Measure of Ethical Viewpoints

Abstract

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints (MEV or MEY) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument developed by F. Neil Brady and Gloria E. Wheeler (1996) to evaluate individual ethical predispositions within organizational, professional, and managerial decision-making contexts. The instrument assesses two foundational normative ethical frameworks: utilitarianism (a consequentialist, teleological orientation prioritizing net social utility, aggregate outcomes, and instrumental efficacy) and formalism (a deontological, non-consequentialist orientation emphasizing moral rules, duties, contractual obligations, and universalizable codes of conduct). The instrument adopts a dual-method measurement methodology totaling 41 manifest indicators across two distinct measurement formats: (a) a scenario-based vignette battery comprising seven descriptive moral dilemmas with 28 evaluative statements (four items per vignette: two reflecting utilitarian rationale and solutions, and two reflecting formalist rationale and solutions) rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like my way of thinking) to 7 (very much like my way of thinking); and (b) a character trait inventory comprising 13 self-attributed descriptive virtues (seven utilitarian traits and six formalist traits) rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not important to me) to 7 (very important to me). Psychometric investigations demonstrate robust reliability, with coefficient alpha values ranging from .85 to .86 for utilitarianism and .74 to .75 for formalism across vignette and trait scores, alongside test-retest reliabilities of .70 for vignette evaluations and .77 for trait ratings over longitudinal intervals. Validity analyses substantiate its dual-axis factor structure, revealing orthogonal or moderately positive latent associations between utilitarianism and formalism while demonstrating divergent criterion validity in relation to organizational justice, compliance behavior, and managerial whistleblowing.

Keywords

Measure of Ethical Viewpoints, utilitarianism, formalism, deontology, teleology, ethical predispositions, normative business ethics, moral judgment, moral character traits, psychometrics

Authors

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints was conceived, constructed, and empirically validated by:

• F. Neil Brady, Ph.D. — Professor of Business Ethics and Organizational Leadership, Department of Organizational Leadership and Strategy, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States. Dr. Brady has written extensively on normative business ethics, the integration of deontological and utilitarian logic, and philosophical frameworks in managerial decision-making.
• Gloria E. Wheeler, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Public Management and Statistics, Romney Institute of Public Service and Ethics, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States. Dr. Wheeler specializes in applied quantitative methodology, psychometrics, public service ethics, and organizational justice perceptions.

Subsequent psychometric refinement and organizational validation studies were conducted by researchers including Marshall Schminke (University of Central Florida), Maureen L. Ambrose (University of Central Florida), and Thomas W. Noel (Brigham Young University), establishing external criterion correlations with organizational justice climate and managerial hierarchy.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Measure of Ethical Viewpoints is to provide a standardized, psychometrically grounded operationalization of the core philosophical orientations that govern human ethical decision-making. In contemporary organizational behavior and behavioral ethics, understanding why employees, managers, and public administrators resolve moral dilemmas differently has long been obscured by either purely descriptive developmental paradigms (such as Lawrence Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory) or single-axis compliance models. The MEV was explicitly formulated to address the conceptual limitation of viewing ethical decision-making as a monolithic or one-dimensional construct, recognizing that ethical maturity is not merely an upward linear progression, but rather a preference for distinct, valid philosophical modes of reasoning.

Brady and Wheeler (1996) sought to bridge normative philosophical traditions with applied psychometric assessment. In business, healthcare, governance, and academic administration, decision-makers are routinely confronted with situations where strict obedience to universal rules conflicts directly with the maximization of tangible welfare or the prevention of severe financial loss. By measuring both utilitarian and formalist dispositions independently, the MEV allows researchers and organizational diagnosticians to evaluate whether an individual relies exclusively on consequential calculation, unyielding normative conformity, a dual-ethical synergy, or an ethically ambivalent orientation.

In applied research, the MEV serves as a critical diagnostic tool across several primary fields:

• Organizational Behavior and Justice Perceptions: Investigating how utilitarian versus formalist predispositions moderate reactions to administrative decisions, workplace surveillance, organizational restructuring, downsizing, and performance incentive distributions.
• Leadership Selection and Executive Profiling: Evaluating managerial styles, ethical climate creation, whistleblowing tendencies, and corporate governance approaches.
• Cross-Cultural and Professional Ethics: Comparing the ethical baselines of public administrators, private corporate managers, accountants, and healthcare professionals whose functional roles may structurally reward rule-based rigor versus outcome-driven flexibility.
• Pedagogical and Training Interventions: Tracking shifts in ethical awareness, cognitive complexity, and normative reasoning among graduate business and public administration students before and after structured ethics coursework.

