1 Author: Smith, Juliana Elizabeth Title: Exploring Ethical Decision-Making among Graduate Assistants: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial completion of the requirements for the Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Applied Psychology Research Advisor: Elizabeth Buchanan, Ph.D. Submission Term/Year: Summer, 2013 Number of Pages: 49 Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6 th edition STUDENT: I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper. NAME: Juliana E. Smith DATE: 6/17/2013 ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem): NAME: Elizabeth Buchanan, PhD. DATE: 6/17/2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your advisor who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER S NAME: Sarah Wood, PhD. DATE: 6/17/2013 2. CMTE MEMBER S NAME: Meridith Drzakowksi, PhD. DATE: 6/17/2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School. Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:
2 Smith, Juliana E. Exploring Ethical Decision-Making among Graduate Assistants: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior Abstract Students in psychology graduate programs often hold assistant positions in departments and offices across their institutions. In their employment, students are confronted with ethical dilemmas unique to their position and may be unprepared to make ethical decisions. It is empirically unknown what factors are predictive of ethical intention or behavior. The purpose of this study was to determine if a modified version of the theory of planned behavior, first proposed by Beck & Ajzen (1991), is predictive of ethical intention in this population. A purposive sample of psychology students holding a graduate assistant position was examined to determine which of four variables in the modified theory of planned behavior best predicts ethical intention. Participants completed an online survey that included questions adapted from Beck & Ajzen (1991). It was predicted that perceived behavioral control would be the most predictive variable of the theory of planned behavior and that moral obligation would be a significant addition to the original theory model. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis supported the proposed hypotheses.
3 Acknowledgments Thank you to Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, for your guidance and support through the entire process of writing this thesis. Your interest in my subject and valued expertise in all things ethics-related kept me moving forward with excitement. Thank you to Dr. Kristina Gorbatenko-Roth, for your belief in me and your constant encouragement of my abilities. Your guidance and high standards were a primary contributor to my success in the Masters of Science in Applied Psychology program. Thank you to Dr. Sarah Wood, for guiding the development of my proposal during my first year in the program. Your Applied Social Psychology class was a highlight of the Applied Psychology program and a key reason why I was able to finish my thesis when I did. Thank you to Dr. Meridith Drzakowski, for the opportunity you have given me to develop my skills as a researcher, evaluator and project manager. Your feedback and guidance has been invaluable. Thank you also for your willingness to join my committee in the eleventh hour. Thank you to Cori Beskow and the rest of the staff at the Applied Research Center, for giving me the opportunity to do something I love every day and for making it fun! Your support of me as both a student and a team member made all the difference in my education here at UW-Stout. Finally, to Nancy Coddington, for being with me every step of the way on this journey. Thank you for believing in me.
4 Table of Contents Page Abstract...2 List of Tables...6 Chapter I: Introduction...7 Statement of the Problem...7 Purpose of the Study...7 Definition of Terms...7 Assumptions of the Study...8 Limitations of the Study...8 Research Statements and Hypotheses...8 Methodology...9 Chapter II: Literature Review... 10 Ethical Beliefs and Behavior of Psychology Graduate Students... 10 Ethical Transgressions of Psychology Graduate Students... 10 Common Issues for Psychology Graduate Students... 11 Graduate Assistants... 12 Theory of Planned Behavior... 14 Intention vs. Behavior... 16 Attitudes and Ethical Decision-making... 16 Subjective Norms and Ethical Decision-making... 17 Perceived Behavioral Control and Ethical Decision-making... 18 Moral Obligation and Ethical Decision-making... 18
5 Chapter III: Methodology... 20 Participants... 20 Procedures... 21 Instrumentation... 21 Data analysis... 23 Chapter IV: Results... 25 Characteristics of the Participants... 25 Descriptive Statistics... 27 Relationships among Variables... 28 Hierarchical Regression Analysis... 29 Chapter V: Discussion... 32 Discussion... 32 Limitations... 33 Implications... 34 Recommendations... 35 References... 39 Appendix A. Graduate Assistant Ethics Survey... 43
6 List of Tables Table 1: Theory of Planned Behavior Terms... 14 Table 2: Characteristics of the Participants... 25 Table 3: Means and Correlations for Variables... 28 Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Analyses... 30
7 Chapter I: Introduction Statement of the Problem Students in psychology graduate programs often hold assistant positions in departments and offices across their institutions. In their employment, students are confronted with ethical dilemmas unique to their position and may be unprepared to make ethical decisions. Little is known about the type or frequency of ethical issues they face and it is empirically unknown what factors are predictive of ethical behavior. Furthermore, stakeholders seeking to address these issues lack a theoretical basis for developing training interventions. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine if a modified version of the theory of planned behavior, that includes moral obligation, is predictive of ethical decision-making in this population. Definition of Terms Graduate Assistant. For the purposes of this study, a graduate assistant was defined as any student enrolled in a Psychology graduate program that held a teaching, research or administrative assistantship regardless of the university department in which they performed their work. Attitude toward Behavior. An individual s positive or negative evaluation of a particular behavior. Subjective Norms. An individual s perception of whether people important to the individual feel that a particular behavior should be performed. Perceived Behavioral Control. An individual s perception of their personal ability to perform a particular behavior.
