*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
Door: thomaskonings • 4 jaar geleden
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.
Door: timothydeschuttere • 4 jaar geleden
Door: thomaskonings • 4 jaar geleden
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.
Door: andychen1 • 4 jaar geleden
Door: thomaskonings • 4 jaar geleden
Thanks Andy! Good luck preparing for the exam.
Door: fernandosica • 4 jaar geleden
Door: thomaskonings • 4 jaar geleden
Thanks Fernando! Good luck preparing for the exam.
Door: danielgrtzbach • 4 jaar geleden
Door: thomaskonings • 4 jaar geleden
Thanks Daniel! Best of luck with your preparation for the exam.
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
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper thomaskonings. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,39. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
