Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1217–1244 | Cite as

A Comparison of the Effects of Ethics Training on International and US Students

  • Logan M. SteeleEmail author
  • James F. Johnson
  • Logan L. Watts
  • Alexandra E. MacDougall
  • Michael D. Mumford
  • Shane Connelly
  • T. H. Lee Williams
Original Paper

Abstract

As scientific and engineering efforts become increasingly global in nature, the need to understand differences in perceptions of research ethics issues across countries and cultures is imperative. However, investigations into the connection between nationality and ethical decision-making in the sciences have largely generated mixed results. In Study 1 of this paper, a measure of biases and compensatory strategies that could influence ethical decisions was administered. Results from this study indicated that graduate students from the United States and international graduate students studying in the US are prone to different biases. Based on these findings, recommendations are made for developing ethics education interventions to target these decision-making biases. In Study 2, we employed an ethics training intervention based on ethical sensemaking and used a well-established measure of ethical decision-making that more fully captures the content of ethical judgment. Similar to Study 1, the results obtained in this study suggest differences do exist between graduate students from the US and international graduate students in ethical decision-making prior to taking the research ethics training. However, similar effects were observed for both groups following the completion of the ethics training intervention.

Keywords

Ethical decision-making Nationality Moral judgment RCR Ethics training 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The University of Oklahoma was a research partner in the Council of Graduate Schools’ initiative “Modeling effective research ethics education in graduate international collaborations.” The award is made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#1135345). We would like to thank Daniel Denecke and Julia Kent for their support and contributions to the success of this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research is the result of a partnership with Council of Graduate Schools and their initiative “Modeling effective research ethics education in graduate international collaborations.” The award is made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#1135345).