8 Moral Obligation. An individual s beliefs regarding their duty to perform or avoid a particular behavior. Assumptions of the Study Graduate students in psychology commonly hold graduate assistant positions, including teaching, research and administrative roles. Functions performed in these positions increase the likelihood that the student will face ethical issues. Students in psychology likely face unique ethical challenges presented by their focus on human subjects in their study, applications and research. It is of particular importance to understand the theoretical underpinnings of student s intentions to behave in an ethical manner. Limitations of the Study The primary limitation is the use of a self-report survey. Although social desirability bias was measured, participants may not accurately self-report information related to ethical issues. A second limitation is that the survey was modified with a scenario that has not previously been used in a published study. Although piloting took place and Cronbach s alphas are consistent with other similar surveys the reliability and validity of the measure has not been fully established. Additionally, the use of purposive sampling, a type of non-probability sampling, decreases the overall generalizability of the results. Another limitation to consider is the overall lack of research on graduate students in psychology and graduate assistants more specifically. The few studies that do exist are more than ten years old. The paucity of research makes the assumptions of the study somewhat less reliable. Research Statements and Hypotheses The theory of planned behavior has been used to predict ethical decision-making and academic dishonesty in college students (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Harding et al., 2007). The theory
9 of planned behavior postulates that people make rational decisions about specific behaviors and form intentions to act; these intentions are thought to predict actual behavior. This study seeks to explore if the theory of planned behavior predicts ethical intention among psychology graduate assistants. It is hypothesized that all three variables (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) will be significant in predicting intention (H1, H2 and H3). It is hypothesized that perceived behavioral control will be the most predictive of the three variables (H3-a). A modified version of the theory of planned behavior added moral obligation (Beck & Ajzen, 1991). This new construct has been further shown to predict academic dishonesty (Alleyne & Phillips, 2011; Harding et al., 2007). This study seeks to explore whether the addition of moral obligation to the theory of planned behavior model improves the model s overall predictive ability. It is hypothesized that moral obligation will be a significant addition to the theory of planned behavior model for predicting ethical decision-making (H4). Methodology A purposive sample of psychology students holding a graduate assistant position was examined to determine if each of the variables in the theory of planned behavior is predictive of ethical intention and of those which variable is most predictive. Participants completed an online survey that included questions adapted from Beck & Ajzen (1991). Data were analyzed using SPSS and hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.
