Dolly Chugh
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Dolly Chugh has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Max H. Bazerman
Harvard Business School
3 shared publications - Mary C. Kern
Department of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, The City University of New York, New York City, New York
2 shared publications - Brit Grosskopf
Texas A&M University
1 shared publication Lorraine Chen-Idsen
1 shared publicationMahzarin R Banaji
1 shared publicationMax Bazerman
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 8 July 2016
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- p. 474-503
Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn
- 8 July 2016
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- p. 474-503
Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn
- 1 March 2009
- Published by SAGE Publications in Psychological Science
- Vol. 20 (3) , 378-384
Bounded Ethicality
Ethical decision making is vulnerable to the forces of automaticity. People behave differently in the face of a potential loss versus a potential gain, even when the two situations are transparently identical. Across three experiments, decision makers engaged in more unethical behavior if a decision was presented in a loss frame than if the decision was presented in a gain frame. In Experiment 1 , participants in the loss-frame condition were more likely to favor gathering “insider information” than were participants in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 2 , negotiators in the loss-frame condition lied more than negotiators in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 3 , the tendency to be less ethical in the loss-frame condition occurred under time pressure and was eliminated through the removal of time pressure.
- 1 March 2009
- Published by SAGE Publications in Psychological Science
- Vol. 20 (3) , 378-384
Bounded Ethicality
Ethical decision making is vulnerable to the forces of automaticity. People behave differently in the face of a potential loss versus a potential gain, even when the two situations are transparently identical. Across three experiments, decision makers engaged in more unethical behavior if a decision was presented in a loss frame than if the decision was presented in a gain frame. In Experiment 1 , participants in the loss-frame condition were more likely to favor gathering “insider information” than were participants in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 2 , negotiators in the loss-frame condition lied more than negotiators in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 3 , the tendency to be less ethical in the loss-frame condition occurred under time pressure and was eliminated through the removal of time pressure.
- 19 January 2007
- Published by Springer Nature in Mind & Society
- Vol. 6 (1) , 1-18
Bounded awareness: what you fail to see can hurt you
- 19 January 2007
- Published by Springer Nature in Mind & Society
- Vol. 6 (1) , 1-18
Bounded awareness: what you fail to see can hurt you
- 1 December 2003
- Vol. 81 (12) , 56-64, 125
How (un) ethical are you?
Answer true or false: "I am an ethical manager." If you answered "true," here's an Uncomfortable fact: You're probably wrong. Most of us believe we can objectively size up a job candidate or a venture deal and reach a fair and rational conclusion that's in our, and our organization's, best interests. But more than two decades of psychological research indicates that most of us harbor unconscious biases that are often at odds with our consciously held beliefs. The flawed judgments arising from these biases are ethically problematic and undermine managers' fundamental work--to recruit and retain superior talent, boost individual and team performance, and collaborate effectively with partners. This article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision making. If you're surprised that a female colleague has poor people skills, you are displaying implicit bias--judging according to unconscious stereotypes rather than merit. Companies that give bonuses to employees who recommend their friends for open positions are encouraging ingroup bias--favoring people in their own circles. If you think you're better than the average worker in your company (and who doesn't?), you may be displaying the common tendency to overclaim credit. And although many conflicts of interest are overt, many more are subtle. Who knows, for instance, whether the promise of quick and certain payment figures into an attorney's recommendation to settle a winnable case rather than go to trial? How can you counter these biases if they're unconscious? Traditional ethics training is not enough. But by gathering better data, ridding the work environment of stereotypical cues, and broadening your mind-set when you make decisions, you can go a long way toward bringing your unconscious biases to light and submitting them to your conscious will.
- 1 December 2003
- Vol. 81 (12) , 56-64, 125
How (un) ethical are you?
Answer true or false: "I am an ethical manager." If you answered "true," here's an Uncomfortable fact: You're probably wrong. Most of us believe we can objectively size up a job candidate or a venture deal and reach a fair and rational conclusion that's in our, and our organization's, best interests. But more than two decades of psychological research indicates that most of us harbor unconscious biases that are often at odds with our consciously held beliefs. The flawed judgments arising from these biases are ethically problematic and undermine managers' fundamental work--to recruit and retain superior talent, boost individual and team performance, and collaborate effectively with partners. This article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision making. If you're surprised that a female colleague has poor people skills, you are displaying implicit bias--judging according to unconscious stereotypes rather than merit. Companies that give bonuses to employees who recommend their friends for open positions are encouraging ingroup bias--favoring people in their own circles. If you think you're better than the average worker in your company (and who doesn't?), you may be displaying the common tendency to overclaim credit. And although many conflicts of interest are overt, many more are subtle. Who knows, for instance, whether the promise of quick and certain payment figures into an attorney's recommendation to settle a winnable case rather than go to trial? How can you counter these biases if they're unconscious? Traditional ethics training is not enough. But by gathering better data, ridding the work environment of stereotypical cues, and broadening your mind-set when you make decisions, you can go a long way toward bringing your unconscious biases to light and submitting them to your conscious will.
- 1 August 2003
- Published by Portico in Contemporary Psychology
- Vol. 48 (4) , 426-429
A Social Science Perspective to Understanding Ethics in Organizations
- 1 August 2003
- Published by Portico in Contemporary Psychology
- Vol. 48 (4) , 426-429
A Social Science Perspective to Understanding Ethics in Organizations
- 1 January 2003
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA)
Choosing the less attractive option to get a better outcome
- 1 January 2003
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA)
Choosing the less attractive option to get a better outcome