# Presentation: 453372

## Validation of Ethical Decision-Making Measures: Internal and External Validity

- Jason H. Hill
- University of Oklahoma
- Center for Applied Social Research

## Researchers

- Professors
- 	-Dr. Michael Mumford	-Dr. Shane Connelly
- 	-Dr. Lynn Devenport		-Dr. Ryan Brown
- Graduate Students
- 	-Stephen Murphy		 -Alison Antes
- 	-Ethan Waples

## Current Measures

- Integrity in scientific research is difficult to assess
- Responses to ethical dilemmas
- Complex
- Field Specific
- Personal Values vs. Professional Goals
- Research suggests that ethical decision-making measures are effective for assessing integrity

## Study Intent

- Validate Ethical Decision-Making Measure
- Substantive Frameworks
- Potential Causes of Ethical Decision-Making
- Exposure to Ethical Events
- Potential Outcomes of Ethical Decisions
- Reactions to Ethical Misconduct

## Methodology

- Sample
- 102 first year Ph.D. students
- Measures
- Ethical Decision-Making
- Individual Difference Measures
- Ethical Events
- 93 events across four EDM domains
- Rated frequency of events exposure
- Review Panel Task
- 8 incidents of misconduct

## Ethical Decision-Making

- Twelve scenarios
- Scenarios map directly to taxonomy
- Ethical issues people encounter
- Data Management
- Study Conduct
- Business Practices
- Professional Practices
- Multiple responses under each stem (2)
- Responses scored on ethicality
- Low (1)	Moderate (2)	 	High (3)

- McNair is part of a team working on an NIMH-funded project tracking the effectiveness of her State’s mental health care program for the poor. The longitudinal study requires extensive interviews on a yearly basis of a large sample, and the team is running behind schedule. The project director wants to accelerate the pace, but McNair has several other pressing responsibilities and is afraid she may not be able to meet them all.

- McNair knows that she will have to find some way to get all the interviews done on time or future funding for the project may be in jeopardy. She thinks up several different approaches she could take to get the interviews done on time. Choose the _**two**_ best approaches from the following:
- -Sample Responses
- Interview the individuals at their homes after work hours and on weekends
- Ask all participants to come in on one day and do a large-scale interview with everyone

## Alternative Scoring

- Seven *Decision-Making Strategies*
- Recognize Circumstances
- Consideration of Others
- Deal with Emotions
- Analysis of Personal Motivations
- Anticipating Consequences
- Seeking Help
- Questioning One’s Judgment
- Extent to which response reflects decision-making strategies

## Alternative Scoring

- Seven *Social Behavioral Dimensions*
- Involvement of others
- Deception
- Avoidance of Personal Responsibility
- Active Involvement
- Retaliation
- Selfishness
- Closing Oneself to Opportunities for Future Action
- Extent to which response reflects social behaviors giving rise to each decision

## Analyses

- Correlations of Cognitive Decision-Making Strategies and Social Behavioral Dimensions with EDM
- Correlations of EDM measure with Individual Differences
- Correlations and Regressions of EDM measure with exposure to Events
- Correlations and Regressions of EDM with Review Panel Decisions

## Substantive Validity

| 
Cognitive Decision-Making Strategies |   Average r  with
            EDM |
| --- | --- |
| Recognition of Circumstances |   .50 |
| Consider Effects of Actions |   .46 |
| Anticipating Consequences |   .45 |
| Analysis of Personal Motives |   .40 |
| 
Social Behavioral Dimensions |   Average r  with
           EDM |
| Selfishness | -.50 |
| Avoidance of Responsibility | -.50 |
| Deception | -.46 |

## Correlations of Individual Differences Measures with EDM   	

|  | Data 
Management | Study Conduct | Professional Practices   | Business Practices |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Impression Mgmt. |     .03 |    -.04 |     .05 |    -.11 |
| Self - Deceptive Enhancement |     .11 |    -.04 |     .05 |    -.14 |
| Neuroticism |    -.07 |     .07 |    -.10 |     .14 |
| Cynicism |    -.26* |    -.21* |    -.29* |    -.26* |
| Narcissism |    -.07 |    -.01 |    -.22* |    -.08 |
| Intelligence |     .17 |     .17 |     .16 |     .25* |
| Conscientiousness |     .03 |     .06 |     .13 |     .16 |
| Agreeableness |     .08 |     .10 |     .19* |     .02 |
| Openness |     .13 |     .10 |     .17 |     .05 |
| Divergent Thinking |     .04 |     .15 |     .11 |     .37* |
| Extraversion |     .02 |    -.10 |    -.05 |    -.18 |
| Trust |     .14 |     .03 |     .25* |     .26* |
| Anxiety |    -.10 |    -.08 |    -.12 |     .01 |

## Exposure to Unethical Events

|  | Data
Management | Study Conduct | Professional Practices | Business Practices |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |   r          β |   r          β |   r          β |   r          β |
| 
Data Management Events | 
-.31*     -.29* | 
-.25*   -.03 | 
-.33*    -.16 | 
-.30*    -.01 |
| Study Conduct Events | 
-.42*     -.26* | 
-.24*    -.10 | 
-.51*    -.31* | 
-.28*    -.13 |
| Professional Practice Events | 
-.27*      .17 | 
-.31* -.27** | 
-.39*    -.05 | 
-.41*   -.41* |
| Business Practice Events | 
-.35*     -.23 | 
-.18      .02 | 
-.32*    -.10 | 
-.27*     .02 |
| Multiple R |               .48 |              .34 |                 .50 |              .49 |
| Significance of R2 |              .001 |              .05 |              .001                     |             .001 |

## Outcomes of EDM

|  | 
Severity 
of
Violation |  |  | 
Severity
of
Punishment  |  | 
 Importance
         of            
Punishment |  |  | 

Frequency  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | r | β | r | β | r | β | r |  | β |
| Data
Management |  | .38* |  .13 | .31* |  .12 | .44* |   .22* | –.04 |  |   –.04 |
| Study 
Conduct |  | .29* | –.02 | .24* |  –.01 | .28* | –.01 | –.02 |  |     .04 |
| Professional
Practices |  | .48* |   .35* | .37* |   .25* | .48* |  .30* | –.01 |  |    .01 |
| Business
Practices |  | .42* |   .34* | .30* |   .26* | .37* |  .27* | –.09 |  |   –.11 |
| Multiple R |  |  |   .60 |  | .47  |  |    .54 |  |  |     .10 |
| Sig. of R2 |  |  |  .001 |  |  .001 |  | .001 |  |  |   .893 |

## Summary

- Present study provides validity evidence for our measure
- Cognitive Strategies and Social Psychological Dimensions
- Causes of Ethical Decision-Making relate as expected
- Individual Differences
- Exposure to Unethical Events
- Ethical Decision-Making relates to punitive attitudes of violators

## Implications

- EDM measure provides unique and effective approach to measure integrity
- Cognitive Decision-Making Strategies and Social Behaviors can account for ethical responding