10 Chapter II: Literature Review Graduate level psychology training programs seek to develop students into competent professionals and one aspect of said competence is ethical behavior (American Psychological Association, 2002). Very little research has been done on psychology graduate students and their ethical beliefs or behaviors (Branstetter & Handelsman, 2000). However, there is evidence that the ethical behavior that students exhibit in their graduate education is indicative of the behavior that they will exhibit in their professional careers (Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, & Passo II, 2004; Oberlander & Barnett, 2005). Ethical Beliefs and Behavior of Psychology Graduate Students Graduate students in psychology should be guided by the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics. Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, & Allen (1993) surveyed psychology graduate students and faculty and found that each group s views did not differ on what constitutes ethical behavior. Early research by Bernard & Jara (1986) indicates that graduate students are familiar with and demonstrate an understanding of the APA Code of Ethics, but 50% of their respondents reported that they would not act in accordance with what they knew was ethical. Early research from Pope, Tabachnick & Keith-Spiegel (1987) found that the majority of graduate students surveyed would not respond in an ethical way to misconduct by someone in their department. For example, when presented with a hypothetical scenario in which a clinical graduate student was engaged in a sexual relationship with a client, the majority of respondents expressed awareness of the APA ethical code of conduct, but stated that they would not report the misconduct. Ethical Transgressions of Psychology Graduate Students A gap exists between what graduate students know and believe about ethics and how they behave when encountered with an ethical dilemma (Branstetter & Handelsman, 2000; Pope,
11 Tabachnick, & Keith-Spiegel, 1987; Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, & Pope, 1991). Very little research has examined the frequency with which graduate students commit ethical transgressions, but these few studies indicate that the problem could be substantial. Early research by Mearns & Allen (1991) found that 49% of clinical psychology graduate students and 55% of faculty respondents were aware of ethical transgressions committed by a peer. Furthermore, 95% of the student respondents reported being aware of a serious impairment in a peer that prevented them from behaving in an ethical manner. Procidano, Busch-Rossnagel, Reznikoff, & Geisinger (1995) surveyed program directors from clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs and 90% of the respondents felt that there were significant problems with graduate student professionalism, including ethical behavior Common Issues for Psychology Graduate Students There are a few studies, though none recent, that indicate the types of ethical issues that graduate students encounter during their academic careers. Multiple relationships, confidentiality and academic dishonesty are the most commonly reported ethical issues across the few studies that have been conducted. Fly, van Bark, Weinman, Strohm-Kitchener, & Lang (1997) and Tryon (2000) both engaged in a critical incident analysis of ethical transgressions committed by graduate students. Fly et al. (1997) examined reports by clinical and counseling psychology program directors which indicated that confidentiality, multiple relationships and plagiarism were the three most common types of incidents involving graduate students. Tryon (2000) examined the critical incident reports of school psychology program directors and found that competence, academic dishonesty and confidentiality were the three most common types of incidents. Additionally, Goodyear, Crego, & Johnson, (1992) asked clinical and counseling psychology faculty to report on ethical issues they had observed in the course of student-faculty
12 research projects. They reported that academic dishonesty and multiple relationships were two of the most frequent issues encountered. The lessons learned about ethical behavior during the graduate school experience will have a significant impact on future professional behavior (Harding et al., 2004; Oberlander & Barnett, 2005; Pope & Vetter, 1992). Their concern is substantiated by the evidence that indicates that ethical transgressions committed by graduate students are similar to those encountered by professional psychologists. Pope and Vetter (1992) engaged in a critical incident analysis of the responses from 679 professional members of the APA and found that confidentiality and multiple relationships were the top two issues. Harding et al. (2004) also found strong evidence that academic dishonesty in college is predictive of unethical behavior in professional practice. Graduate Assistants Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to the issues faced by graduate assistants despite their significant contribution to the academic environment. Graduate assistants in psychology programs are called upon to fulfill a number of different roles across the institution. Within these roles, they are presented with unique ethical challenges. Typically, graduate assistants receive little preparation or guidance on how to handle these ethical dilemmas (Oberlander & Barnett, 2005). Only one study has attempted to empirically examine the ethical beliefs and behaviors of graduate assistants. Branstetter & Handelsman (2000) found that 98% of graduate assistants in doctoral psychology programs reported engaging in unethical behaviors, which is higher than numbers reported for graduate students in general. The authors posited that this may be due to the increased opportunities that graduate assistants have to engage in unethical behavior.