Psychological Construct

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints operationalizes two primary philosophical dimensions: Utilitarianism and Formalism. Rather than treating these dimensions as mutually exclusive polar opposites on a single bipolar spectrum, the MEV treats them as independent, orthogonal psychological orientations that can simultaneously coexist within an individual’s cognitive architecture.

1. Utilitarianism (Consequentialist / Teleological Orientation)

The utilitarian dimension reflects an outcome-oriented cognitive schema wherein the moral quality of an action is determined by its tangible results, aggregate consequences, and net social utility. An individual with a high utilitarian predisposition evaluates actions based on whether they maximize overall benefit, minimize net harm, and achieve operational efficacy. Within the MEV, utilitarianism is captured across two distinct operational modalities:

• Utilitarian Dilemma Reasoning: In situational scenarios, utilitarian reasoning surfaces as a willingness to bend, bypass, or reinterpret formal rules when doing so produces the greatest good for the greatest number, prevents collective suffering, or achieves optimal practical outcomes. For instance, in an academic field trip conflict where changing a scheduled tour date inconveniences two students but benefits the remaining majority, a utilitarian perspective reasons that “The class would be better off if a majority went on the tour than if none did.”
• Utilitarian Trait Endorsement: On an individual personality level, utilitarianism manifests as an affinity for pragmatic, instrumental, and efficacy-driven character virtues. High scorers assign vital importance to being innovative, resourceful, effective, influential, results-oriented, productive, and a winner. These traits reflect an agentic, goal-directed orientation toward producing tangible, real-world value.

2. Formalism (Deontological / Rule-Based Orientation)

The formalist dimension reflects a non-consequentialist, rule-governed cognitive schema grounded in moral duties, fundamental rights, legal imperatives, and universal principles of justice. From a formalist standpoint, certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences. Moral duty is defined by fidelity to established codes, institutional policies, contractual promises, and the principle of universalizability. Within the MEV, formalism is measured through two operational modalities:

• Formalist Dilemma Reasoning: In situational scenarios, formalist reasoning rejects pragmatic compromise if it breaches a codified standard, damages individual rights, or involves deception. In the aforementioned field trip dilemma, the formalist orientation prioritizes equity and duty over aggregate numbers: “The tour is in the course syllabus; you should do all you can to fulfill listed course assignments” and “Not even one student should be treated unfairly.” Similarly, when handling confidential competitor pricing accidentally left on a desk, the formalist insists that “Using the information would be basically unfair and dishonest.”
• Formalist Trait Endorsement: On the character level, formalism manifests as an adherence to classic moral rectitude, institutional fidelity, and personal probity. High scorers prioritize traits such as being principled, dependable, trustworthy, honest, noted for integrity, and law-abiding. These virtues represent an unwavering dedication to standard-based morality irrespective of situational pressures.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Measure of Ethical Viewpoints is firmly grounded in classical normative ethics, integrating the foundational philosophical traditions of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant into modern cognitive and organizational psychology.

Philosophical Lineage: Teleology vs. Deontology

Normative philosophy has historically been bifurcated into two dominant systems:

• Teleological (Consequentialist) Ethics: Developed extensively by Bentham (1789) and refined by Mill (1861), utilitarianism posits that the highest moral imperative is the principle of utility—generating the greatest net happiness or well-being for the greatest number of sentient beings. Actions carry no intrinsic moral valence; their ethical status is derived strictly from their downstream consequences. In organizational settings, teleology underpins cost-benefit analyses, resource optimization, strategic agility, and outcome accountability.
• Deontological Ethics: Articulated most systematically by Kant (1785) through the formulation of the Categorical Imperative, formalism argues that morality resides in duty (deon) and rational conformity to universal moral laws. For Kant, human beings must never be treated merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. Within institutional life, deontology manifests as strict compliance frameworks, codes of conduct, equal protection, procedural justice, and honesty as absolute imperatives that cannot be traded away for organizational profit.

Integration into Cognitive Ethical Predispositions

Brady (1985, 1990) argued that administrative theory had suffered from an artificial dichotomy where scholars either championed formalistic bureaucratic legality or pragmatic administrative efficiency. Brady proposed the Janus-headed model of ethical theory, named after the Roman deity Janus, who possesses two faces looking in opposite directions. According to this model, mature ethical problem-solving within complex institutions requires decision-makers to look simultaneously through both lenses: evaluating the rule-based legitimacy of the process (the formalist face) and anticipating the pragmatic human and systemic consequences of the outcome (the utilitarian face).

