Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 897–921 | Cite as

Individual and Organizational Predictors of the Ethicality of Graduate Students’ Responses to Research Integrity Issues

  • Philip J. Langlais
  • Blake J. Bent
Original Paper

Abstract

The development of effective means to enhance research integrity by universities requires baseline measures of individual, programmatic, and institutional factors known to contribute to ethical decision making and behavior. In the present study, master’s thesis and Ph.D. students in the fields of biological, health and social sciences at a research extensive university completed a field appropriate measure of research ethical decision making and rated the seriousness of the research issue and importance for implementing the selection response. In addition they were asked to rate their perceptions of the institutional and departmental research climate and to complete a measure of utilitarian and formalistic predisposition. Female students were found to be more ethical in their decision making compared to male students. The research ethical decision measure was found to be related to participants’ ethical predisposition and overall perception of organizational and departmental research climate; however, formalism was the only individual predictor to reach statistical significance and none of the individual subscales of the research climate measure were significantly correlated to ethicality. Participants’ ratings of the seriousness of the issue were correlated with their ratings of the importance of carrying out their selected response but neither was significantly predictive of the ethicality of their responses. The implications of these findings for the development of more effective training programs and environments for graduate students in research ethics and integrity are discussed.

Keywords

Ethical decision making Graduate students Predispositions Organizational research climate Research integrity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Matthew R. Pearson for his helpful comments and suggestions and Tamara Doyle and Amber Johnson for their contributions to the present effort.

References

  1. Al-Jalahma, M., & Fakhroo, E. (2004). Teaching medical ethics: Implementation and evaluation of a new course during residency in Bahrain. Education for Health, 17(1), 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. S. (2001). What would get you in trouble: Doctoral students’ conceptions of science and its norms. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 19–25). Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagdasarov, A., Thiel, C. E., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. N., Devenport, L. D., et al. (2012). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and Individual facts in case content on ethical decision-making. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9414-3.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making: An empirical Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 1038–1057.Google Scholar
  6. Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1994). The impact of dental ethics curriculum on moral Reasoning. Journal of Dental Education, 58, 684–692.Google Scholar
  7. Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362–368.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of Research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarkeburn, H., Downie, R. J., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of ethics programme in a Life Sciences curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crain, A. L., Martinson, B. C., & Thrush, C. R. (2012). Relationships between the Survey of Organizational Climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9409-0.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in Research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical-decision making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fang, F. C., Bennett, J. W., & Casadevall, A. (2013). Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. MBio,. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00640-12.Google Scholar
  18. Florack, A., & Hartmann, J. (2006). Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small groups. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 43, 626–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Individual differences in integration during moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geller, G., Boyce, A., Ford, D. E., & Sugarman, J. (2010). Beyond “Compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine, 85, 1296–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilligan, C. (1982).  In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. D., & Knapp, S. (2005). Training ethical psychologists: An acculturation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G., Mumford, M., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., et al. (2003). A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research, 10(4), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henle, C. A., Giacolone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in Workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct of research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Jeffers, B. R. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity. Nursing Research, 54, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, T., & Gautschi, F, I. I. I. (1988). Will the ethics of business change? A survey of future Executives. J. Business Ethics, 7, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67(11), 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karim, N. S. A., Zamzuri, N. H. A., & Nor, Y. M. (2009). Exploring the relationship between internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality. Computers & Education, 53(1), 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations: What do we (believe that we) know, and on what bases do we (believe that we) know it? In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to corruption in organizations (pp. 60–91). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ. Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macrina, F. L., Funk, C. L., & Barrett, K. (2004). Effectiveness of responsible conduct of research instruction: Initial findings. Journal of Research Administration, 35(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, L. A., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martinson, B. C., Thrush, C. R., & Crain, A. L. (2012). Development and validation of the survey of organizational research climate (SORC). Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9410-7.Google Scholar
  43. McMahon, J. A., & Harvey, R. J. (2006). An analysis of the factor structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mirshekary, S., & Lawrence, A. D. K. (2009). Academic and business ethical misconduct A cross national comparison. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Beeler, C., & Caughton, J. J. (2009a). On the corruption of scientists: The influence of field, environment, and personality. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to corruption in organizations (pp. 145–170). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ. Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, A. L., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Devenport, L. D., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., et al. (2009b). Field and experience influences on ethical decision making in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(4), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., et al. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mumford, M. D., & Helton, W. B. (2002). Organizational influences on scientific Integrity. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 73–90). Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.Google Scholar
  51. Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., et al. (2007). Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics and Behavior, 17(4), 337–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., et al. (2009c). Exposure to unethical career events: Effects on decision making, climate and socialization. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  56. Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (p. 1994). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  57. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shepard, J. M., & Hartenian, L. S. (1990). Egoistic and ethical orientations of university students toward work-related decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(4), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sims, R. L. K., & Keon, T. L. (1999). Determinants of ethical decision-making: The relationship of the perceived organizational environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and Future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thrush, C. R., Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., & Wells, J. A. (2011). User’s Manual for the Survey of Organizational Research Climate, March, 2011.Google Scholar
  65. Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.Google Scholar
  66. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ulrich, C. M., Soeken, I. K. L., & Miller, N. (2003). Ethical conflict associated with managed care: View of nurse practitioners. Nursing Research, 52, 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, S. E. (1997). An empirical examination of the relationship between ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1705–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations