Social dominance orientation predicts civil and military intelligence analysts’ utilitarian responses to ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas

Abstract What is the real ethical framework of an intelligence analyst? We addressed this question by presenting a group civil and military analysts ( N = 41), control non-professionals with set dilemmas depicting agents facing decision whether to violate deontological rule where that would benefit their work (ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas). Participants judged how much violating was acceptable. Next, we measured participants’ individual differences in social dominance orientation (using Social Dominance Orientation scale which measures proclivity endorse intergroup hierarchy anti-egalitarianism), utilitarian response tendencies classical moral dilemmas), they value conformity, traditions, safety stability society Value Survey). A multiple regression analysis revealed that, among all factors, only significantly helped explain variability analysts’ but not non-professionals’ resolutions ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas. Specifically, positively predicted tendency judge acceptable, possibly suggesting who show stronger desire country or company prevail over others are also more lenient toward violations if these result greater good for state company. For first time open literature, elucidated some key aspects ethics intelligence.