13 However, they also found that graduate assistants with more experience were more likely to engage in unethical behaviors. Rushin et al., (1997) found that although many departments utilize graduate assistants, most require no formal training. Only 10% of graduate assistants in the Branstetter & Handelsman (2000) study had received formal training for their graduate assistant role and only 6% of those respondents stated that the training included information on ethics. The authors found that while the students who had received training had significantly different beliefs about ethical behavior they were more likely to engage in unethical behavior. This finding is consistent with Bernard & Jara s (1986) study which indicated that graduate students will not always act in accordance with their previously held ethical beliefs. Two additional studies have used brief case examples to illustrate the unique ethical dilemmas encountered by graduate assistants. Dallesasse (2010) examined the occurrence of multiple relationships for graduate assistants in clinical psychology programs. The author addresses the fact that graduate assistants are more likely than other graduate students to encounter multiple relationships due to their frequent interaction with faculty and undergraduate students. Kuther (2003) explored three types of ethical challenges that doctoral psychology graduate teaching assistants face. Specifically, they face issues of competency as it relates to the material that they are asked to teach, issues of balancing preparation for teaching with personal academic responsibilities and issues with multiple relationships. To date, no empirical research has specifically focused on graduate assistants in psychology graduate programs. The research that does exist is dated and focuses on psychology graduate students in general. The few exploratory studies on graduate assistants are narrowly focused on doctoral students in specific fields of psychology. This research seeks to fill that gap.
14 Theory of Planned Behavior The theory of planned behavior postulates that people make rational decisions about specific behaviors and form intentions to act; these intentions are thought to predict actual behavior. This theory was first proposed by Ajzen (1991) as an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The theory of reasoned action states that any given behavior is determined by a combination of a person s attitudes and their subjective norms about a specific behavior. The theory of planned behavior built on this theory with the inclusion of perceived behavioral control. Ajzen (1985) believed that both intention and behavior were affected by the degree of volitional control that a person exerts over that behavior in a given context. Table 1 presents a brief definition of each of the concepts included in the theory of planned behavior. Table 1 Theory of Planned Behavior Terms Concept Attitude toward Behavior Definition An individual s positive or negative evaluation of a particular behavior. Subjective Norms An individual s perception of whether people important to the individual feel that a particular behavior should be performed. Perceived Behavioral Control An individual s perception of their personal ability to perform a particular behavior. Moral Obligation An individual s beliefs regarding their duty to perform or avoid a particular behavior. The theory of planned behavior has been used to predict a wide range of health behaviors and has also been used extensively to predict academic dishonesty, which is just one type of
15 ethical behavior. The impact of each of the three variables: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, is expected to vary across contexts (Ajzen, 1991). For example, researchers have found that intention to get a colonoscopy is almost solely influenced by subjective norms, whereas intention to engage in exercise is influenced by a combination of attitudes and perceived behavioral control (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). Beck & Ajzen (1991) proposed a modified version of the theory of planned behavior to include a measure of moral obligation for contexts in which moral concerns are more salient. This study will seek to test the modified version of the theory of planned behavior as ethical decision-making has a strong moral component. Figure 1 depicts the modified version of the theory of planned behavior.
16 Intention vs. Behavior The best way to test the theory of planned behavior would be to observe actual behavior, but in the case of ethical decision-making this would prove to be difficult, if not impossible. Some types of unethical behavior, such as unfairly grading the work of an undergraduate student, may be unobservable because they only happen in the mind of the graduate assistant. Additionally, a graduate assistant might go to great lengths to hide his or her unethical behavior. The theory of planned behavior states that the next best determinant of behavior is a measure of intention (Ajzen, 1991). According to the model, intentions are determined by some combination of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and moral obligations. Previous studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between intention and future behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Beck & Ajzen, 1991). As such, this study will seek to measure intention to behave in an ethical manner. Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) noted in their original presentation of the TRA that the significance of each of the constructs in the model would change based on the specific behavior and context. Review articles on the theory of planned behavior reveal this to be true (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Ajzen, 1991; Conner & Armitage, 1998). There is evidence that each of the four constructs contribute to the predictive power of the overall model when examining ethical behavior. Attitudes and Ethical Decision-making According to the theory of planned behavior, people who hold strong, positive beliefs about a behavior are more likely to have strong intentions to perform that behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Studies that have used the theory to predict academic dishonesty have found that attitudes are a significant predictor of cheating (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Harding, Mayhew, Finelli, & Carpenter, 2007; Stone, Jahawar, & Kisamore, 2009). Whitley (1998) performed a
17 meta-analysis of 107 studies on academic dishonesty and found that students who held favorable attitudes about cheating were more likely to engage in that behavior. Randall & Gibson s (1991) study on nurse s ethical decision making found that attitude was the most significant predictor of ethical behavior in the workplace. Subjective Norms and Ethical Decision-making Overall, findings are mixed in regards to the impact of subjective norms. Subjective norms are the key social portion of the theory of planned behavior. The theory contends that subjective norms are a person s perception of how other people view that behavior, specifically, people who are significant to the individual or relevant to the context of the behavior. Significant others, such as friends, family members, peers, professors, or mentors can influence an individual s intentions to engage in unethical behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Researchers have found support for subjective norms influencing intention to cheat (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Harding, et al., 2007; Stone et al., 2009). Whitley s (1998) metaevaluation of cheating behaviors found that students who believed that cheating was a social norm were more likely to engage in cheating behaviors. However, when Armitage & Conner (2001) reviewed 185 studies that used the theory of planned behavior they found that subjective norms are the least predictive of intention among the three main constructs. Chang (1998) studied ethical behavior and compared the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. He found that subjective norms were only predictive of intention through attitudes. Alleyne & Phillips (2011) studied academic dishonesty in undergraduates and found that subjective norms were the least predictive of all three constructs.