Conflict of interest

All authors, except T. H. Lee Williams, have received monetary compensation as a result of the National Science Foundation grant given to the Council of Graduate Schools.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ahmed, M. M., Chung, K. Y., & Eichenseher, J. W. (2003). Business students’ perception of ethics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. L. (2013). Research misconduct in low-and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antes, A. L., & DuBois, J. M. (2014). Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(12), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85, 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, A., & Hutter, I. (2006). Cultural heuristics in risk assessment of HIV/AIDS. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 8(5), 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beekun, R. I., Hamdy, R., Westerman, J. W., & HassabElnaby, H. R. (2008). An exploration of ethical decision-making processes in the United States and Egypt. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision making: A cross-cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(4), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosch, X. (2009). A view from Europe on European research oversight. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter, 18(1), 1.Google Scholar
  12. Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunton, M., & Eweje, G. (2010). The influence of culture on ethical perception held by business students in a New Zealand university. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(4), 349–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01604.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caughron, J. J., Antes, A. L., Stenmark, C. K., Thiel, C. E., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Competition and sensemaking in ethical situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1491–1507. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 221–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dane, E., & Sonenshein, S. (2015). The role of experience in ethical decision making at work: An ethical expertise perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(1), 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duff, A. H., Rogers, D. P., & Harris, M. B. (2006). International engineering students—avoiding plagiarism through understanding the Western academic context of scholarship. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 673–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falkenberg, L., & Woiceshyn, J. (2008). Enhancing business ethics: Using cases to teach moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flaming, L., Agacer, G., & Uddin, N. (2010). Ethical decision-making differences between Philippines and United States students. Ethics and Behavior, 20(1), 65–79. doi: 10.1080/10508420903482624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision-making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 205–221. doi: 10.1007/BF02074820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer, G. (2001). The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heitman, E. (2014). Cross-cultural considerations in U.S. research ethics education. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(12), 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heitman, E., Olsen, C. H., Anestidou, L., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 838–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G., Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., & Brown, R. (2003). A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research, 10, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hicks, J. (2013, May 14). Opinion: Ethics training in science. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from The Scientist.com Web site: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35543/title/Opinion–Ethics-Training-in-Science/.
  29. Ho, J. A. (2010). Ethical perception: Are differences between ethnic groups situation dependent? Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organization: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Iwasinski, A. (2011, November 10). OU professor accused of questionable medical practices on students. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from News9.comWeb site: http://www.news9.com/story/15920118/ou-professor-accused-of-using-students-as-guinea-pigs-for-experiments.
  34. Johnson, C. Y. (2010, August 10). Author on leave after Harvard inquiry. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from Boston Globe Web site: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/10/author_on_leave_after_harvard_inquiry/?page=1.
  35. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1991.4278958.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karacaer, S., Gohar, R., Aygün, M., & Sayin, C. (2009). Effects of personal values on auditor’s ethical decisions: A comparison of Pakistani and Turkish professional auditors. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 53–64. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0102-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., Mumford, M. D., & Hougen, D. F. (2008). Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-development approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levy, A. G., & Hershey, J. C. (2008). Value induced bias in medical decision-making. Medical Decision-Making, 28, 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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. doi: 10.1023/A:1006083612239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mecca, J. T., Medeiros, K. E., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2014). The influence of compensatory strategies on ethical decision making. Ethics and Behavior, 24, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Medeiros, K. E., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Giorgini, V. D., Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L., & Connelly, S. (2014). Biases in ethical decision making among university faculty. Accountability in Research, 21, 218–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., & Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 315–339. doi: 10.1080/10508420802487815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Devenport, L. D., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., & Waples, E. P. (2009a). Field and experience influences on ethical decision-making in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(4), 263–289. doi: 10.1080/10508420903035257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 319–345. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mumford, M. D., Steele, L., & Watts, L. L. (2014). Evaluating ethics education programs: A multi-level approach. Ethics & Behavior (just-accepted).Google Scholar
  51. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Creativity and ethics: The relationship of creative and ethical problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., & Devenport, L. D. (2009b). Exposure to unethical career events: Effects on decision-making, climate, and socialization. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 351–378. doi: 10.1080/10508420903035356.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. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oumlil, A. B., & Balloun, J. L. (2009). Ethical decision-making differences between American and Moroccan managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 457–478. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9719-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  56. 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), 233–243. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robledo, I. C., Peterson, D. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leadership of scientists and engineers: A three-vector model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  59. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sims, R. L. (2009). Collective versus individualist national cultures: Comparing Taiwan and U.S. employee attitudes toward unethical business practices. Business and Society, 48, 39–59. doi: 10.1177/0007650307299224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 1022–1040.Google Scholar
  64. Spicer, A., Dunfee, T. W., & Bailey, W. J. (2004). Does national context matter in ethical decision making? An empirical test of integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 610–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steneck, N. H., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Martin, L. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Ethics in the humanities: Findings from focus groups. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(4), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Su, S. H. (2006). Cultural differences in determining the ethical perception and decision-making of future accounting professionals: A comparison between accounting students from Taiwan and the United States. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(1), 147–158.Google Scholar
  68. Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2010). The impact of perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 531–551. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0237-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. The Office of Research Integrity (2011, November 9). Historical background. Retrieved November 15, 2014 from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Research Integrity Web site: http://ori.hhs.gov/historical-background.
  70. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: a person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986.4306235.Google Scholar
  72. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 753–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics87(1), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Westerman, J. W., Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., & Yamamura, J. (2007). Peers versus national culture: An analysis of antecedents to ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 239–252. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9250-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whitehurst, L. (2013, August 2). Probe finds ‘reckless’ misconduct in University of Utah lab. Retrieved November 19, 2013 from The Salt Lake Tribune Web site: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56676417-78/lab-kaplan-papers-research.html.cs.
  79. Zeng, W., & Resnik, D. (2010). Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing World Bioethics, 10(3), 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Center for Applied Social ResearchUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Strategic Research and Assessment BranchUnited States Air ForceNormanUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, College of Business AdministrationCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  4. 4.Graduate CollegeUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations