1. HOW PEOPLE MAKE SENSE OF ETHICAL EVENTS Jay Caughron University of Oklahoma 2009 Conference on Research Integrity May 17 th, 2009

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. Manipulations: Situational Variables  Cause of Ethical Event  Personal Cause  Situational Cause  Outcome Focus  Personal  Organizational  Outcome Valence  Positive  Negative

7. 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

8. Results: Hypothesis 1 Effective Sensemaking will be related to higher Ethicality β R2R2 ∆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

9. 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

10. Results: Hypothesis 2 Reasoning Strategies will be related to the # of Issues Identified β R2R2 ∆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

11. Results: Hypothesis 2 Reasoning Strategies will be related to the # Issue Types Identified β R2R2 ∆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

12. Results: Hypothesis 2 Reasoning Strategies will be related to the Information Integration β R2R2 ∆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

13. 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

14. Results: Hypothesis 3 Situational Factors Influence on Reasoning Strategies (MANCOVA) Fdf η2η2 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

15. Results: Hypothesis 3 Note: Personal condition significantly lower at the p<.01 level for all strategies Measured on a 5-point scale Outcome Focus Manipulation Results

16.  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 Consequences Considering Others Recognizing Circumstances Cause of Ethical Event (Personal/Situational Outcome Valence (Positive/Negative) = Significant at p <.01

17. Limitations  Undergrad sample  Low fidelity simulation  Low to moderate levels of co-linearity  Method bias

18. Overall Summary  Organizational focus on outcomes increased strategy use  Strategy use associated with more effective sensemaking  Better sensemaking associated with ethicality of decisions

19. 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

20. Research Team  Faculty  Dr. Michael Mumford  Dr. Lynn Devenport  Dr. Shane Connelly  Dr. Ryan Brown  Graduate Students  Alison Antes  Laura Martin  Cheryl Beeler  Xiaoqian Wang  Chase Thiel  Funding  National Institutes of Health  Office of Research Integrity

21. 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