Alison AntesUniversity of Oklahoma

2009 Research Conference on Research IntegrityNiagara Falls, NY

May 17, 2009

Framing•How individuals interpret themselves and

the situation

Self framing•Am I a moral person?

Situational framing• Is this an ethical situation?

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

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

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

Von Hippel et al., 2005 Tedious mental math problems

e.g., 9 + 23 – 6 – 15 + 9 – 3 + 15 + 11 – 7 + 13e.g., 9 + 23 – 6 – 15 + 9 – 3 + 15 + 11 – 7 + 13 Cover StoryCover Story

• ““Bug” in computer programBug” in computer program• Once question appears, press the spacebar to Once question appears, press the spacebar to

avoid seeing the answeravoid seeing the answer Cheating = Failure to press spacebarCheating = Failure to press spacebar

• Low Rationalizability: Answer appears after 10-secLow Rationalizability: Answer appears after 10-sec• High Rationalizability: Answer appears after 1-secHigh Rationalizability: Answer appears after 1-sec

98765432110100

H1: More misconduct will result when it is highly rationalizable.

H2: Moral credentialing will result in more misconduct when it is highly rationalizable.

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)

Moral Credentialing ManipluationYes or No

Experimental Task 10-second or 1-second delay

Complete Questionnaire about MMTAssess recall

Introduction to StudyExamining Reasoning Ability

Cover Story“Bug in Program”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low High

# of

Tim

es C

heat

ed

Rationalizability

Morally Credentialed

Not Morally Credentialed

0

1

2

3

4

5

Low High

Actu

al −

Rec

alle

d Ch

eatin

g

Rationalizability

Morally Credentialed

Not Morally Credentialed

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

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

Incentive ManipulationNone, $3, $30

Experimental Task10-second or 1-second delay

Introduction to StudyExamining Reasoning Ability

Cover Story“Bug in Program”

11.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.5

None Minimum Large

# of

Tim

es C

heat

ed

Incentive

High Rationalizability

Low Rationalizability

Emphasizing one’s moral virtue leads to misconduct when ambiguity is present

Small incentives are enough to influence misconduct

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

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?

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.