Compliance Disengagement in Research: Development and Validation of a New Measure

Abstract

In the world of research, compliance with research regulations is not the same as ethics, but it is closely related. One could say that compliance is how most societies with advanced research programs operationalize many ethical obligations. This paper reports on the development of the How I Think about Research (HIT-Res) questionnaire, which is an adaptation of the How I Think (HIT) questionnaire that examines the use of cognitive distortions to justify antisocial behaviors. Such an adaptation was justified based on a review of the literature on mechanisms of moral disengagement and self-serving biases, which are used by individuals with normal personalities in a variety of contexts, including research. The HIT-Res adapts all items to refer to matters of research compliance and integrity rather than antisocial behaviors. The HIT-Res was administered as part of a battery of tests to 300 researchers and trainees funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The HIT-Res demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). Construct validity was established by the correlation of the HIT-Res with measures of moral disengagement (r = .75), cynicism (r = .51), and professional decision-making in research (r = −.36). The HIT-Res will enrich the set of assessment tools available to instructors in the responsible conduct of research and to researchers who seek to understand the factors that influence research integrity.

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

“…In order to navigate these issues successfully, investigators must recognize the ethical considerations present in such situations, interpret written and unwritten rules, and address social and political dynamics, among other considerations (Devereaux 2014; Shamoo and Resnik 2015). Sound professional decisions adhere to the norms and ethical expectations of research, safeguard the trust of the public, promote collaboration, and foster the generation of new scientific knowledge (DuBois et al 2015). Researchers’ actions influence their ability to exemplify the ethical principles of science and of their professions, and, ultimately, the integrity of their contributions to science (DuBois et al 2015; Shamoo and Resnik 2015).…”

“…Sound professional decisions adhere to the norms and ethical expectations of research, safeguard the trust of the public, promote collaboration, and foster the generation of new scientific knowledge (DuBois et al 2015). Researchers’ actions influence their ability to exemplify the ethical principles of science and of their professions, and, ultimately, the integrity of their contributions to science (DuBois et al 2015; Shamoo and Resnik 2015). …”

“…Professional decision-making requires identifying and thinking through the dynamics of uncertain situations, recognizing and weighing options, predicting likely outcomes, and often obtaining additional information (Antes et al 2010; DuBois et al 2015; Stenmark et al 2011; Thiel et al 2012). In so doing, investigators must manage self-serving biases, detrimental negative emotions, and short-term thinking, all of which hinder effective decision-making (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, and Wade-Benzoni 1998; DuBois et al 2015; Moore and Loewenstein 2004; Thiel, Connelly, and Griffith 2011).…”

“…In so doing, investigators must manage self-serving biases, detrimental negative emotions, and short-term thinking, all of which hinder effective decision-making (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, and Wade-Benzoni 1998; DuBois et al 2015; Moore and Loewenstein 2004; Thiel, Connelly, and Griffith 2011). Reasoning strategies that facilitate critical analysis, information gathering, and evaluation of outcomes can offset errors and biases in thinking and facilitate sound decision-making (DuBois et al 2015; Thiel et al 2012). The purpose of this study was to identify personality, contextual, and knowledge variables among researchers that influenced the utilization of such reasoning strategies in professional decision-making.…”

A Primer on Ethics Education for Stem Cell and Biomedical Scientists

“…Scientists may be trained to better recognize ethical issues, raise questions, remain professional, and seek the appropriate resources and tools to address ethical situations. Assessing ethical sensitivity and problem solving skills, and ethicality are difficult metrics to measure and measurements are only beginning to be developed, validated, and tested [43][44][45][46][47].…”