The Influence of Compensatory Strategies on Ethical Decision Making

Abstract

Ethical decision making is of concern to researchers across all fields. However, researchers typically focus on the biases that may act to undermine ethical decision making. Taking a new approach, this study focused on identifying the most common compensatory strategies that counteract those biases. These strategies were identified using a series of interviews with university researchers in a variety of areas, including biological, physical, social, and health as well as scholarship and the performing arts. Interview transcripts were assessed with two scoring procedures, an expert rating system and computer-assisted qualitative analysis. Although the expert rating system identified Understanding Guidelines, Recognition of Insufficient Information, and Recognizing Boundaries as the most frequently used compensatory strategies across fields, other strategies, Striving for Transparency, Value/Norm Assessment, and Following Appropriate Role Models, were identified as most common by the computer-assisted qualitative analyses. Potential reasons for these findings and implications for training and practice are identified and discussed.

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

“…Information regarding intercorrelations among biases and compensatory strategies as scored using the benchmark rating system described above can be found in Mecca et al (2014) and Medeiros et al (2014). Construct validity evidence is available for this rating system, as biases and compensatory strategies were correlated with each other in a fashion that one might expect.…”

“…Other cutoff scores could have been justified and may have been more appropriate. However, due to the nature of the measures, a smaller standard deviation cut off score may have included too many scenarios, whereas a larger standard deviation cutoff score may not have identified any relevant scenarios (Medeiros et al, 2014; Mecca et al, 2014). Similarly, cutoff scores of one-half standard deviation and one-quarter standard deviation were used as significance cutoffs in analyses of differences between means for field and level, respectively.…”

“…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).…”

“…It has been shown that spending more time deliberating during decision making leads to more effective decisions, regardless of the nature of the problem (Moxley, Ericsson, Charness, & Krampe, 2012). In a recent study, Mecca, Medeiros, Giorgini, Gibson, Mumford, Connelly, and Devenport (2014) identified the most common strategies researchers employ to counteract biases that may hinder ethical decision making. Specifically, they found that researchers tend to turn to field guidelines, recognize a lack of necessary information, and respect boundaries when working through the decision-making process.…”

“…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.…”