1. Alison Antes University of Oklahoma 2009 Research Conference on Research Integrity Niagara Falls, NY May 17, 2009

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

3.  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.  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.  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.  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 “Bug” in computer program Once question appears, press the spacebar to avoid seeing the answer Once question appears, press the spacebar to avoid seeing the answer  Cheating = Failure to press spacebar Low Rationalizability: Answer appears after 10-sec Low Rationalizability: Answer appears after 10-sec High Rationalizability: Answer appears after 1-sec High Rationalizability: Answer appears after 1-sec

7. 9 8 7 6 5432110 100

8.  H 1 : More misconduct will result when it is highly rationalizable.  H 2 : Moral credentialing will result in more misconduct when it is highly rationalizable.

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

11. Morally Credentialed Not Morally Credentialed

12. Morally Credentialed Not Morally Credentialed

13.  H 1 : Large incentives will increase misconduct whether rationalizability is low or high  H 2 : Minimal incentives will increase misconduct when it is highly rationalizable compared to not

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

16. High Rationalizability Low Rationalizability

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

18.  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.  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.  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.