Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 545–568 | Cite as

The Effectiveness of Ethics Education: A Quasi-Experimental Field Study

Original Paper


Ethical conduct is the hallmark of excellence in engineering and scientific research, design, and practice. While undergraduate and graduate programs in these areas routinely emphasize ethical conduct, few receive formal ethics training as part of their curricula. The first purpose of this research study was to assess the relative effectiveness of ethics education in enhancing individuals’ general knowledge of the responsible conduct of research practices and their level of moral reasoning. Secondly, we examined the effects of ethics education on the positive psychological outcomes of perspective-taking, moral efficacy, moral courage, and moral meaningfulness. To examine our research hypotheses, we utilized a pretest–posttest quasi-experimental design consisting of three ethics education groups (control, embedded modules, and stand-alone courses). Findings revealed that both embedded and stand alone courses were effective in enhancing participants’ perspective-taking, moral efficacy, and moral courage. Moral meaningfulness was marginally enhanced for the embedded module condition. Moral judgment and knowledge of responsible conduct of research practices were not influenced by either ethics education condition. Contrary to expectations, stand alone courses were not superior to embedded modules in influencing the positive psychological outcomes investigated. Implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.


Ethics education Responsible conduct of research Positive organizational scholarship Moral efficacy Moral courage Moral meaningfulness Moral reasoning 


  1. Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bebeau, M. J., Pimple, K. D., Muskavitch, K. M. T., & Smith, D. H. (1995). Moral reasoning in scientific research: A tool for teaching and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  5. Bergman, R. (2004). Identity as motivation: Toward a theory of the moral self. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self and identity (pp. 21–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Blasi, A. (1999). Emotions and moral motivation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornstein, J., Drake, M. J., Kirkman, R., & Swan, J. L. (2010). The engineering and science issues test (ESIT): A discipline-sepcific approach to assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choe, S. H. (2009, October 27). Disgraced cloning expert convicted in South Korea. New York Times. http://www.nytimes/2009/10/27/world/asia/27clone.html. Accessed July 28, 2010.
  9. Conlon, E. (2008). The new engineer: Between employability and social responsibility. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, G. (2005, June 9). Surveyed scientists admit misconduct: One third cite research tactics. Boston Globe. Google Scholar
  11. Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi-experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 491–576). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85–104.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, C. E. Jr., Davis, M., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1996, April). Engineering ethics: What? Why? How? And When? Journal of Engineering Education, 93–96.Google Scholar
  14. Galloway, P. D. (2007, November). The 21st-century engineer: A proposal for engineering education reform. Civil Engineering, 46–51.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbs, J., Clark, P., Joseph, J., Green, J., Goodrick, T., & Makowski, D. (1986). Relations between moral judgment, moral courage, and field independence. Child Development, 57(1), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intutionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Gottlieb, M. S. (2002). Positive ethics. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 731–744). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011a). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663–685.Google Scholar
  19. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumba, F. O. (2011b). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, C. E., Jr. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heitman, E., Olsen, C., Anestidou, L., & Bulger, R. (2007). New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 838–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heitman, E., Salis, P. J., & Bulger, R. E. (2002). Teaching ethics in biomedical science: Effects on moral reasoning skills. In N. H. Stenack & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity. Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 195–202). Accessed August 8, 2010.
  24. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalliopuska, M. (1983). Relationship between moral judgment and empathy. Psychological Reports, 53, 575–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  28. Kraiger, K., & Jung, K. M. (1996). Linking training objectives to evaluation criteria. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Application of psychological research (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  29. Lau, A. S., & Devon, R. (2001, June). Transformation: Ethics and design. In ASEE annual conference proceedings, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  30. Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopez, S. J., O’Byrne, K. K., & Peterson, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 185–197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loviscky, G. E., Trevinio, L. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2007). Assessing managers’ ethical decision-making: An objective measure of managerial judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucena, J., & Schneider, J. (2008). Engineers, development, and engineering education: From national to sustainable community development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 277–287). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  35. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. May, D. R., Luth, M., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2009). The effects of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi-experimental study. In Academy of Management best paper proceedings, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  37. May, D. R., Luth, M., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2010). The effects of moral efficacy, moral courage, and moral meaningfulness on moral behaviors at work. In Paper presented at the 2010 Academy of Management meeting in Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker, S. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1085–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, 17–59.Google Scholar
  43. Plemmons, D. K., Brody, S. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Powell, S. T., Allison, M. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: A preliminary study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rest, J. R. (1976). New approaches in the assessment of moral judgment. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  46. Rest, J. R. (1986). The major components of morality. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gerwitz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 24–38). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roach, S., & Simon, J. (2008). Teaching and assessing graduate ethics in engineering, science, and technology. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Innovative techniques in instruction, technology, e-learning, e-assessment, and education (pp. 509–513). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1022–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomsen, M. (2007). A course treating ethical issues in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  52. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wade, N. (2010, August 20). Harvard finds scientist guilty of misconduct. New York Times.
  54. Weber, J., & McGivern, E. (2010). A new methodological approach for studying moral reasoning among managers in business settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Center for Ethics in BusinessThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.The University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations