Information can be found in the attachment

management writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Requirements: 6 pages
Some notes on writing papers
In most cases you should summarize an author’s argument in the present tense. For example: She describes human nature as greedy. NOT: The author described the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.
Try to avoid starting paragraphs with quotes. This allows the quote to direct the paragraph instead of allowing you to direct the paragraph. Also, do not use a quote without setting up the quote or explaining the quote afterwards.
Pay attention to the topic sentence of your paragraph. Please keep the sentences that follow on the same theme as the topic sentence. Your arguments and your summaries will be more convincing and coherent if you do this.
Never write that you “agree with some things and disagree with others” without specifying in the sentence what you agree with and disagree with.
If you can change the subject of the sentence and the sentence would still be valid for most any topic then it is a vague (bad) sentence. (ex. Adam Smith presents us with many great ideas which we must consider carefully).
Authors do not “speak” about things or simply “mention” them. They “write” about their central themes and “discuss” and “argue” their claims.
Quotes over 4 lines long should be single spaced and with a justified alignment indented and extra 1/2 inch on either side. See below.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Even if you rephrase the words an author uses, you must cite the author and location of the original text.
Re-read your papers at least once (preferably twice) before turning them in. Alternatively, have a friend, family member, or literate stranger read through your papers and provide you with some feedback.
Enough said.
their, there, they’re
it’s, its
lose, loose
weather, whether
Define technical words an author uses or those words being used in a new, different, or inventive way.
Pick up a copy of Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. This will help you avoid major grammar/style/writing mistakes. Also get the The Craft of Research. This will really help your writing…especially in regards to supporting your claims and staying focused in your writing.
http://pss.sagepub.com/Psychological Science http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/13/0956797611434540The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540 published online 14 June 2012Psychological ScienceKrishna Savani and Aneeta RattanA Choice Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality  Published by: http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of:   Association for Psychological Science can be found at:Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for      http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:   http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:   What is This? – Jun 14, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >> at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Psychological ScienceXX(X) 1 –9© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540http://pss.sagepub.comWealth inequality has substantial negative consequences for societies, including reduced levels of societal well-being (Napier & Jost, 2008; Oishi, Kesebir, & Diener, 2011; Oishi, Schimmack, & Diener, 2012), fewer public goods (Frank, 2011; Kluegel & Smith, 1986; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), and even lower economic growth (Alesina & Rodrik, 1994). Despite these negative consequences, high levels of wealth inequality persist in many nations. The United States has the highest degree of wealth inequality among all industrialized countries: On the Gini coefficient index of wealth equality, the United States ranks 93rd out of 134 countries (Central Intelli-gence Agency, 2009). Moreover, wealth inequality in the United States substantially worsened during the first decade of the 21st century, with median household income in 2010 equal to that in 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) even though the per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 33% during the same period (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011). Together, these data indicate that all of the gain in wealth was concentrated at the top end of the wealth distribution.A large majority of Americans disapprove of a high degree of wealth inequality (Norton & Ariely, 2011), such as when 1% of a nation’s citizens possess 35% of the nation’s wealth, which was the case in the United States in 2007 (Wolff, 2010). Instead, people in the United States prefer a more equal distri-bution of wealth with a strong middle class, such as when the 60% of people in the middle of the wealth distribution own approximately 60% of the nation’s wealth, rather than the 15% that they owned in 2007 (Norton & Ariely, 2011). If people are unhappy with wealth inequality, then policies aimed at reduc-ing it should be widely supported. However, Americans often oppose policies that would remedy wealth inequality (Bartels, 2005). For example, taxation and redistribution—taxing the rich and using the proceeds to provide public goods, public insurance, and a minimum standard of living for the poor—is probably the most effective means of reducing wealth inequal-ity from an economic perspective (Frank, 2007, 2011; Korpi & Palme, 1998). However, most Americans, including working-class and middle-class citizens, support tax cuts even for the very rich and oppose government spending on social services that would mitigate inequality (Bartels, 2005; Fong, 2001). What factors explain this inconsistency between a general Corresponding Authors:Krishna Savani, Management Division, Columbia Business School, 3022 Broadway, Uris Hall 7L, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: ks2884@columbia.eduAneeta Rattan, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 420, Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: arattan@stanford.eduA Choice Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth InequalityKrishna Savani1 and Aneeta Rattan21Management Division, Columbia Business School, and 2Department of Psychology, Stanford UniversityAbstractWealth inequality has significant psychological, physiological, societal, and economic costs. In six experiments, we investigated how seemingly innocuous, culturally pervasive ideas can help maintain and further wealth inequality. Specifically, we tested whether the concept of choice, which is deeply valued in American society, leads Americans to act in ways that perpetuate wealth inequality. Thinking in terms of choice, we argue, activates the belief that life outcomes stem from personal agency, not societal factors, and thereby leads people to justify wealth inequality. The results showed that highlighting the concept of choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate the role of societal factors in individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational resources, and less likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate that the culturally valued concept of choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.Keywordspolicymaking, decision making, choice, wealth inequality, redistribution, taxationReceived 10/27/11; Revision accepted 12/6/11Research Article Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on June 14, 2012 as doi:10.1177/0956797611434540 at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Savani, Rattanpreference for greater wealth equality and an opposition to policies that would produce it?In this research, we investigated whether people’s attitudes toward wealth inequality and support for policies that reduce wealth inequality are influenced by the concept of choice. Choice is a core concept in American culture: As Thomas Jefferson said, “Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice” (as quoted in Iyengar & Lepper, 1999, p. 349). Both the practice of choice and the discourse of choice are widely prevalent in the United States. The degree of consumer choice available in the United States is probably the greatest in the world (Schwartz, 2004). Faced with the same set of options, Americans even perceive more choices than people from other countries do (Savani, Markus, Naidu, Kumar, & Berlia, 2010). In public discourse, the concept of choice is frequently invoked by both the politi-cal left (e.g., the movement in favor of women’s reproductive rights is framed as promoting choice) and the political right (e.g., health-care reform is framed as taking away choice) to generate public support.Recent research has suggested that the concept of choice decreases support for societally beneficial policies (e.g., a tax on highly polluting cars) but increases support for policies furthering individual rights (e.g., legalizing drugs; Savani, Stephens, & Markus, 2011). In addition, historical analyses have suggested that Americans often use the concept of choice to justify inequality—for example, by arguing that the poor are poor because they made bad choices (Hanson & Hanson, 2006; see also Porter, in press; Stephens & Levine, 2011). Building on this work, we theorized that the assumption that people make free choices, combined with the fact that some people are rich and others are poor, leads people to believe that inequality in life outcomes results from differences in indi-viduals’ life choices and is therefore justified and reasonable. We hypothesized that when people think in terms of choice, they should be less disturbed by wealth inequality and less supportive of policies aimed at reducing wealth inequality.General MethodParticipantsParticipants in all experiments came from a demographically heterogeneous sample of adult U.S. residents recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com).1Control variablesIn all experiments, after an experimental manipulation, partici-pants completed a subset of items from Crowne and Marlowe’s (1960) Social Desirability Scale and a demographics question-naire, on