Framing in Ethical Decision-Making

1. Framing in Ethical Decision-Making Alison Antes University of Oklahoma 2009 Research Conference on Research Integrity Niagara Falls, NY May 17, 2009

2. Framing and Ethical Behavior • Framing • How individuals interpret themselves and the situation • Self framing • Am I a moral person? • Situational framing • Is this an ethical situation?

3. Misconduct • Real-world ethical problems come in all shades of gray • Framing one’s behavior differs accordingly • Unambiguous , black-and-white misconduct • Difficult to construe as anything else • Ambiguous , gray misconduct • Can be construed in a numbers of ways • Allows for the possibility for rationalization

4. Purpose • Examine influence of two key framing factors on misconduct, in particular ambiguous (rationalizable) misconduct • Study 1: Self Frame • Moral Credentialing • Study 2: Situational Frame • External Incentives

5. Two Key Framing Factors • Moral Credentialing • Affirming one’s moral virtue • Allows one to redefine ambiguous misconduct • External Incentive • Incentives are motivators • Large incentives are typically considered culprits of misconduct • Influence of minimal incentives is overlooked

6. Experimental Task • Von Hippel et al., 2005 • Tedious mental math problems • e.g., 9 + 23 – 6 – 15 + 9 – 3 + 15 + 11 – 7 + 13 • Cover Story • “Bug” in computer program • Once question appears, press the spacebar to avoid seeing the answer • Cheating = Failure to press spacebar • Low Rationalizability: Answer appears after 10-sec • High Rationalizability: Answer appears after 1-sec

7. 8 6 10 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 0

8. Study 1 Hypotheses • H1: More misconduct will result when it is highly rationalizable. • H2: Moral credentialing will result in more misconduct when it is highly rationalizable.

9. Study 1 Method • Participants: 191 undergraduate students • Design: 2 x 2 • IVs: • Moral credentialing of self (Yes vs. No) • Rationalizability of misconduct (Low vs. High) • DVs: • Number of times cheated • Self-serving recall bias (actual − recalled cheating)

10. Study 1 Procedure Introduction to Study Examining Reasoning Ability Moral Credentialing Manipluation Yes or No Cover Story “Bug in Program” Experimental Task 10-second or 1-second delay Complete Questionnaire about MMT Assess recall

11. Results: Cheating Morally Credentialed Not Morally Credentialed

12. Results: Recall Bias Morally Credentialed Not Morally Credentialed

13. Study 2 Hypotheses H1: Large incentives will increase misconduct whether rationalizability is low or high H2: Minimal incentives will increase misconduct when it is highly rationalizable compared to not

14. Method • Participants:196 undergraduate students • Design: 2 x 3 • IVs: • Incentive: None ($0); Minimum ($3); Large ($30) • Rationalizability: Low vs. High • DV: Number of times cheated

15. Procedure Introduction to Study Examining Reasoning Ability Incentive Manipulation None, $3, $30 Cover Story “Bug in Program” Experimental Task 10-second or 1-second delay

16. DV: Cheating High Rationalizability Low Rationalizability

17. Summary Emphasizing one’s moral virtue leads to misconduct when ambiguity is present Small incentives are enough to influence misconduct

18. Implications • Reliance on one’s moral foundation is not sufficient to combat misconduct • May even be detrimental • Must understand subtle (even unconscious ) biases • Be realistic abut human behavior • Even small incentives are problematic

19. Things to think about… Are scientists particularly susceptible to the effects of moral credentialing? Might RCR education induce a moral credentialing effect? What counts as a conflict of interest?? A coffee cup?

20. Acknowledgements • Faculty • Dr. Ryan Brown • Dr. Lynn Devenport • Graduate Students • Mike Tamborski • Xiaoqian Wang • Cheryl Beeler • Dr. Shane Connelly • Dr. Michael Mumford • Jay Caughron • Laura Martin • Chase Thiel Thank you to the National Institutes of Health and Office of Research Integrity for sponsoring this research.