18 Perceived Behavioral Control and Ethical Decision-making Evidence for perceived behavioral control as a predictor of academic dishonesty or ethical behavior is mixed. Perceived Behavioral Control is an individual s perception of how easy or how difficult it will be to perform the behavior in question. The theory of planned behavior states that high levels of perceived behavioral control will lead to higher intentions to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) also asserts that perceived behavioral control can have a direct influence on behavior (see Figure 1 above). Several studies on academic dishonesty found that perceived behavioral control was the most predictive factor in the model (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Hsiao & Yang, 2011; Hoyt, 2011; Meng-Hsiang & Feng-Yang, 2003; Stone et al., 2009). Chang (1998) also found that perceived behavioral control was the most significant factor in predicting ethical behavior when he compared the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Whitley (1998) found that students who perceived that they were good at cheating were more likely to cheat. Conversely, Harding et al. (2007) found that perceived behavioral control was not a significant contributor to the model in their study of academic dishonesty among undergraduate engineering and humanities students. Kurland (1995) examined ethical behavior in a sample of insurance agents and also found that perceived behavioral control did not contribute to the predictive ability of the model. Randall & Gibson (1991) found that perceived behavioral control was only a minor predictor of intention to behave ethically among nurses. Moral Obligation and Ethical Decision-making Beck & Ajzen (1991) proposed a modified version of the theory of planned behavior, stating that moral obligation is a needed component of the model when moral concerns are a primary component of the behavior. Moral obligations are a person s feelings about their duty or
19 responsibility to perform a specific behavior. Beck & Ajzen (1991) found that moral obligations were predictive of both intention to cheat and of actual cheating behaviors. Conner & Armitage s (1998) review of the theory of planned behavior found support for the inclusion of moral obligations in the theory model. They stated that there were strong correlations between moral norms and the other theory constructs and that moral norms would have a significant impact on intention for behaviors with a strong moral component. Two studies on academic dishonesty from disparate disciplines found that moral obligation was a significant variable in the theory of planned behavior. Alleyne & Phillips (2011) found that moral obligation was the biggest factor in predicting academic dishonesty in accounting undergraduates and Harding et al. (2007) found that moral obligations significantly contributed to the overall model when they examined cheating behaviors of undergraduate engineering and humanities students. Moral obligations were also significant in predicting both insurance agents and nurses intention to behave ethically in the workplace (Kurland, 1995; Randall & Gibson, 1991). To date, no research has examined the theory of planned behavior and its ability to predict the ethical intentions of psychology graduate students or assistants. This research fills that gap through the exploration of a purposive sample of psychology graduate assistants who were presented with a survey to test the variables in the theory of planned behavior.
