how people make sense of ethical events
DESCRIPTION
HOW PEOPLE MAKE SENSE OF ETHICAL EVENTS. Jay Caughron University of Oklahoma 2009 Conference on Research Integrity May 17 th , 2009. Background: What do we know?. Ethical events Complex, ambiguous, socially relevant Cognitive reasoning strategies known to enhance EDM - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
HOW PEOPLE MAKE SENSE OF ETHICAL
EVENTS
Jay Caughron
University of Oklahoma
2009 Conference on Research Integrity
May 17th, 2009
Background: What do we know?
Ethical events Complex, ambiguous, socially relevant
Cognitive reasoning strategies known to enhance EDM Anticipating consequences Recognizing circumstances Considering others
Lingering questions Why are these strategies effective for
promoting EDM? Why are the strategies used in some situations
but not in others? Mumford, Connelly, Brown, Murphy, Hill, Antes, Waples, & Devenport (2008)
Background: What don’t we know?
Sensemaking Prompted by novel, unusual, ambiguous
circumstances The process by which an individual creates a
meaningful and actionable representation of a situation in their mind
Situational Influences How does the situation a person is in influence
the cognitive process of ethical decision-making? Weick (1995)
Hypotheses
H1: Better sensemaking will result in decisions of higher ethicality
H2: The use of cognitive reasoning strategies will enhance sensemaking
H3: Situational conditions will influence the degree to which an individual will use cognitive reasoning strategies
Situational Conditions
Cognitive
Reasoning
Strategies
Ethicality of
Decisions
Sensemaking
Method
2x2x2 Manipulations: Situational Variables
Sample: 163 undergraduates Scenario based task
Decision-maker in an organization Provide solutions to problems that are
presented Based on EDM Taxonomy
Covariate Control Measures Content Coded Responses
Manipulations: Situational Variables Cause of Ethical Event
Personal Cause Situational Cause
Outcome Focus Personal Organizational
Outcome Valence Positive Negative
Content Coding
Cognition variables rated by expert judges Ethicality of decisions Sensemaking variables
No. Issues No. Issue Types Info Integration
Strategy use variables Anticipating Consequences Recognizing Circumstances Considering Others
Results: Hypothesis 1
Effective Sensemaking will be related to higher Ethicality
β R2 ∆R2
Block 1 .055*
N Cognition .087
Cynicism .129†
Block 2 .228** .197**
# Issues .103
# Issue Types .151†
Info Integration .265* † = p<.10 * = p<.05**= p<.01
Results Summary: Hypothesis 1
↑ No. of Issue Types
↑ Information Integration
↑ Ethicality
Hypothesis 1: Higher quality sensemaking results in more ethical decisions
No. of Issues
= Significant at p < .10 = Significant at p < .05
Results: Hypothesis 2
Reasoning Strategies will be related to the # of Issues Identified
β R2 ∆R2
Block 1 .086**
N Cognition .055
Planning .031
Block 2 .707** .620*
Antic. Conseq. .171†
Recog. Circum. .515*
Consid. Others. .169†† = p<.10 * = p<.05**= p<.01
Results: Hypothesis 2
Reasoning Strategies will be related to the # Issue Types Identified
β R2 ∆R2
Block 1 .059**
N Cognition .064
Planning .036
Block 2 .446** .386**
Antic. Conseq. .214
Recog. Circum. .178
Consid. Others. .286** = p<.05**= p<.01
Results: Hypothesis 2
Reasoning Strategies will be related to the Information Integration
β R2 ∆R2
Block 1 .090**
N Cognition .023
Planning .053
Block 2 .818** .728**
Antic. Conseq. .155†
Recog. Circum. .558*
Consid. Others. .213*† = p<.10 * = p<.05**= p<.01
Results Summary: Hypothesis 2
↑ Anticipating Consequences
↑ Considering Others
↑ Recognizing Circumstances
↑ Types of Issues
↑ Info. Integration
Hypothesis 2: Greater use of reasoning strategies will promote sensemaking
↑ No. of Issues
= Significant at p < .10 = Significant at p < .05
Results: Hypothesis 3
Situational Factors Influence on Reasoning Strategies (MANCOVA)
F df η2
Covariates
N Cognition 3.65** 3, 152 .07
Main Effects
Cause of Event 2.05 3, 152 .04
Outcome Focus 3.16* 3, 152 .06
Outcome Valence 0.91 3, 152 .02
Interactions
No Significant Interactions
* = p<.05 ** = p<.01
Results: Hypothesis 3
Note: Personal condition significantly lower at the p<.01 level for all strategiesMeasured on a 5-point scale
Outcome Focus Manipulation Results
H3: Situational conditions will influence the degree to which an individual will use cognitive reasoning strategies
Results Summary: Hypothesis 3
Outcome Focus
(Org./Personal)
Anticipating Consequence
s
Considering Others
Recognizing Circumstance
s
Cause of Ethical Event
(Personal/Situational
Outcome Valence
(Positive/Negative)
= Significant at p < .01
Limitations
Undergrad sample
Low fidelity simulation
Low to moderate levels of co-linearity
Method bias
Overall Summary
Organizational focus on outcomes increased strategy use
Strategy use associated with more effective sensemaking
Better sensemaking associated with ethicality of decisions
Implications
Take a broad perspective concerning ethical events
Organizational focus better than personal focus
Personalizing things could back-fire Not just about active cognition
Variety of issue types better than a lot of issues Integrating information into a coherent whole is
vital Role of considering others and recognizing
circumstances
Research Team
Hypothesis Summary
Situational Conditions
• Cause of event
• Focus of Outcome
• Outcome Valence
Reasoning
Strategies
• Anticipating Consequences• Recognizing Circumstances• Considering Others
Ethicality of
Decisions
Sensemaking
• No. of Issues
•Types of Issues
•Information Integration