which they reported their gender, age, and ethnicity and rated their political orientation, using a scale from 1 (strongly conservative) to 7 (strongly liberal). In Experiments 1, 2, and 5, participants also rated their perceived social class, using a scale from 1 (lower class) to 5 (upper class). For com-plete lists of the dependent-measure items used in all studies, see the Supplemental Material available online. Results for non-significant covariates are not reported.For all experiments, we defined the following set of poten-tial covariates in advance and tested whether they explained variance in the dependent variable: tendency to make socially desirable responses, gender, age, ethnicity,2 and political ori-entation. Perceived social class was also defined as a covariate in Experiments 1, 2, and 5. For each experiment, we entered all covariates in the initial regression analysis unless they were significantly influenced by our manipulation of choice. Sig-nificant covariates were retained in the final model, and nonsignificant covariates were removed. We followed this specific data-analysis strategy to avoid introducing experi-menter biases.Experiment 1In Experiment 1, we investigated whether activating the con-cept of choice influences people’s acceptance of wealth inequality.MethodParticipants. Forty-eight participants (30 women, 18 men; mean age = 39.74 years; 41 European Americans, 7 minori-ties) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (control or choice).Procedure. Participants in the control condition were asked to list five things they did the previous morning (8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.), afternoon (12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), evening (4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.), and night (8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.), whereas participants in the choice condition were asked to list five choices they made during the same four periods. Partici-pants then rated how difficult it was for them to recall all of these actions, using a scale from 1 (extremely difficult) to 7 (extremely easy).After this manipulation, participants were asked how dis-turbed they were by 10 factual statistics illustrating the exist-ing wealth inequalities in the United States (e.g., “The richest 20% of people in the United States own 85% of all wealth in the country”; “Recent statistics show that between 1990 and 2010, the average worker’s salary has risen by less than 5%, whereas the average CEO’s salary has risen by 500%”). For each of these items, participants were asked, “How disturbed are you by this finding?”; responses were made on scales from 1 (not at all disturbed) to 7 (extremely disturbed).ResultsWe averaged participants’ responses to the 10 items about inequality (α = .97). A multiple regression analysis revealed that liberals were more disturbed by facts about U.S. wealth at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Choice and Inequality 3inequality than conservatives were, b = 0.62, t(42) = 6.78, p < .001; upper-class individuals were more disturbed than lower-class individuals were, b = 0.47, t(42) = 2.30, p < .05; and women were more disturbed than men were, b = 1.06, t(42) = 2.72, p < .01. Participants’ level of difficulty completing the listing task that constituted the experimental manipulation did not influence their level of disturbance, b = –0.14, t(42) = 1.20, p > .23. Most important, controlling for political orientation, gender, perceived social class, and difficulty in completing the listing task, the regression revealed that participants in the choice condition were less disturbed by wealth inequality than participants in the control condition were, b = –0.97, SE = 0.43, t(42) = 2.29, p < .03, Bayes factor = 12.76,3 d = 0.594 (see Fig. 1). Thus, merely listing choices made participants more comfortable with profound inequalities in American society.Experiment 2Although our findings in Experiment 1 were suggestive, the effect of recalling choices on disturbance with wealth inequal-ity could have been driven by a personal sense of power or control induced by the choice-listing task (relative to the action-listing task; Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2011). Therefore, in Experiment 2, we attempted to replicate the results from Experiment 1 using a different manipulation of choice, in which we primed the concept of choice rather than instances of personal choice.MethodParticipants. Forty-six participants (30 women, 16 men; mean age = 33.65 years; 33 European Americans, 13 minori-ties) were randomly assigned to condition (control or choice).Procedure. All participants watched a 6-min video used to prime choice in prior research (Savani et al., 2010, Savani et al., 2011); the video showed a solitary actor engaging in mundane actions (e.g., opening mail, working on a computer, reading a magazine) in an apartment. Participants in the control condition were instructed to press a button whenever the actor touched an object, whereas participants in the choice condition were instructed to press a button whenever the actor made a choice. In both conditions, participants were focused on the actor’s interactions with objects; the task in the choice condition, how-ever, incidentally highlighted the concept of choice.After the experimental manipulation, participants rated the degree to which they were disturbed by the same 10 statistics illustrating wealth inequality used in Experiment 1 (α = .92).ResultsA multiple regression analysis revealed that liberals were more disturbed by information about the existing wealth inequality in the United States than conservatives were, b = 0.42, t(40) = 4.26, p < .001; upper-class individuals were more disturbed than lower-class individuals were, b = 0.65, t(40) = 4.05, p < .001; women were more disturbed than men were, b = 0.67, t(40) = 2.13, p < .05; and Whites were more disturbed than minorities were, b = 1.15, t(40) = 3.30, p < .005. Most important, even after we controlled for political orientation, perceived social class, gender, and race, partici-pants in the choice condition were less disturbed than partici-pants in the control condition were, b = –0.76, SE = 0.29, t(40) = 2.57, p < .02, Bayes factor = 28.03, d = 0.61 (see Fig. 1). Experiment 2 thus replicated the findings of Experi-ment 1 using a different manipulation of choice. Because this manipulation used the same stimuli, presented for the same duration, for all participants, it could be considered more controlled than the experimental manipulation in Experiment 1; we therefore employed this priming manipulation of choice in all subsequent studies.Experiment 3In Experiment 3, we tested whether choice leads people to overemphasize the role of individual agency and to underem-phasize the role of societal factors in wealthy people’s suc-cesses. Although Americans tend to overestimate the role of internal characteristics in shaping individuals’ actions and life outcomes (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2003; Morris, Menon, & Ames, 2001; Morris & Peng, 1994), they also recognize that personal success is determined by a combination of internal and external factors (Bryan, Dweck, Ross, Kay, & Mislavsky, 2009). The successes of the very rich, for example, stem both from individual efforts and from public structures set up to promote the creation and accumulation of wealth, such as free public education and the enforcement of property rights (Frank, 2011). We hypothesized that activating the concept of choice would lead people to deemphasize the role of societal institutions in shaping individual success.3456Experiment 1Experiment 2Disturbance With WealthInequalityControl ConditionChoice ConditionFig. 1. Results from Experiments 1 and 2: mean rating of disturbance with statistics that illustrate wealth inequality as a function of condition. Disturbance was rated using scales from 1 to 7; higher values indicate greater disturbance. Error bars represent standard errors. at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from 4 Savani, RattanMethodParticipants. Sixty-seven participants (37 women, 30 men; mean age = 35.40 years; 52 European Americans, 15 minori-ties) were randomly assigned to condition (choice or control).Procedure. After participants completed the experimental manipulation, they rated their agreement with nine statements claiming that societal institutions contribute to the creation, accumulation, and transfer of wealth (e.g., “Many rich people have become rich because there exists a society in which their property rights are protected”), using a scale from 1 (do not agree) to 6 (agree strongly). Each participant’s responses to these items were averaged (α = .79).ResultsPreliminary analyses revealed that participants in the choice condition rated themselves as more politically conservative (M = 4.97) than participants in the control condition did (M = 4.23), t(65) = 1.99, p = .05, d = 0.49. Because the experimental manipulation influenced participants’ self-reported political orientation, we did not include political orientation as a covari-ate in our main analyses.We found that participants in the choice condition were less likely than participants in the control condition to agree that societal institutions contribute to wealthy people’s success, b = –0.48, SE = 0.22, t(65) = 2.25, p < .03, Bayes factor = 9.55, d = 0.565 (see Fig. 2). Thus, when the concept of choice was acti-vated, people underemphasized the vital role of societal struc-tures in the creation and accumulation of personal wealth.Together, our results from Experiments 1, 2, and 3 showed that thinking in terms of choice makes people more comfort-able with and more likely to justify wealth inequality. We next investigated how choice influences people’s attitudes toward policies aimed at reducing wealth inequality.Experiment 4In Experiment 4, we investigated whether activating the con-cept of choice influences people’s level of support for policies aimed at equalizing the distribution of resources between the wealthy and the poor. We focused on support for educational funding because of the existing inequality in this domain: U.S. schools are funded primarily by local property taxes, not state and federal revenue (as in most industrialized countries), which has resulted in substantial inequality in the educational resources available in wealthier and poorer school districts (Darling-Hammond, 2004). We hypothesized that priming participants with the concept of choice would make them less likely to support policies aimed at equalizing the distribution of educational resources.MethodParticipants. Sixty-one participants (34 women, 27 men; mean age = 34.13 years; 50 European Americans, 11 minori-ties) were randomly assigned to condition (control or choice).Procedure. After participants completed the experimental manipulation, they rated their level of support for six policies aimed at distributing educational resources more equally between wealthier and poorer communities (items were adapted from Rattan, Savani, Naidu, & Dweck, 2012). For example, one policy involved increasing the compensation for fully creden-tialed teachers who teach in schools where at least half the chil-dren qualify for free or reduced lunch (an indicator of poverty); under this policy, wealthier schools would presumably lose some of their qualified teachers. Ratings were made using scales from 1 (strongly oppose) to 6 (strongly support). Each partici-pant’s responses to the six items were averaged (α = .74).Participants then rated the degree to which they endorsed individuals’ rights to their wealth (“To what extent do you feel rich people are entitled to keep their wealth?” and “To what extent do you feel rich people have a responsibility to share their wealth with those who are less fortunate?”). Rat-ings were made using scales from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely; α = .59).ResultsA regression analysis revealed that liberals were more sup-portive of the redistributive policies than conservatives were, b = 0.21, t(57) = 3.38, p = .001, and that older people were more supportive of these policies than younger people were, b = 0.03, t(57) = 2.92, p = .005. Most important, controlling for political orientation and age, participants in the choice condition were less supportive of the redistributive policies than participants in the control condition were, b = –0.59, 2.02.53.03.54.0Perceived Importance ofSocietal Factors in Individual SuccessControlConditionChoiceConditionFig. 2. Results from Experiment 3: mean rating of agreement with statements endorsing the role of societal factors in wealthy people’s successes as a function of condition. Agreement was rated using scales from 1 to 6; higher values indicate greater perceived importance of societal factors in individual success. Error bars represent standard errors. at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from Choice and Inequality 5SE = 0.21, t(57) = 2.85, p = .006, Bayes factor = 39.48, d = 0.73 (see Fig. 3).An analogous regression showed that participants in the choice condition were more likely than participants in the con-trol condition to believe that the rich were entitled to keep their wealth, b = –0.79, SE = 0.32, t(57) = 2.50, p < .02, Bayes factor = 20.06, d = 0.66. After we controlled for endorsement of entitlement, the effect of the experimental manipulation on support for redistributive policies was no longer significant, b = –0.31, SE = 0.19, t(57) = 1.67, p > .10. However, endorse-ment of entitlement remained a significant predictor of sup-port for redistributive policies, b = –0.36, SE = 0.07, t(56) = 4.84, p < .001. A Sobel test indicated a significant mediation effect, z = 2.21, p < .05. These results show that the greater resistance to policies that would reduce inequality in the distri-bution of educational resources observed among participants in the choice condition (relative to participants in the control condition) was driven by the belief that the wealthy are enti-tled to their resources.Experiment 5We designed Experiment 5 to address an alternative explana-tion for the results of Experiment 4: that activating the concept of choice generates opposition to governmental programs or interventions in general, not just to redistributive policies in particular. We hypothesized that priming participants with the concept of choice would not influence their support for poli-cies aimed at increasing the resources available to everyone without redistributing wealth, because such policies would not violate the perceived rights of the rich to their wealth.MethodParticipants. One hundred forty-six participants (90 women, 53 men, 3 participants whose gender was unreported; mean age = 32.60 years; 105 European Americans, 41 minorities) took part in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the choice or the control condition and to either the redistributive-policies or the general-policies condition.Procedure. After the experimental manipulation, participants were presented with either three redistributive educational poli-cies or three general educational policies (adapted from Rattan et al., 2012). For example, one redistributive policy proposed providing free test-preparation materials to students from low-income communities because of their relatively low rates of meeting grade standards on standardized tests, whereas the corresponding general policy proposed providing free test-preparation materials to all students, irrespective of their house-hold income level. Participants rated their support for the policies using scales from 1 (strongly oppose) to 6 (strongly support); each participant’s responses to the three items were averaged (α = .64 for redistributive policies, α = .75 for general policies).ResultsA 2 (experimental condition: choice vs. control) × 2 (policy condition: redistributive vs. general) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with political orientation and socially desirable responding as covariates revealed a significant effect of politi-cal orientation, F(1, 140) = 22.21, p < .001, such that liberals were more likely to support the policies than conservatives were, and a significant effect of socially desirable responding, F(1, 140) = 4.81, p < .05, such that people who were more concerned about social desirability were more likely to sup-port the policies. Beyond these effects, we found a significant Experimental Condition × Policy Condition interaction, F(1, 140) = 6.68, p = .01.Additional ANCOVAs revealed that participants in the choice condition were less supportive of the redistributive policies than participants in the control condition were, F(1, 67) = 4.10, p < .05, d = 0.44; however, participants in the choice condition were marginally more supportive of the gen-eral policies than participants in the control condition were, F(1, 71) = 3.01, p < .09, d = 0.40 (see Fig. 4). Thus, thinking in terms of choice did not lead to a generalized reluctance to support governmental spending on public goods; rather, it led participants to specifically oppose policies that entailed redis-tributing resources from the wealthy to the poor.Experiment 6Whereas Experiments 4 and 5 examined how choice affects support for the redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor, Experiment 6 examined whether choice reduces support 2.53.03.54.04.5Support for Redistributive PoliciesControlConditionChoiceConditionFig. 3. Results from Experiment 4: mean rating of support for redistribu-tive policies as a function of condition. Ratings of support for policies aimed at distributing educational resources equally between wealthy and poor communities were made using scales from 1 to 6; higher values indicate greater support. Error bars represent standard errors. at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from 6 Savani, Rattanfor redistribution of resources from the wealthy to the nation as a whole. We tested this idea with reference to a real-world, nationally relevant context—the U.S. federal debt crisis dur-ing the summer of 2011. After the implementation of President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, U.S tax rates were among the lowest in the industrialized world (Organisation for Eco-nomic Co-operation and Development, 2011). Low levels of taxes, particularly on the rich, help maintain wealth inequal-ity (Frank, 2007, 2011) and can even reduce national subjec-tive well-being (Oishi et al., 2011). Even the second-richest person in the United States at the time, billionaire Warren Buffett, publicly supported increasing taxes on the very rich (Buffett, 2011). We tested whether highlighting the concept of choice would reduce people’s support for increasing taxes on the rich to help the country avoid a default on the national debt.MethodParticipants. Fifty participants (30 women, 20 men; mean age = 31.20 years; 36 European Americans, 13 minorities, 1 participant whose ethnicity was unreported) were randomly assigned to condition (choice or control).Procedure. This experiment was conducted during the last week of July 2011, the week leading up to the U.S. federal gov-ernment’s deadline to either default on its debt payment or increase its debt ceiling. After the experimental manipulation, participants were presented with four proposals for policies to help resolve the U.S. federal debt crisis. All of the policies would effectively increase taxes on the rich—by increasing the tax on individual income above $250,000 to 50%, by increasing the tax on corporate earnings above $10 million to 50%, by charging Social Security and Medicare taxes on incomes above $106,800 (these taxes are presently charged only on income up to $106,800), and by eliminating tax deductions for individuals earning more than $250,000. Participants rated their level of support for these policies, using scales from 1 (strongly oppose) to 6 (strongly support; α = .80). To provide participants with a common background, we informed them that the effective indi-vidual and corporate tax rates in the United States were much lower than those in Canada and most