Biases in Ethical Decision Making among University Faculty

Medeiros, Kelsey E.; Mecca, Jensen T.; Gibson, Carter; Giorgini, Vincent; Mumford, Michael D.; Devenport, Lynn D.; Connelly, Shane

doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.847670

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study was conducted in two phases. An abridged description of the method is described here, and a more detailed explanation of the method can be found in Medeiros, Mecca, Gibson, Giorgini, Mumford, Connelly, and Devenport (2014) and Mecca, Medeiros, Giorgini, Gibson, Mumford, Connelly, and Devenport (2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study examining high-stakes, low-probability settings, Kunreuther et al (2002) found that naïve decision makers are particularly prone to a large variety of harmful biases, such as failing to recognize a high-stakes problem, ignoring important information, and a tendency to prefer the status quo. In a recent study, Medeiros, Mecca, Gibson, Giorgini, Mumford, Connelly, and Devenport (2014) examined the influence of biases on ethical decision making in an academic research context. Specifically, they identified nine of the most common biases exhibited by researchers across various fields, with a general theme involving liberating themselves from responsibility.…”

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two related studies, Medeiros et al (2014) and Mecca et al (2014) have identified the most common biases people exhibit and compensatory strategies people employ to counteract these biases. However, these studies focus solely on the frequency with which these biases and compensatory strategies occur, and the degree to which they occur.…”

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of ethical behavior and ethical decision making is of increasing importance in many fields, and there is a growing literature addressing the issue. However, research examining differences in ethical decision making across fields and levels of experience is limited. In the present study, biases that undermine ethical decision making and compensatory strategies that may aid ethical decision making were identified in a series of interviews with 63 faculty members across six academic fields (e.g. biological sciences, health sciences, social sciences) and three levels of rank (assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor) as well as across gender. The degree to which certain biases and compensatory strategies were used in justifications for responses to ethical situations was compared across fields, level of experience, and gender. Major differences were found across fields for several biases and compensatory strategies, including biases and compensatory strategies related to use of professional field principles and field-specific guidelines. Furthermore, full professors tend to differ greatly from assistant and associate professors on a number of constructs, and there were differences in the consistency with which biases and compensatory strategies were displayed within these various groups. Implications of these findings for ethics training and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The participants were asked to choose three responses to justify ''their'' actions in the case; each response was scored as being indicative of a cognitive bias or compensatory strategy. A cluster analysis revealed a set of four bias and three compensatory strategy categories Medeiros et al 2014). Biases, or cognitive errors that influence decision making, included interpersonal deference, disregard for others, unreasonable compromise, and oversimplification.…”

Section: Study 1: Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biases and compensatory strategies were assessed using a multiple-choice bias and compensatory strategy measure Medeiros et al 2014). A series of short cases were developed in which participants were placed in an ethical dilemma and had already made a hypothetical choice.…”

Section: Study 1: Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Responsible Research and Innovation Learning Facilitation

Garcia-Garcia

Eekhout

2023

Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter aims at supporting the institutionalization of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles by focusing in the facilitation of learning to research staff. We highlight the need to identify the learning objectives that want to be achieved by taking into account how researchers shape their ethical perspectives, as many of their behaviours are learned through informal training setups (e.g., supervisors, peers, etc.). This is complemented by reviewing the different approaches that can be applied to achieve the learning goals, and by showcasing existing public resources that can be further explored and tailored to plan specific interventions depending on the nature and needs of each institution.

show abstract

Biases in Ethical Decision Making among University Faculty

Cited by 11 publications

References 42 publications

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

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

Responsible Research and Innovation Learning Facilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About