost-benefit, self-image, surroundings
Conformity: people tend to follow other people's behavior, 75% of respondents agreed for at least
one assignment (even though answer was wrong), 5% conformed every time ⇒ quite strong effect
Authority: evolutionary biology → good to follow authority, taught in early life (face consequences)
➔ Milgram Experiment: how far would participants go to follow orders (administer shock),
essentially switch off own moral radar and transfer responsibility to the authority
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller thomaskonings. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.95. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