By translating this dual-perspective framework into an empirical instrument, Brady and Wheeler (1996) broke away from Kohlberg’s (1969) developmental hierarchy, which implicitly ranked formal universal principles above pragmatic social utility. Instead, the MEV operationalizes utilitarianism and formalism as dual cognitive predispositions that vary continuously across individuals, creating a fourfold typology:

1. Principled Pragmatists (High Utilitarian, High Formalist): Individuals who hold deep commitments both to institutional rules and to maximizing aggregate human and social outcomes.
2. Pure Formalists (Low Utilitarian, High Formalist): Legalistic or absolutist decision-makers who adhere strictly to rules, rights, and standard procedures regardless of collateral costs.
3. Pure Utilitarians (High Utilitarian, Low Formalist): Results-driven strategists who readily modify or circumvent procedural rules if doing so achieves superior aggregate welfare or organizational success.
4. Ethically Disengaged (Low Utilitarian, Low Formalist): Individuals displaying low sensitivity to both universal moral duties and systematic outcome assessments.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Measure of Ethical Viewpoints has been evaluated across multiple empirical investigations involving business executives, public managers, and undergraduate and graduate management students.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Brady and Wheeler (1996) by evaluating the inter-correlations between the two measurement formats: the situational vignettes and the abstract character traits. Findings demonstrated significant convergent validity across methods. Utilitarian vignette responses correlated positively and significantly with the endorsement of utilitarian character traits (such as innovative, resourceful, effective, results oriented). Similarly, formalist vignette selections correlated strongly with formalist character virtues (such as principled, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding).

Notably, when examining the relationship between the two latent constructs, Brady and Wheeler (1996) observed that utilitarianism based on trait ratings correlated positively with formalism (r ≈ .20 to .30 in various organizational samples). This positive or near-orthogonal association empirically corroborated the Janus-headed theoretical hypothesis: utilitarianism and formalism are not diametric opposites along a single continuum, but independent ethical capacities that can simultaneously develop within an individual’s moral character.

Criterion and Divergent Validity

Criterion-related and divergent validity were rigorously tested in empirical investigations conducted by Schminke, Ambrose, and Noel (1997), who examined how ethical predispositions influence employee perceptions of organizational justice across organizational hierarchies. Their findings demonstrated sharp, divergent predictive patterns:

• Perceptions of Organizational Justice: Schminke et al. (1997) revealed that both utilitarianism and formalism correlated negatively with perceptions of procedural and distributive justice under specific institutional conditions. High-formalist employees exhibited greater sensitivity to minor procedural irregularities, viewing deviations from policy as breaches of systemic fairness. Conversely, high-utilitarian employees were frustrated by bureaucratic procedural delays that impeded efficient and equitable distributive outcomes.
• Hierarchical Stratification: Research demonstrated systematic differences across organizational levels. Upper-level corporate executives scored significantly higher on utilitarian traits and vignette solutions than lower-level employees, reflecting the structural pressures of executive leadership, which prioritizes aggregate strategic performance, resource allocation, and broad organizational survival. In contrast, non-supervisory employees and specialized compliance officers exhibited significantly higher formalism scores, aligning with job roles centered on adherence to standard operating procedures, rules, and regulatory oversight.

Reliability

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints demonstrates strong internal consistency and temporal stability across both its vignette-based dilemmas and its character trait inventories.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Extensive psychometric evaluations by Brady and Wheeler (1996) and Schminke, Ambrose, and Noel (1997) yielded strong internal consistency estimates:

• Utilitarianism Subscale: Coefficient alpha values for the utilitarian dimension across combined vignette and trait ratings consistently ranged between .85 and .86. The 7-item utilitarian trait scale independently demonstrated alpha coefficients exceeding .82 across diverse organizational cohorts.
• Formalism Subscale: Coefficient alpha values for the formalist dimension ranged between .74 and .75 across multiple sample configurations. The 6-item formalist trait scale demonstrated internal consistency values consistently spanning .76 to .80, reflecting acceptable to good internal reliability for research and diagnostic applications.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

To assess the stability of ethical predispositions over time, Brady and Wheeler (1996) administered the MEV across a longitudinal test-retest design. The temporal stability coefficients were established as follows:

• Vignette Battery Stability: Test-retest reliability across the seven ethical vignettes averaged r = .70, indicating that individual moral reasoning strategies across complex hypothetical dilemmas remain relatively stable over time.
• Character Trait Inventory Stability: Test-retest reliability for the 13-item character trait ratings yielded a coefficient of r = .77, reflecting the enduring nature of self-attributed ethical virtues and personal value hierarchies.

Factor Analysis

Factor-analytic investigations of the Measure of Ethical Viewpoints confirm the existence of two distinct latent constructs underlying both the scenario-based dilemma evaluations and the character trait ratings.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Brady and Wheeler (1996) subjected the 13 character trait ratings to principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The empirical extraction cleanly yielded a two-factor latent solution accounting for the majority of the common variance:

• Factor 1: Utilitarian Virtues: Primary salient loadings were established for Results oriented (.78), Productive (.76), Effective (.74), Resourceful (.71), Innovative (.68), Influential (.65), and A winner (.61). Cross-loadings onto the formalist dimension were negligible (< .20).
• Factor 2: Formalist Virtues: Sizable primary loadings were observed for Principled (.81), Honest (.80), Noted for integrity (.78), Trustworthy (.76), Dependable (.70), and Law-abiding (.66). Cross-loadings onto the utilitarian factor remained minimal (< .22).

Parallel factor analyses performed on the 28 vignette responses supported the dual-factor division. Items emphasizing aggregate consequences, flexibility, and overall social gain loaded heavily on the utilitarian factor, whereas items citing formal policy, equal treatment, truth-telling, and strict rule compliance loaded cleanly onto the formalist factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural modeling conducted by organizational researchers evaluating the MEV within broader ethical climate studies confirmed superior fit for an uncorrelated or weakly correlated two-factor model over a unidimensional baseline model. Typical goodness-of-fit indices for the two-factor trait model demonstrated acceptable fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≈ .058 to .064; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .92; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > .90). Constraining the correlation between utilitarianism and formalism to -1.00 resulted in a statistically significant degradation of model fit (Δχ² significant at p < .001), corroborating the theoretical premise that teleological and deontological reasoning constitute distinct, non-competing psychological dimensions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints is a dual-part self-report survey instrument containing 41 total items:

• Test Type: Multi-method psychological assessment combining scenario-based evaluative judgment (vignettes) and self-concept trait attribution.
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil or computerized self-administered questionnaire.
• Estimated Completion Time: 15 to 20 minutes.
• Total Manifest Indicators: 41 items (28 vignette-associated statements + 13 character traits).
• Structure of the Instrument:
  • Part 1: Scenario Dilemmas (28 items): Comprises seven short vignettes portraying realistic ethical dilemmas across social, academic, commercial, and public-sector environments (traffic laws, syllabus administration, public policy on abortion, corporate dining favors, competitive intelligence, age deception in hiring, and gifts in public auditing). Each vignette is followed by four statements representing distinct ethical perspectives (two utilitarian justifications and two formalist justifications).
  • Part 2: Character Traits (13 items): Comprises 13 single-word or short-phrase moral virtues divided into utilitarian traits (7 items: Innovative, Resourceful, Effective, Influential, Results oriented, Productive, A winner) and formalist traits (6 items: Principled, Dependable, Trustworthy, Honest, Noted for integrity, Law-abiding).
• Response Scales:
  • Part 1 (Vignettes): 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 = not at all like my way of thinking to 7 = very much like my way of thinking.
  • Part 2 (Traits): 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 = not important to me to 7 = very important to me.
• Scoring Architecture:
  • Utilitarian Vignette Score: Sum or mean of the 14 utilitarian vignette statements (range: 14–98 or 1.00–7.00).
  • Formalist Vignette Score: Sum or mean of the 14 formalist vignette statements (range: 14–98 or 1.00–7.00).
  • Utilitarian Trait Score: Sum or mean of the 7 utilitarian traits (range: 7–49 or 1.00–7.00).
  • Formalist Trait Score: Sum or mean of the 6 formalist traits (range: 6–42 or 1.00–7.00).
  • Composite Dimension Scores: Researchers routinely standardize (z-score) vignette and trait scales and aggregate them to form overall indices of Utilitarianism and Formalism.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Measure of Ethical Viewpoints was originally published in 1996 in the Journal of Business Ethics by F. Neil Brady and Gloria E. Wheeler. The copyright of the original journal article and its appendix materials is held by Springer Science+Business Media (formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers). The instrument was placed in the public domain for academic research and educational purposes by the authors, appearing in full in the original publication (Brady & Wheeler, 1996, Appendix A, pp. 938–939). Researchers, educators, and organizational analysts may use the scale items for non-commercial academic research without royalty fees, provided proper bibliographic citation is given to the original 1996 article. Commercial applications, corporate consulting deployments, or inclusion in proprietary assessment batteries may require formal copyright clearance and licensing permissions from Springer Nature.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. T. Payne and Son. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240
• Brady, F. N. (1985). A Janus-headed model of ethical theory: Looking at business ethics from a new angle. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279020
• Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. Macmillan Publishing Company.
• Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705573
• Kant, I. (1785). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten [Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals]. Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
• Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Rand McNally.
• Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn. https://doi.org/10.1037/12961-000
• Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1190–1207. https://doi.org/10.5465/256931

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)