20 Chapter III: Methodology A purposive sample of psychology students holding a graduate assistant position was examined to determine which of four variables in the modified theory of planned behavior best predicts ethical intention. Participants completed an online survey that included questions adapted from Beck & Ajzen (1991). Data were analyzed using SPSS and hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. This section will describe the participants, data collection procedures, instrumentation and data analysis procedures. Participants A purposive sample of graduate assistants in masters and doctoral level psychology graduate programs was examined. Institutions that offer graduate degrees were identified using the 2011 directory of graduate programs published by the American Psychological Association. Email correspondence was sent to department chairs and program directors identified in the directory asking them to distribute the online survey to graduate assistants in their respective programs. Participants are those that returned completed surveys. A total of 475 people responded to the online survey. Because the survey was distributed to graduate assistants through their program directors it is unknown how many received the survey; therefore, an overall response rate cannot be calculated. Incomplete responses were eliminated from analysis, leaving 360 participants in the study. Table 2 presents a complete breakdown of all the demographic questions asked in the survey. Seventy-five percent of the participants identified themselves as female, 25% identified as male. Respondents were asked which age range they fell into, 46% of respondents indicated that they were between 20 and 25 and 38% of respondents indicated they were between 26 and 30. The participant population was evenly distributed in regard to the number of years of graduate training they reported (first year to more than four years). Approximately 57% of respondents indicated that they attended a large
21 institution, of more than 20,000 students. Forty one percent of respondents indicated that their current institution is in the Midwest. Participants represented more than 15 different fields of psychology (24% Clinical, 14% Other, 13% School) and 72% were seeking a PhD. Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated they had a teaching assistantship, while 24% indicated their assistantship was research-oriented. When asked if they had previously taken an ethics course, 82% of respondents indicated that they had taken one. Procedures Department chairs and/or program directors for the psychology graduate programs identified for this study received emails asking them to distribute the link to the online survey to any recently graduated or current graduate assistants from their respective programs. The email explained that the graduate assistant position can be in any university department or office, but the student should be enrolled in a psychology program. Participants responded by using the link to the online Qualtrics survey provided to them by their department chair/program director. The first page of the online survey explained the nature and purpose of the study and informed participants that their participation was both voluntary and confidential. Additionally, they were informed that they could withdraw from the survey or the study as a whole at any time. The first question of the survey then asked them to click Yes if they wished to continue with the survey. Respondents were in no way compensated for their participation. Instrumentation The survey instrument contains three parts (see Appendix A). Part one of the survey contains questions adapted from Beck & Ajzen (1991) and sought to assess ethical decisionmaking behavior and the modified theory of planned behavior. All constructs were measured using a seven point likert scale. All of the questions used sharing confidential information as
22 the example of unethical behavior. Respondents were asked to think of about their role as a graduate assistant when answering these questions. Five items (.86) sought to measure attitudes toward ethical behavior using semantic differential scales (good-bad, acceptable-unacceptable). High scores indicate an unfavorable view of unethical behavior. Low scores indicate a favorable view of unethical behavior. Three items (.72) sought to measure subjective norms with respect to ethical behavior. For example, If I shared confidential information about another student, most people who are important to me would: (not care-disapprove). High scores indicate that significant others do not endorse unethical behavior. Low scores indicate a perception that others accept unethical behavior. Four items (.68) sought to measure perceived behavioral control. For example, If I want to, I could share other student s confidential information (false-true). High scores indicate a perceived ability to engage in unethical behavior, while low scores reflect a perception that it would be difficult to engage in unethical behavior. Three items ( sought to measure moral obligation. For example, I would not feel guilty if I shared confidential information about another student (true-false). High scores indicate high moral obligation, while low scores indicate low moral obligation. Finally, three items (.85) sought to measure intention to engage in unethical behavior. For example, I would never share confidential information about another student (true-false). High scores indicate a high level of intention to engage in unethical behavior. Low scores indicate a low level of intention to engage in unethical behavior. The second section of the survey was utilized to measure social desirability. Reynolds & Gerbasi s (1982) short form version (A) of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale posed eleven true-false items
23 (. For example, There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. and I m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. Item responses were summed to create a composite score to measure social desirability bias. The third section of the survey asked for basic demographic information of the respondents, including gender, age, region and size of their institution. Students were asked about their program status (years completed) and degree field. They also categorized their graduate assistant position (teaching, research, etc.). Finally, they were asked questions about their previous exposure to the APA Code of Ethics and about previous coursework or training in ethics. The survey was pilot tested by graduate assistants at UW-Stout. Five graduate assistants completed the survey and gave feedback immediately on question formation as well as the delivery of the online survey. The feedback provided by the participants established that the modification of the scenario (share confidential information) was understandable as an ethical issue. Only minor adjustments to wording were made, several significant adjustments to the online format were made in order to facilitate conceptual understanding of the survey questions. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Each section of the survey instrument was summed and a composite score was determined for attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, moral obligation and intentions. The Marlowe-Crowne Short Form A Social Desirability scale was reverse coded where needed and was summed to create a composite score. Cronbach alphas for five of the six scales were greater than.70, indicating a high level of reliability for survey items (Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach s alpha for the four items measuring perceived behavioral control was.68.