European countries.ResultsAs might be expected, liberal participants were more supportive of the policies than conservatives were, b = 0.51, t(47) = 4.77, p < .001. Even when we controlled for political orientation, par-ticipants in the choice condition were less supportive of the tax policies than were participants in the control condition, b = –0.72, SE = 0.30, t(47) = 2.43, p < .02, Bayes factor = 16.98, d = 0.68 (see Fig. 5).Thus, activating the concept of choice not only increases opposition to policies that would entail using wealthy people’s resources to help the poor, as demonstrated in Experiments 4 and 5, but also increases opposition to policies that would entail using these resources to help the nation as a whole, as demonstrated in Experiment 6. Even when the relative leni-ency of U.S. tax policies was made salient, activating the con-cept of choice increased participants’ opposition to increasing tax rates for the very rich.General DiscussionTogether, the results from these six experiments show that the concept of choice has significant ramifications for the mainte-nance of wealth inequality. We found that when the concept of choice was highlighted, people were less disturbed by statis-tics demonstrating wealth inequality, less likely to believe that societal factors contribute to the success of the wealthy, less willing to endorse redistributing educational resources more equally between the rich and the poor, and less willing to endorse increasing taxes on the rich to help the country as a whole. Believing that individuals are entitled to keep their 3.03.54.04.55.0General PoliciesRedistributive PoliciesSupport for Educational Policies*Control ConditionChoice ConditionFig. 4. Results from Experiment 5: mean support for general and redis-tributive educational policies as a function of condition. Participants rated their level of support using scales from 1 to 6; higher values indicate greater support. Error bars represent standard errors. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between conditions (p < .05).345Support for IncreasingTaxes on the RichControlConditionChoiceConditionFig. 5. Results from Experiment 6: mean support for policies that would increase taxes on the rich as a function of condition. Support for such policies was rated using scales from 1 to 6; higher values indicate greater support. Error bars represent standard errors. at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from Choice and Inequality 7wealth—that they do not have a responsibility to share a part of their wealth with society—accounted for the effects of a choice mind-set on attitudes toward redistributive policies. The studies reported here highlight a new area of research on how culturally valued concepts can play a profound role in shaping people’s attitudes toward various types of inequalities present in society (Rattan et al., 2012; see also Ledgerwood, Mandisodza, Jost, & Pohl, 2011; Wakslak, Jost, Tyler, & Chen, 2007).A deeper understanding of the sources of people’s attitudes toward wealth inequality has the potential to help make poli-cies addressing wealth inequality more palatable. Our research suggests that framing policies in terms of choice, or even inci-dentally highlighting the concept of choice in discussions about policies, might lead people to oppose policies that are in line with their ultimate ideals (Norton & Ariely, 2011). Long-term programs intended to lower high levels of wealth inequal-ity might face substantial obstacles from both politicians and the general public if opponents frame discussions about the policies in terms of choice (cf. Porter, in press).Examining the discourse of choice in political contexts may be a fruitful area for future research. Studies could test whether policy advocates already strategically use the choice frame to shape public support for various policies—for example, by incorporating the language of choice in editorials, campaign materials, and other forms of persuasive communications. Although the present experiments tested how priming choice in a politically neutral context shifts attitudes toward wealth inequality, future research might test whether framing other politically charged issues, such as health disparities and edu-cational inequality, in terms of choice shifts individuals’ sup-port for policies aimed at addressing these issues.The studies reported here highlight a new area of research on how seemingly unrelated, culturally valued concepts can play a profound role in shaping people’s attitudes toward various types of inequalities present in society (Rattan et al., 2012; see also Ledgerwood et al., 2011; Wakslak et al., 2007). Although the present research focused on the issue of wealth inequality in an American context, future research might test the degree to which choice has similar consequences in other countries. Given that there are cross-national differences in the discourse of choice (e.g., Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Savani et al., 2010; Tavakoli, 2012), the relationship between choice and wealth inequality might vary across cultures. Future research could also explore whether the increase in consumer choice in devel-oping nations, which is largely driven by decreasing wealth inequality (i.e., a growing middle class), ironically leads to greater acceptance of and maintenance of wealth inequality.Choice appears to be a powerful factor that influences peo-ple’s views about diverse and pressing policy areas—inequal-ity, redistribution, and taxation—in which the United States is an outlier among industrialized countries. Wealth inequality contributes to a large number of societal problems, such as poor schooling, crime, poor health, and even reduced eco-nomic growth, and many of these ills are disproportionally borne by disadvantaged minority groups and people in low socioeconomic classes (Kluegel & Smith, 1986). The current research illuminates, for the first time, that the discourse of choice can be a barrier to reducing wealth inequality and achieving the positive outcomes that reduced inequality would bring about.AcknowledgmentsWe thank Nalini Ambady, Carol Dweck, Jennifer Eberhardt, and Brian Lowery for helpful feedback; Veronika Job for help with designing experimental materials; and Amie Blocker and Elizabeth Goodman for assistance with research.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.FundingThis research was funded by Columbia Business School grants to Krishna Savani.Supplemental MaterialAdditional supporting information may be found at http://pss.sagepub .com/content/by/supplemental-dataNotes1. To identify nonattentive participants, we used Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko’s (2009) instruction check. At the beginning of each experiment, before the experimental manipulation was administered, participants were given two tests of whether they had read all instructions. Participants who failed either test were removed from the experiment without compromising random assignment. Additionally, at the end of each experiment, participants were asked, “Were you in any way distracted while completing the survey?”; participants in Experiments 2 through 5 were also asked, “Did you have any technical problems while watching the video?” (for details about the video used in the experimental manipulation, see the Method section for Experiment 2). Logistic regressions confirmed that the experimental condition did not predict participants’ likeli-hood of being distracted or encountering technical problems, ps > .18. Therefore, data for participants who reported having technical problems or being distracted were excluded from analysis. Finally, if we discovered that the same individual had participated in two or more experiments, we excluded his or her data from all but the first experiment in our analyses.2. We used a binary category for ethnicity (1 for European Americans and 0 for minorities) because the low proportion of participants from minority groups in our samples (ranging from .15 to .28) prevented us from creating a separate dummy variable for each minority group. All mixed-race participants were categorized as minorities.3. Across the six studies, all Bayes factors estimated the null hypoth-esis against an alternative hypothesis described by a half-normal distribution, with both the mean and the standard deviation of the difference between conditions equal to 0.5 units (see Dienes, 2011, p. 287). The difference of 0.5 units between conditions was estimated at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Savani, Rattanon the basis of our previous research on choice (Savani et al., 2011). A Bayes factor of X indicates that the alternative hypothesis is X times as likely as the null hypothesis, given the data (X > 3 indicates substantial evidence, and X > 10 indicates strong evidence; Jeffreys, 1961).4. All Cohen’s d statistics were computed using the residuals after controlling for covariates.5. None of the other covariates significantly predicted the dependent measure.ReferencesAlesina, A., & Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive politics and economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 890–895.Bartels, L. M. (2005). Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and pub-lic policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 15–31.Bryan, C. J., Dweck, C. S., Ross, L., Kay, A. C., & Mislavsky, N. O. (2009). Political mindset: Effects of schema priming on liberal-conservative political positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 890–895.Buffett, W. E. (2011, August 15). Stop coddling the super-rich. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.htmlBureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). National economic accounts. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htmCentral Intelligence Agency. (2009). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ index.html.Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desir-ability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). What happens to a dream deferred: The continuing quest for equal educational opportunity. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 607–630). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274–290.Fong, C. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 82, 225–246.Frank, R. H. (2007). Falling behind: How rising inequality harms the middle class. Berkeley: University of California Press.Frank, R. H. (2011). The Darwin economy: Liberty, competition, and the common good. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Hanson, J. D., & Hanson, K. (2006). The blame frame: Justifying (racial) injustice in America. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, 413–480.Inesi, M. E., Botti, S., Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Power and choice: Their dynamic interplay in quench-ing the thirst for personal control. Psychological Science, 22, 1042–1048.Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Amer-icans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Aldine Transaction.Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63, 661–687.Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J. T., & Pohl, M. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 3, 322–340.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli-cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Socio-cultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy- Burman & J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva-tion: Vol. 49. Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 1–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Morris, M. W., Menon, T., & Ames, D. R. (2001). Culturally con-ferred conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of per-sons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 169–182.Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565–572.Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America—one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12.Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Science, 22, 1095–1100.Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2012). Progressive taxation and the subjective well-being of nations. Psychological Science, 23, 86–92.Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instruc-tional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase sta-tistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). OECD tax database. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ document/60/0, 3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.htmlPorter, C. M. (in press). ‘Choice’: What we mean by it, and what that means for preventing childhood obesity. Public Health Nutrition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S1368980012000596.Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become intelligent? Cultural differences and societal consequences of the belief in a universal potential for intelligence. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts as a choice? U.S. Americans are more likely at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Choice and Inequality 9than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Sci-ence, 20, 1–8.Savani, K., Stephens, N. M., & Markus, H. R. (2011). The unantici-pated interpersonal consequences of choice: Victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22, 795–802.Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: Ecco.Stephens, N. M., & Levine, C. S. (2011). Opting out or denying dis-crimination? How the framework of free choice in American society influences perceptions of gender inequality. Psychologi-cal Science, 22, 1231–1236.Tavakoli, M. (2012). Do Iranian and Canadian females make dif-ferent personal decisions? Sociology Mind, 2, 127–132.U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2010. Retrieved from http://www .census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdfWakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274.Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York, NY: Blooms-bury.Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze—an update to 2007. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection, 589, 1–59. at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on July 6, 2012pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Business, Ethics and Society REL 228 (30273) /MGT 228 (25556) Dr. Jesse Perillo 10:10-11:40am (In-Person) jperill1@depaul.edu Winter 2023 Office Hours: T Th 8:30am-10:00am and by appointment in DePaul Center 6122 Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial… -Martin Luther King Jr. (Address at the Religious Leaders Conference, May 11, 1959) Whether one believes or not, religion is as real a force in the life of the world as economics or politics, and it demands fair-minded attention. Even if you think the entire religious enterprise is at best misguided and at worst counterproductive, it remains vital, inspiring great good and, sometimes, great evil. -Jon Meacham (former Editor-in-Chief of Newsweek) Course Description This course examines the ethical issues that arise in business and the marketplace with religious studies and religious resources as major dialogue partners. Given recent upheavals in the marketplace (and our own individual lives), it proves critical to ask what values and ideas ground the idea of the modern worker and modern business practices. Should religion play a role in helping us consider these questions? If so, what unique perspectives might religion add? With these thoughts in mind and with diverse religious and secular resources at hand we will ask such questions as “what does it mean to work” and “what is the goal of business”? Similarly, we will explore how different understandings of justice, community, and human nature affect our decision- making processes. We will examine the moral responsibilities of corporations to shareholders, customers, employees, and communities. We will also ask to what degree businesses should be regulated and which situations demand intervention. Finally we will investigate more specific ethical issues facing businesses including worker’s rights, privacy, whistle-blowing, and just marketing. Objectives – Develop a position on the tenability of whether religious ideas, language, and metaphors truly inform the language of economics and markets – Begin developing and elaborating one’s own understanding of the nature and role of labor and of the person who engages in labor – Develop an understanding of our own notions of human nature in regards to vulnerability, freedom, desire, responsibility, and sympathy drawing on specific religious, deistic, and secular texts – Identify possible ethical quandaries faced by businesses and its workers – Understand the contexts in which many of these quandaries arise – Employ case studies to accomplish the previous objectives
– Fulfill the Religious Dimension outcomes: 1. Explain beliefs and practices of one or more religious traditions in their specific social and cultural contexts. 2. Identify religious modes of thinking, acting, and feeling such as: myth and narrative, symbol, ritual, law, doctrine, ethics, religious experience. 3. Analyze the impact of religion on personal as well as communal dimensions of human life, including for example the relationship between religion and power, social integration, social transformation, and social justice. -The course earns Liberal Studies credit for the Religious Dimensions domain Course Requirements 1. Attend and Engage in In-Person Classes 2. Completion of Readings 3. Participation in Discussion and Debate 4. Completion of quizzes, writing assignments, and exams 1)The class will be presented in a In-Person format. This means that attendance is critical for comprehension and participation, but attendance itself will not be directly factored into your grade unless you miss quizzes, exams, etc. without notice. Any advanced notice of missing a class will not require any proof/documentation/etc. 2)Fair warning: There will be a fair amount of weekly reading assignments. . I did not ask you buy an overly expensive and mass-produced textbook which also means that these readings were hand-picked. Do take time with them. That said, I do not expect mastery of the readings by time you come to class…just a good working knowledge. 3) Participation in discussion is an essential part of this class as one often finds their position in ethics as they have to argue for it and defend it. Likewise, constructive participation in the class will raise the grade. Participation requires that one actively engages in the class. This includes engagement in class times, posing questions in discussion boards or via email, engagement with idea in office hours, and other related contributions made to enhance the learning experience. Participation is another way of judging whether you are engaging the class material without the demands of full comprehension that are required by quizzes, exams and papers. This part of the grade should not worry you. Each student begins the class with a “D” for participation. Every substantive comment, question, or engagement with the class material will increase that grade. The participation grade will be updated regularly on D2L. 4) Short quizzes and in-class writing assignments will be given at various times throughout the course. They will be spontaneous and will test a basic grasp of the readings and an initial engagement with the material. These quizzes and assignments cannot be made-up if you miss them unless you have previously warned me of your absence. If you have not told me of your absence then you will receive an “F” for the assignment. If you have been excused then the other assignments in that grade category will count for more. [For example, if we have five quizzes and you are excused from one, then each quiz will be 25% of the grade instead of 20%] Three 6 page papers (18 pages total) will be due over the course of the quarter. The paper on a specific set of readings is due at the end of the week for which the reading is scheduled. See more below under “Paper Guidelines.”
