Abstract
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore students’ reactions to a case involving peer rating. We asked undergraduate and graduate students at a Midwestern liberal arts university to rate the performance of a close friend. To explore how role might impact the students’ decisions, we randomly assigned participants to one of two rating scenarios. In the first scenario, students rated a fellow student who had not completed his or her fair share of a group project. In the second scenario, students were asked to play the role of a professor who had to rate a peer. We found significant differences in the overall quantitative ratings assigned by participants in the two scenarios. Participants’ answers also involved more justice considerations in the professor scenario than in the student scenario. The results suggest that students may have difficulty in being honest during peer evaluation processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. B. (2005). What makes the grade? Faculty and student perceptions. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 21–24.
Alexander, C. (2013). Synergy team power: The 5 success habits of high-performance business teams. Lake Forest: 1+1=3 Publishing.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531–1544.
Becker, H. S., Greer, B., & Hughes, E. C. (1968). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. Hoboken: Wiley.
Bedore, P., & O’Sullivan, B. (2011). Addressing instructor ambivalence about peer review and self-assessment. Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 34(2), 11–36.
Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 520–542.
Beugré, C. D. (2009). Exploring the neural basis of fairness: a model of neuro-organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 129–139.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.
Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (Eds.). (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley.
Blum, L. (1980). Friendship, altruism and morality. Routledge Revivals. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 1980.
Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257–268.
Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 381–388.
Cicourel, A. V. (1970). Basic and normative rules in the negotiation or status and role. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology No. 2: Patterns of communicative behavior (pps. 4–45). New York: Macmillan.
Cojuharenco, I., & Sguera, F. (2014). When empathetic concern and perspective taking matter for ethical judgment: the role of time hurriedness. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 717–725.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.
Cottler, L. B., O’Leary, C. C., Nickel, K. B., Reingle, J. M., & Isom, D. (2014). Breaking the blue wall of silence: risk factors for experiencing police sexual misconduct among female offenders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 338–344.
Derbyshire, S. W. G., Osborn, J., & Brown, S. (2013). Feeling the pain of others is associated with self-other confusion and prior pain experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–8.
Derry, R. (1989). An empirical study of moral reasoning among managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(11), 855–862.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
Freeman, S., & Parks, J. W. (2010). How accurate is peer grading? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 482–488.
Giannakakis, A. E., & Fitsche, I. (2011). Social identities, group norms, and threat: on the malleability of ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 82–93.
Gillies, R. M. (2014). Cooperative learning: developments in research. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(2), 125–140.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York: Penguin Books.
Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage Books.
Hruschka, D. J. (2010). Friendship: Development, ecology, and evolution of a relationship. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.
Jankowski, N. (2017). Unpacking relationships, instruction, and student outcomes. Retrieved from https://acue.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Unpacking-Relationships-Instruction-and-Student-Outcomes.pdf.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative learning in 21st century. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 841–851.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
Joo, M. H. (2017). Students’ group work contribution: influence of work preference, gender, and individual assessment. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(1), 19–28.
Kaenzig, R., Anderson, S., Hyatt, E., & Griffin, L. (2006). Gender differences in students’ perceptions of group learning experiences. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10(1), 95–100.
Kant, I. (1797/1996). In M. Gregor (Ed.), The metaphysics of morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knepp, K. A. (2012). Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 33–46.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Kvalnes, O. (2015). Moral reasoning at work: Rethinking ethics in organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. Advances in Group Processes, 19, 203–228.
Lyons, N. P. (1983). Two perspectives: on self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 125–145.
Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53–63.
May, A., & Tenzek, K. E. (2018). Bullying in the academy: understanding the student bully and the targeted ‘stupid, fat, mother fucker’ professor. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 275–290.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Buttefield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.
McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 113–123.
McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: the good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106–117.
Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy of ethical decision-making: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–226.
Myers, S. A., Smith, N. A., Eidsness, M. A., Bogdan, L. M., Zackery, B. A., Thompson, M. R., Schoo, M. E., & Johnson, A. N. (2009). Dealing with slackers in college classroom work groups. College Student Journal, 43(2), 592–598.
NCAA. (n.d.). Play division 1 sports. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/play-division-i-sports.
Orr, S. (2010). Collaborating or fighting for the marks? Students’ experiences of group work assessment in the creative arts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 301–313.
Oswald, D. (2017). Maintaining long-lasting friendships. In M. Hojjat, & A. Moyer (Eds.), The psychology of friendship (pps.267–282). New York: Oxford University Press.
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 133–156.
Pollio, H. R., & Beck, H. P. (2000). When the tail wags the dog: perceptions of learning and grade orientation in, and by contemporary college students and faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 84–102.
Pope, N. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 51–63.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.
Riley, M. J. (1991). Multiple role incumbency and role management among undergraduates: A synthesis of structuralist and interactionist perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Ryan, M. K., David, B., & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Who cares? The effect of gender and context on the self and moral reasoning. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 246–255.
Singer, M. S. (1998). The role of subjective concerns and characteristics of the moral issue in moral considerations. British Journal of Psychology, 89(4), 663–679.
