1. Considering Causes in Forecasting for Ethical Decision-Making Cheryl Beeler University of Oklahoma 2009 Research Conference on Research Integrity Niagara Falls, NY May 17, 2009

2. Ethical Decision-Making ► Complex, ill-defined problems ► Require analysis and integration of information ► Mumford et al. (2008) model of 5 key cognitive processes  Framing  Emotional Regulation  Forecasting  Self-Reflection  Sensemaking

3. Purpose of Study ► Examine the role of forecasting in ethical decision-making ► Examine how key contextual variables influence the process

4. Forecasting ► Using observations about the current situation to predict outcomes (Pant & Starbuck, 1990) ► Critical given significant consequences for self and others (Mumford, 2002) ► Identification and manipulation of causes particularly important (Marcy & Mumford, 2006)  Number of causes identified  Critical causes identified

5. Situational Variables ► Decision-making occurs in context ► Time Pressure  Present  Not present ► Analytical Mindset  Deliberative  Implementation

6. Research Questions ► Is effective forecasting associated with more ethical decisions? ► What role does the identification of causes of the problem play in forecasting and ethical decision-making? ► Do two common situational variables influence this this complex cognitive process?  Time pressure  Analytic Mindset (implementation vs. deliberative)

7. Procedure ► Sample  96 undergraduate psychology students ► Manipulation of situational variables  Task completed under time pressure or not  Implementation or deliberative mindset induced ► Covariate Measures  Intelligence  Planning  Divergent Thinking

8. Procedure ► ► Ethical Problems   Complex, realistic ethical problems   Mapped to taxonomy of research ethics problems ► ► Identify Causes   List and describe the causes of the problem ► ► Forecast Outcomes   Forecast the likely outcomes of this scenario (What do you think will happen?) ► ► Make Decision   Adapted from validated ethical decision-making measure (Mumford et al., 2006)   Eight potential responses to problem situation   Choose 2 responses

9. Example Problem ► ► You are on the board of your city council.Two of the members of the council have begun to feud. The council members have begun to take sides, and the council is dividing into two factions. Recently, the city council began looking to fund a renovation project of your local community center. You are a part of the committee reviewing and approving the proposals. The team of reviewers has identified the winning proposal, which has many outstanding features. As you scan it one more time, however, you notice that it does not meet one of the ten criteria used in the initial screening process; this proposal should never have even made it past the first round of evaluations. No one else has caught this. Now you wonder what you should do.

10. Example Decision-Making Question and Responses ► ► What would you do about the proposal mistake? Choose two from the following: a. a.Disqualify the proposal b. b.Emphasize the outstanding features of the proposal c. c.Share this information with all other reviewers and decide how to proceed d. d.Award the project as planned e. e.Ask the team who submitted the proposal to provide the missing information f. f.Reevaluate the top three proposals g. g.Say nothing to the other reviewers h. h.Get another reviewer’s opinion and then decide how to proceed

11. Results ► Forecast Quality Predicts Ethicality Note: *p <.05; **p <.01  R2R2 Δ R 2 Block 1.18** Gender.24* Intelligence (EAS)-.06 Planning.27** Block 2.20**.02 Time Pressure.14 Mindset-.02 Block 3.23**.07** Forecast Quality.28**

12. Results ► Criticality of Causes Predicts Forecast Quality Note: *p <.05; **p <.01  R2R2 Δ R 2 Block 1.09* Gender -.06 Intelligence (EAS).10 Planning.11 Block 2.10.01 Time Pressure -.01 Mindset.04 Block 3.29**.19** Number of Causes.04 Criticality of Causes.45**

13. Results ► Criticality of Causes Predicts Ethicality Note: *p <.05; **p <.01  R2R2 Δ R 2 Block 1.18** Gender.20* Intelligence (EAS)-.08 Planning.24* Block 2.20**.02 Time Pressure.06 Mindset.06 Block 3.30**.10** Number of Causes-.13 Criticality of Causes.43**

14. Conclusions ► Better quality forecasting is associated with better ethical decision-making ► Identification of critical causes is associated with better quality forecasting and better ethical decision-making ► Time pressure and mindset are not related to forecasting or ethical decision-making

15. Implications ► Forecasting is critical for ethical decision- making ► Identification of critical causes is of key importance ► Time pressure may not hinder ethical decision-making ► Training Implications  Emphasize forecast outcomes  Include instruction on identifying critical causes

16. Acknowledgments ► Faculty  Dr. Michael Mumford  Dr. Lynn Devenport ► Graduate Students  Alison Antes  Jared Caughron  Laura Martin  Dr. Shane Connelly  Dr. Ryan Brown  Mike Tamborski  Chase Thiel  Xiaoqian Wang Thank you to the National Institutes of Health and Office of Research Integrity for sponsoring this research.