Intrapersonal Ethics

Within each individual there is a soul—the spiritual, emotional part of us that is full of thought about the world within and about us. When an individual is confronted with an ethical dilemma, he or she feels it first deep within—sometimes physically becoming excited, nervous, or anxious—and at other times feeling it more abstractly, coming to grips intellectually with the conscience, that part of the self that is aware of what he or she is about. Hard, ethical choices often are gut-wrenching, soul-shaking experiences.

Numerous individual characteristics influence a person’s ethical decision making. A laboratory experiment involving graduate business students suggested that four personality variables were associated with a person’s unethical behavior: locus of control, economic orientation, political orientation, and dominant set of philosophical principles.25 Unethical behavior was associated with

(1) feelings that people and events outside the subject’s control were more powerful than the individual in directing the course of the person’s life; (2) a strong drive to make money and be economically secure, at all costs; (3) an egocentric emphasis on individualism, versus egalitarianism; and (4) a philosophical stance best described as Machiavellianism—the belief that political expediency is more important than morality.

One of the most common unethical acts is lying. At the higher levels of analysis—when pairs of individuals, small groups, and organizations are considered—the act of lying is more accurately described with such words as duplicity, deception, and fraud. These are concepts which suggest the coordination and cooperation of others in order to deceive—in other words, some kind of tacit or explicit conspiracy. At the lowest level, lying begins with an individual intentionally not telling the truth. Basic reasons people give for lying are the same as they give for telling the truth: they do it to acquire, maintain, and protect valued resources.26 However, the liar’s intentions do affect how others judge the lies:27

Lies were considered more permissible if (1) lies saved others from shame or hurt,

(2) lies protected people from punishment or disapproval for a minor failing that hurts no one, (3) lies were told to public officials, as long as no harm followed, and (4) lies were told to protect some gain the liar had previously acquired, but to which the liar was not actually entitled. The least permissible lies were ones where liars could cause another to do something to bring about a benefit for the liar, but a harm for the actor, and ones that hurt others for the liar’s personal gain.28

Some individuals are better liars than others. With practice, liars can not only mask nonverbal signals that might give away their lying behavior, but also confuse the lie with the truth and behave as if the lie were the truth.29 It takes focused concentration to tell a lie, however, so most liars give a number of consistent clues when they are lying: irrelevant statements, fewer hand gestures, increased pupil dilation, speech errors, and short, hesitant descriptions of the “facts.” It is easier to tell the truth.30

Stages in Moral Development  

Kohlberg has hypothesized six stages of moral development in an individual:31

1. The stage of punishment and obedience—where right is the literal obedience to rules and authority.

2. The stage of individual instrument purpose and exchange—where right is serving one’s own needs and making fair deals.

3. The stage of mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and conformity—where right is being concerned about others, keeping loyalties, and being motivated to follow rules.

4. The stage of social system and conscience maintenance—where right is doing one’s duty to society.

5. The stage of prior rights and social contract or utility—where right is upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of society.

6. The stage of universal ethical principles—where right is determined by universal principles that all should follow.

At each of these stages, a person could experience cognitive dissonance—

conflicting thoughts about what to do. When an individual acts unethically, what the person often feels is the discomfort of dissonance. Dissonance theory suggests that an individual will seek to reduce, if not eliminate, the displeasure caused by unharmonious thoughts by seeking out certain information and by rationalizing, “thinking away,” the dilemma. The theory suggests that people want to avoid dissonance and will seek a balanced, harmonious set of thoughts; a healthy individual wants to be at one with the self.32

Differences Between Men and Women  

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development have been criticized as being gender specific because the theory is based on research involving only males. Conducting research involving both women and men, Gilligan found significant differences between the sexes in moral values. Her explanation for the difference was not that one set of moral values was better than the other, but that both sets of values were functional and consistent, given the different expectations the two sexes experienced. According to Gilligan, it was only natural, given the differences in socialization, that men’s and women’s psychological and moral development would differ.33

While there are conflicting results, studies to date indicate some significant differences in ethical behaviors and predispositions between men and women. Based on surveys of more than 2,000 college students, two studies found that women are more sensitive than men to ethical issues.34 However, two other studies indicated that, on the job, ethical perceptions of men and women are similar, but in the workplace, men think that women—and women think that men—are less ethical than members of their own sex.35 Wright also found mixed results when he measured moral values of public relations men and women: only on two of the six factors he identified were there slight statistical differences, with women being more severe in their judgments about socioeconomic and religious issues than men.36

Some feminist theories argue that significant differences exist between the ethics of men and women not only because of socialization, but also because the two sexes are “hardwired” genetically to respond to relationships differently.37 The argument is that from the moment of birth (which Judith Viorst called the first of “the necessary losses” in a person’s lifetime), boys and girls respond differently to their initial separation from their mother and their increasing awareness of isolation and growing independence. Most boys deal with their isolation by becoming more aggressive and competitive, while most girls spend their time initiating and nurturing close relationships.38 The essence of the argument is that, beyond whatever socialization may occur, women instinctively care more about relationships. The logic of this argument suggests that, with the increasing feminization of the public relations field, there will be more emphasis within the field on facilitating relationships, beyond that being caused by the spread of system-level interdependencies. For both men and women, it has been predicted that more emphasis will be given by professional associations to the ethic of caring.39

The Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Professional Standards has been criticized as reflecting more male-oriented and fewer female-oriented ethical principles. Catherine Pratt of Ohio State University has argued that because the PRSA code emphasizes individual rights and responsibilities for protecting abstractions such as truth and accuracy, it reflects a male preference for rules and principles fostering individualism.40 Women public relations managers, Pratt argued, bring to the table a different set of values than those of men, values that emphasize caring relationships, two-way communication, and empathy. While these principles of caring are not reflected in the PRSA code of ethics, Pratt pointed out, they are practiced daily by many public relations professionals, especially women.