All papers should be turned in via D2L by the end of the day (11:59pm) they are due. Should you have a problem with this then contact me As Soon As Possible. Grade Breakdown Quizzes 10 % Participation 15 % Short Papers 35 % Midterm 20 % Final Exam 20 % The Final grade for the course is determined by adding and averaging the numerical value of all letter grades for each requirement, multiplying this sum by the percentage weight of that requirement and adding the resulting sums of each requirement. Letter grades follow the following valuation: A = 4.0 = 95-100; A- = 3.7= 91-94; B+ = 3.3 =88-90; B = 3.00= 85-87; B- = 2.7=81-84 ; C+ = 2.3= 77-80; C = 2.00= 73=76; C- = 1.7=69-72; D+ = 1.3= 65-68; D = 1.00= 61-64; F = 0 = 60 and below. Grading Rationales for longer written work: “A” work represents superior work. In the case of writing assignments and papers, this means that the assignment has been fulfilled with care, intelligence, and genuine insight. The written work displays a clear focus and method of approach, uses pertinent examples or “facts” to support its judgments, shows a distinct personal perspective which can be distinguished from others, makes a real argument, and can discern the strengths and weaknesses of other arguments. A work also displays spelling, punctuation, grammar, word usage, and syntax that is of high quality. On examinations, A work is demonstrated by an accurate and insightful knowledge of the material in question, judicious choices in the material used in essay questions, and clarity of expression. “B” work represents very good work. In the case of writing assignments and papers, this means that the assignment has been fulfilled with care and intelligence. The written work displays a fairly clear focus and uses good examples. In general, B work also displays the lack of technical errors described for A work. On exams, B work is shown by a solid knowledge of the material involved, good choices used in essay questions, and clear expression. Often students ask what distinguishes B or B+ work from A work. The main difference is the distinctiveness, imagination, and ability to see the larger picture with intelligence and insight on the part of A work. A paper that follows the assignment exactly and does it well may well merit a B or B+ grade because it is very good, but it may not be superior if it does not include these further elements. “C” work is satisfactory work. In the case of writing assignments and papers, this means that there is a basic, but not extensive, understanding of the assignment. Work will generally not demonstrate a clear focus (e.g., the paper may wander-around) or method of approach, but there is some attempt to do so. Its use of material to support judgments is adequate and will show some awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of other positions. C work demonstrates that there is sufficient knowledge of the material, but that there remain some deficiencies in understanding and expression. In exams, C work shows an adequate (but not more than adequate) knowledge of the material and on essay questions, will show the same characteristics listed above for written work. C work often displays a poor technical grasp of the conventions of writing (spelling, punctuation, etc.) and often lacks good organization. “D” work is barely passing work. It is generally unsatisfactory but demonstrates a bare minimum of knowledge of the subject matter. There is little to no awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of other positions, little to no organization, and poor use of technical conventions. What saves D work from failure is a barely adequate grasp of the material. “F” work does not meet any of the criteria listed above.
Paper Guidelines: Three 6 page papers will be due over the course of the quarter. You may choose which readings you want to write on but you must write one paper between each of the following Jan. 5th – Jan. 29th; Jan. 31st -Feb. 19th; Feb. 21st – Mar. 10th. The paper on a specific reading(s) is due at the end of the week for which the reading is scheduled. (For instance, if you want to write on Rowan Williams’ article from the first full week of class then you must turn that paper in by Jan. 8th which is the last day of week one). The due dates on the syllabus calendar are the last day you can write a paper on a section of readings from the calendar. (as you will see below: “1st Paper Due on one of the readings between Jan. 5th – Jan. 29th”). Papers are to be written double-spaced in Times New Roman 12 with 1-inch margins on each side. Papers should be structured with the first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading and the second half providing analysis of the reading. Two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. Page numbers should be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted material. Late papers will be lowered by one full grade (ex. B- becomes a C-). The last day to turn in late papers is the final day of classes for the quarter. Use your own wording as much as possible. Page numbers must be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted and paraphrased material. You may place numbers at the end of sentences like this (author, page #). Papers should be structured with: 1) The first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading – A summary provides an overview of the key points. You cannot mention everything the author says within the space you have been provided…don’t try. Provide only the central points of the reading/readings – Summaries, like outlines, should be objective. Make no references to yourself. In a summary your opinion doesn’t matter; later, when you analyze and evaluate an argument, you can state your opinion and support it. – A summary is not an abridged copy of the reading…a summary provides some structure for the reader (ex. The author has three main points; the reading provides various interpretations on the notion of justice) 2) The second half providing analysis of the reading. – This will most likely be an exploration of the key points that you have already mentioned. This can take a variety of forms. You can apply these key points to a case/situation from another class. You can explain a flaw in the author’s logic. You can explain whether the religious argument can be made palatable for all without losing anything from the original teaching. Or, you can argue (with support) why you think the authors point is helpful or inadequate. – Writing this part of the paper involves more than simply stating your opinions. You must support your views by presenting arguments in favor of them. You should also try to defend your views against potential criticisms. In developing your position on an issue, keep in mind what an intelligent opponent would say in response. 3) Finally, two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. – There should be three questions that would lead the class in a good discussion surrounding a key theme from the readings. Yes and no questions are not adequate. It should also be clear how the question relates to the text. If you email me papers at least 48 hours before they are due, then I will give you constructive feedback on the paper without grading it. Late papers will be lowered by one full grade (ex. B- becomes a C-). Papers must be turned in via the Dropbox/Submission on D2L. Any papers that are not in Dropbox will not be considered fully submitted.
Etiquette It is expected that you will attend each class and arrive to it on time. Please be attentive to other members of the class and me when we are speaking. I hope you have the same expectation of me regarding these things. You are allowed to take notes on your computer, but please do not use your computer for things not related to class. The only use of social media in class that will be tolerated are posts praising this class. There is no taping/recording of the class without permission from the instructor. Please be attentive to other members of the class and their arguments on the discussion board. Please abide by the general standards of Net-iquette (avoid all-caps posts, express the same empathy you would in an in-person setting, respect the privacy of your colleagues, etc.) Likewise, please note that is also hard to read the tone of some comments in writing (so do note that sarcasm and irony might not actually be conveyed) As the journalist David Carr once said to his class, I say to you: “If you text or email during class, I will ignore you as you ignore me. It won’t go well.” Use of Technology I will not prevent you from using technology in the classroom for educational purposes, but Steve Jobs and many other tech leaders have expressed concern about the effect that technology might have on their own family’s learning so you might keep this in mind as you choose for yourself. Consultation If you are having trouble understanding expectations, assignments or instructions for this course, please reach out. I do not like leaving anybody behind, but I often need your help to know that you aren’t grasping material before an assessment. I welcome and encourage you to talk with me. You may see me without an appointment during my office hours or you may arrange an appointment for some other time. You may of course contact me by email as well. I will try to respond to email as quickly as possible. Please give me at least 24 hours to respond to emails. I will often get back to you much sooner, but do be patient if it takes just a bit of time. Students with Disabilities Students seeking disability-related accommodations are required to register with DePaul’s Center for Students with Disabilities (CSD) enabling you to access accommodations and support services to assist your success. There are two office locations that can provide you with enrollment information, or inquire via email at csd@depaul.edu . Loop Campus – Lewis Center #1420 – (312) 362-8002 Lincoln Park Campus – Student Center #370 – (773) 325-1677 Students are also invited to contact me privately to discuss your challenges and how I may assist in facilitating the accommodations you will use during this course. This is best done early in the term and our conversation will remain confidential.