Singh, B., Agarwala, U. N., & Malhan, N. K. (1981). The nature of managerial role conflict. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 17(1), 1–26.
Sisolak, P. (2015). Five job perks that can help you save money. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-job-perks-that-can-help-save-you-money/
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Strang, K. D. (2014). Are student peer assessments reliable? Analysis of a classroom-based management course. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 5(1), 91–112.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Tau Chapter of Alpha Delta Pi. (2016). Alpha Delta Pi chapter standing rules. Retrieved from https://rockchalkcentral.ku.edu/organization/alphadeltapi/documents/view/482441.
Thoits, P. A. (2012). Role-identity salience, purpose and meaning in life, and well-being among volunteers. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(4), 360–384.
Tiew, F. (2010). Business students’ views of peer assessment on class participation. International Education Studies, 3(3), 126–131.
Tippin, G. K., Lafreniere, K. D., & Page, S. (2012). Student perception of academic grading: Personality, academic orientation, and effort. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 51–61.
Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
Treviño, L. K., McCabe, D. L., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 1–23.
Watley, L. D., & Douglas, R. M. (2004). Enhancing moral intensity: the roles of personal and consequential information in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 105–126.
Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 137–160.
Wildermuth, C., De Mello e Souza, C. A., & Kozitza, T. (2017). Circles of ethics: the impact of proximity on moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 17–42.
Wong, L., Kolditz, T. A., Millen, R. A., & Potter, T. M. (2003). Why they fight: Combat motivation in the Iraq War. Carlisle Barracks: Army War Coll Strategic Studies Inst.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Scenarios
Appendix 1: Scenarios
Scenario 1
For the scenario below think of a close friend. This should be a person who is important to you. Have you thought of this person? As you read the scenario, mentally replace the blank spaces with the name of your close friend.
(__________) is one of your closest friends. You have worked together, enjoyed each other’s company, and helped one another. In fact, (________) has “saved” you on more than one occasion providing actual assistance or encouragement when you needed it the most.
Your professor has asked that each student writes a ten-page in-depth topic paper. This is the most important assignment for the class. Each student is assigned a partner who will grade the draft version of the paper (worth half the paper grade). The draft is expected to be in an “almost ready” state (e.g., good enough to share with the professor, while still allowing students to provide feedback to one another). The draft grade will be honored by the professor “as is” (e.g., the professor will assign exactly the grade you provide).
Normally, (________) is a strong student. This semester, however, he or she is experiencing serious family problems and is, thus, unable to work as hard as he/she normally would. You realize that the paper draft is extremely weak. In fact, your friend told you that the paper was written the night before it was due.
You must complete the form below and hand into the professor.
As you answer the questions below, you may assume that no one will find out if you are being honest. Your friend can rewrite the paper before it is seen by the professor.
Partner form
Partner’s name:____________________
Quality Criteria (please consider the items below as you grade the paper):
-
1.
The paper provides strong evidence of research.
-
2.
The paper is thorough.
-
3.
The paper is well-written.
Based on items (1), (2), and (3) I assign the following grade:
-
Excellent (A)
-
Good (B)
-
Average (C)
-
Minimum standards (D)
-
Poor (F)
What grade would you assign?
-
Excellent (A)
-
Good (B)
-
Average (C)
-
Minimum standards (D)
-
Poor (F)
What was going through your mind as you rated your friend?
Scenario 2
For the scenario below think of a close friend. This should be a person who is important to you. Have you thought of this person? Try to imagine that you are not a student. Instead, you are both professors working at Drake University. Mentally replace the blank spaces with the name of your close friend.
(________) Is one of your closest friends. You and he/she have been friends since you started working for Drake University. You have worked together, enjoyed each other’s company, and helped one another. In fact, (________) has “saved” you on more than one occasion. For instance, there may have been situations in which you were “stuck” with course curriculum and he/she helped you find materials, brainstorm activities to keep learned engaged, and painstakingly listened to your lectures and provided feedback.
Peer review is a critical component of professors’ evaluations. This semester, the Dean has asked you to attend one of your friend’s lectures.
Normally (__________) is an excellent professor. This semester, however, (____________), has had serious family problems. This has impacted (________)‘s performance at work.
During the observation, you notice that (_________) did not come prepared to lecture and is often at a loss for words. Several of the students appear to be quite confused.
You are asked to complete the form below.
As you answer the questions below, you may assume that no one will find out if you are being honest. The Dean will take your word.
Professor Evaluation form
Professor’s name:____________________
Quality Criteria
-
1.
The professor was prepared for class.
-
2.
The content of the lecture matched the course requirements.
-
3.
The lecture was easy to understand.
Based on items (1), (2), and (3) I assign the following grade:
-
Excellent (A)
-
Good (B)
-
Average (C)
-
Minimum standards (D)
-
Poor (F)
How would you rate the Professor’s lecture?
-
Excellent (A)
-
Good (B)
-
Average (C)
-
Minimum standards (D)
-
Poor (F)
What was going through your mind as you rated the professor?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Phillips, K.L., Wildermuth, C.dMeS. Condoning Free Loafers: What Do Role, Care, and Justice Have to Do with it?. J Acad Ethics 17, 131–150 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9314-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9314-5