Sexual and Relationship Violence As a DePaul community, we share a commitment to take care of one another. Classroom relationships are based on trust and communication. Sometimes, material raised in class may bring up issues for students related to sexual and relationship violence. In other instances, students may reach out to faculty as a source of help and support. It is important for students to know that faculty are required to report information reported to them about experiences with sexual or relationship violence to DePaul’s Title IX Coordinator. Students should also know that disclosing experiences with sexual or relationship violence in course assignments or discussion does not constitute a formal report to the University and will not begin the process of DePaul providing a response. Students seeking to report an incident of sexual or relationship violence to DePaul should contact Public Safety (Lincoln Park: 773-325-7777; Loop: 312-362-8400) or the Title IX Coordinator (Lincoln Park: 773-325-8128; Loop: 312-362-8970 or titleixcoordinator@depaul.edu). Students seeking to speak confidentially about issues related to sexual and relationship violence should contact a Survivor Support Advocate in the Office of Health Promotion & Wellness for information and resources (773-325-7129 or hpw@depaul.edu). More information is available at http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/hpw/shvp.html. Students are encouraged to take advantage of these services and to seek help around sexual and relationship violence for themselves as well as their peers who may be in need of support. Academic Integrity From DePaul’s Academic Integrity Policy: Violations of academic integrity include but are not limited to the following categories: cheating; plagiarism; fabrication; falsification or sabotage of research data; destruction or misuse of the university’s academic resources, alteration or falsification of academic records; academic misconduct; and complicity. This policy applies to all courses, programs, and learning contexts in which academic credit is offered, including experiential and service-learning courses, study abroad programs, internships, student teaching and the like. If an instructor finds that a student has violated the Academic Integrity Policy, the appropriate initial sanction is at the instructor’s discretion. Actions taken by the instructor do not preclude the college or the university from taking further action, including dismissal from the university and/or revocation of one’s degree. From me: Do you really think it is a good idea to cheat in an ethics class? Plagiarism is an attack on the foundational trust and respect necessary for education. For this reason plagiarism is an affront to the collective endeavor of the entire class and the university. Any act of plagiarism or academic dishonesty will result in an “F” for the assignment with a possible “F” in the course being reserved for the most egregious instances of plagiarism or academic dishonesty. In addition, all instance of plagiarism or academic dishonesty (no matter how severe) will be reported to the University, and, as DePaul’s policy above notes, this may lead to more serious results than those tied to the class alone.
Reading/Media List Books in BOLD must be purchased or rented. Their ISBN numbers are listed below if you choose to buy the books online. Additional Required Readings can be found either through Course Reserves or on D2L in the “Content” section of our class page. American Marketing Association’s “Statement of Ethics.” Aristotle. The Politics (Bk 1:1-4; 8-13; Bk 3:12) Arnold, Denis G., and Norman E. Bowie. “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons.” Business Ethics Quarterly 13, no. 2 (2003): 221-42. Bowes, John C. “St. Vincent de Paul and Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 17, no. 15, (Nov., 1998): 1663-1667. Chang, Ha-Joon. “Thing 1” from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism. NY: Bloomsbury Press, 2011. Corvino, John. “Loyalty in Business?” Journal of Business Ethics. 41 (2002): 179-185. Duska, Ronald. “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty” in Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics (Netherlands: Springer, 2007), 139-147. Pope Francis I, EVANGELII GAUDIUM (selections) Frezza, Bill. “What Is the Foundation Of Your Economic Beliefs?” August 29, 2009 http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/24/what_is_the_foundation_of_your_economic_beliefs_97371.html Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. with the assistance of Rose Friedman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. ISBN: 9780226264219 Galbraith, John Kenneth. “The Dependence Effect” in The Affluent Society and Other Writings 1952-1967 (NY: Library of America Press, 2010), 470-476. Herman, Stuart W. “The Potential for Building Covenants in Business Corporations.” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1992) 201-223. Hobbes, Thomas – Leviathan (Part I- ch. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13-15 Part II- ch. 17-18) Khaf, Monzer. “Property.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World.: Oxford University Press, 2009. Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants (Milkweed Editions, 2013). Maitland, Ian. “The Great Non-Debate Over International Sweatshops,” in Ethical Theory and Business. Ed. Tom L. Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001): 593-605. McClain, Linda C. “Inviolability and Privacy: The Castle, the Sanctuary, and the Body,” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 7 (1995): 195-241.
McCreary, Lew. Conversation about “What was Privacy?” accessed @ http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/10/what-was-privacy-1/ McCoy, Bowen. “Parable of the Sadhu.” Harvard Business Review (September-October 1983): 103-108. O’Brien, Thomas W. “The Challenge of Solidarity in a Competitive Business Environment,” Journal of Religion and Business Ethics: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 4. (2010). Saeed, Mohammad, Zafar U. Ahmed, and Syeda-Masooda Mukhtar. “International Marketing Ethics from an Islamic Perspective: a Value-Maximization Approach.” Journal of Business Ethics. 32.2 (2001): 127-142. Sandel, Michael. “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford, May 11 and 12, 1998. Savani, Krishna, and Aneeta Rattan. “A Choice Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality.” Psychological Science (2012). Schumacher, E.F. “Economics from the Buddhist Point of View.” Management Review. 63.5 (1974). Schwartz, Felice “Management, Women, and the New Facts of Life,” Harvard Business Review (January/February 1989): 65-76. Shiekh, Abdallah al- and Devin J. Stewart. “Zakāt.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, (selections). http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.depaul.edu/article/opr/t236/e0865 Smart, Ninian. Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000). (selections- handed out in class) Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. (selections) Stackhouse, Max L. “Buddhism, Asceticism, and Wealth” in On Moral Business : Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1995). Svendsen, Lars. Work, second edition. London: Routledge, 2016. US Catholic Conference of Bishops. Economic Justice for All. 1986 (selections) Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. “Ethical Relativism” Issues in Ethics 5, n.2 (Summer 1992). Vigeland, Tess. “Islam and Money,” Radio Interview from August 3, 2013. Accessed @ http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/islam-and-money Weil Simone. Gravity and Grace, Translated by Arthur Wills. (NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1952). (selections) Williams, Rowan. “Theology & Economics: Two Different Worlds?” 40th Trinity Institute® National Theological Conference Building an Ethical Economy: Theology & the Marketplace January 27-29, 2010. Or watch at http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/video/theology-and-economics-two-different-worlds (main speech begins at 19 m 30 sec into video)
Week 1 Class Schedule An “ * ” marks an item that is on Course Reserves. All other items except the one text you were asked to buy are on the content page of D2L or can be accessed through links on D2L. Bold Titles indicate the leading questions for each reading The names below the titles indicate the reading(s) attached to those questions and lines of inquiry Jan 3 Tu Introduction. What is a Religion or a Worldview? What Comprises Each? [Smart/Tillich handout given in class] Jan 5 Th What is Ethics? Why Business Ethics? Can/Should Religion Inform Business? Bowes*, Frezza, Rowan Williams [Extra Media: How metaphors shape our view…] Jan 10 Tu What are Moral Frameworks? Which One(s) Do We Use? 3 Schools of Ethics Jan 12 Th How Central Is Work to One’s Life? How Do Religions and the Market Govern Our Time in the Workplace and Market? Svendsen*, 1-54 Jan 17 Th Getting Lost in One’s Work…How Can Work Dominate a Person’s Mindset? Svendsen*, 65-110; Also Read Schumacher* [Extra Reading: Stackhouse on “Buddhism, Asceticism, and Wealth”*] Jan 19 Tu How Does Work Change Us? What Can be Taken From Us? Can Notions of God or Faith be Learned or Lost in Work? Poems and Weil reading Jan 24 Tu What is Proper Desire? Towards What Should Business Aim? Aristotle Politics – Bk 1:1-4; 8-13; Bk 3:12; Also Read al-Shiekh and Khaf* [Extra Media: Islam, Interest, and Investing] Jan 26 Th Without Access to God/Natural Unity, Now What? Are There Limits to Desire? Hobbes chapters 1-2, 6, 10. {Hobbes is hard…you may want to choose an extra reading on which to write} [Extra Reading: Savani] [End of Sunday Jan 29th- 1st Paper Due on one of the readings between Jan. 5th – Jan. 29th] Jan 31 Tu How Do We Construct Society without God(s) or Notions of Transcendence? Hobbes chapters 11, 13, 14. 17 {Hobbes is hard…you may want to choose an extra reading on which to write} [Extra Reading: Herman] Feb 2 Th MIDTERM (In-Class test) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
Feb 7 Tu Are Rules the Final Basis for Action? Do We Need More than Religious Rules? Smith – Moral Sentiments, 1st part of selections pp. 1-23 Feb 9 Th Are Prudence and Self-Interest Enough? To Whom Ultimately Can I Be Sympathetic? Smith – Moral Sentiments, 2nd part of selections pp.24-49 Also read McCoy Parable of the Sadhu* Feb 14 Tu Are We Primarily Economic Beings? Do We Share Common Values? Capitalism and Freedom, Intro and Chapters 1-2. Also read Chang* Feb 16 Th What Should Be Open to the Logic of the Market? What Should Be Deemed Universally Sacred and Free from Exchange in the Market? Kimmerer Also read Sandel p. 89-105 [Sunday-2nd Paper Due on one of the readings between Jan. 31st -Feb. 19th] Feb 21 Tu To Whom Am I Responsible? Do We Live in A Contractual or Covenantal World? Are Contracts or Covenants More Appropriate for Business? Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 8, 10. Also read O’Brien, Tom. Feb 23 Th To Whom Am I Responsible? When Must We Intervene in the Market? (The Implications of Common Covenantal Values) Economic Justice for All (Read the following paragraphs- Intro: 1-2, 12-25; Ch 1: 1-3, 6-16, 22-24; Ch 2: 28, 61-126; Ch 5: 332-339, 365) and selections from Pope Francis’ EVANGELII GAUDIUM Feb 28 Tu Trading Privacy for Equality and Capital: Your Body, Their Business? Read Schwartz*; and McClain 195-207, and Listen to McCreary Mar 2 Th Whistle-Blowing: To Whom am I Loyal? Read Duska* (1st) and then Corvino* (2nd) Mar 7 Tu The Limits and Influence of Marketing: How Vulnerable are We to the Ad? Read Saeed*, Galbraith* [Extra Reading: American Marketing Association’s Statement of Ethics] Mar 9 Th The Global Marketplace and Human Rights Language: Which Standards? Read Bowie and Arnold*, Maitland*, and reading on relativism [Friday- 3rd Paper Due on one of the readings between Feb. 21st – Mar. 10th] [Mar. 10th (Friday)- ALL Late Papers Due, LAST DAY for Participation] Week 10 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9
FINAL EXAM: Our scheduled exam time from the University is Thursday, Mar. 16 from 8:30am-10:45am. That said, I will give you a longer time frame to take the exam, which should take you no more than two hours. I am not encouraging you to spend more time with the exam; rather, I am giving you the chance to start at a different time or to set the exam aside for a while and read over it once again. Your exam will be posted to D2L on Mar. 16, 2023 @ 8am. You should submit your completed exam essays to the Submissions folder on D2L by 2pm (CST/CDT) Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change the schedule and the assignments for this class.
Paper Guidelines: Three 6 page papers will be due over the course of the quarter. You may choose which readings you want to write on but you must write one paper between each of the following Jan. 5th – Jan. 29th; Jan. 31st -Feb. 19th; Feb. 21st – Mar. 10th. The paper on a specific reading(s) is due at the end of the week for which the reading is scheduled. (For instance, if you want to write on Rowan Williams’ article from the first full week of class then you must turn that paper in by Jan. 8th which is the last day of week one). The due dates on the syllabus calendar are the last day you can write a paper on a section of readings from the calendar. (as you will see below: “1st Paper Due on one of the readings between Jan. 5th – Jan. 29th”). Papers are to be written double-spaced in Times New Roman 12 with 1-inch margins on each side. Papers should be structured with the first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading and the second half providing analysis of the reading. Two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. Page numbers should be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted material. Late papers will be lowered by one full grade (ex. B- becomes a C-). The last day to turn in late papers is the final day of classes for the quarter. Use your own wording as much as possible. Page numbers must be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted and paraphrased material. You may place numbers at the end of sentences like this (author, page #). Papers should be structured with: 1) The first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading – A summary provides an overview of the key points. You cannot mention everything the author says within the space you have been provided…don’t try. Provide only the central points of the reading/readings – Summaries, like outlines, should be objective. Make no references to yourself. In a summary your opinion doesn’t matter; later, when you analyze and evaluate an argument, you can state your opinion and support it. – A summary is not an abridged copy of the reading…a summary provides some structure for the reader (ex. The author has three main points; the reading provides various interpretations on the notion of justice) 2) The second half providing analysis of the reading. – This will most likely be an exploration of the key points that you have already mentioned. This can take a variety of forms. You can apply these key points to a case/situation from another class. You can explain a flaw in the author’s logic. You can explain whether the religious argument can be made palatable for all without losing anything from the original teaching. Or, you can argue (with support) why you think the authors point is helpful or inadequate. – Writing this part of the paper involves more than simply stating your opinions. You must support your views by presenting arguments in favor of them. You should also try to defend your views against potential criticisms. In developing your position on an issue, keep in mind what an intelligent opponent would say in response. 3) Finally, two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. – There should be three questions that would lead the class in a good discussion surrounding a key theme from the readings. Yes and no questions are not adequate. It should also be clear how the question relates to the text. If you email me papers at least 48 hours before they are due, then I will give you constructive feedback on the paper without grading it. Late papers will be lowered by one full grade (ex. B- becomes a C-). Papers must be turned in via the Dropbox/Submission on D2L. Any papers that are not in Dropbox will not be considered fully submitted.