24 Descriptive statistics were used to explore the characteristics of the participants as well as the key variables in the study. Pearson s bivariate correlations were calculated to explore the relationship between the variables. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test each of the hypotheses.
25 Chapter IV: Results The purpose of this study was to determine if a modified version of the theory of planned behavior, that includes moral obligation, is predictive of ethical decision-making in this population. Specifically, this study examined psychology graduate assistants responses to survey questions related to the variables in the theory of planned behavior. Characteristics of the Participants Table 2 indicates that the majority of participants were females (75%), under 30 (85%), pursuing a PhD. (72%) at a large institution (58%). Participants were evenly distributed in regard to their number of years of graduate training and somewhat evenly distributed in regard to their field of study. The most frequently reported field was Clinical (24%) psychology. The majority (82%) also reported that they had taken an ethics course at some point in their educational experience. Table 2 Characteristics of the Participants Frequency (N) Percent (%) Gender Male 89 24.8 Female 268 74.7 Age 20-25 166 46.1 26-30 138 38.4 31-35 38 10.6 36-40 6 1.7 41-45 6 1.7 46-50 0 0 Over 50 5 1.4 Years of Graduate Training First Year 76 21.2
26 1 year complete 63 17.6 2 years complete 71 19.8 3 years complete 60 16.8 4 or more years complete 88 24.6 Size of the Institution Less than 5000 students 24 6.7 5000 10,000 students 45 12.6 10,001 15,000 students 36 10.1 15,001 20,000 students 46 12.8 More than 20,000 students 207 57.8 Region New England 29 8.2 Mid-Atlantic 44 12.4 Midwest 145 40.8 South Atlantic 40 11.3 South Central 46 13.0 Mountain 16 4.5 Northwest 7 2.0 Southwest 28 7.9 Degree Seeking Masters 77 21.5 PhD. 256 71.5 Other 25 7.0 Field Applied 30 8.3 Clinical 88 24.4 Cognitive 16 4.4 Counseling 17 4.7 Developmental 20 5.6 Educational 11 3.1 Experimental 15 4.2 Health 9 2.5 Industrial/Organizational 31 8.6 School 45 12.5 Social 28 7.8 Other 50 13.9
27 Graduate Assistantship Teaching 169 47.2 Research 121 33.8 Administrative 35 9.8 Other 33 9.2 Ethics Course Yes 295 81.9 No 65 18.1 Total 360 100.0 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the key variables in the study are presented in Table 3. Data indicates that participants held an unfavorable attitude toward sharing confidential information. The mean score for Attitude toward Behavior was 5.90 on a scale of one to seven. Participants were asked how people who are important to them would view the act of sharing confidential information. The mean score for subjective norms was 4.23 on the same scale. This score is above the midpoint of the scale and indicates that participants generally believe that important others would hold an unfavorable view of sharing confidential information. The mean score for perceived behavioral control was 3.64 on a scale of one to seven. This indicates that the participants reported lower levels of perceived control over their ability to share confidential information about another student. Participants responded to three questions about their sense of moral obligation related to sharing confidential information. The mean score was 5.81 on the same scale. This indicates that the participants generally reported that they felt a strong sense of moral obligation to avoid sharing confidential information.
28 Participants were finally asked about their intention to share confidential information. As the data indicates attitudes toward sharing confidential information were largely negative which is indicative of the fact that intention mean scores were low. The mean score was 2.72 on scale of one to seven. Table 3 Means and Correlations for Variables Variables M SD INT ATT SN PBC MO SD Intentions (INT) 2.72 4.20 1 Attitude toward Behavior (ATT) 5.90 5.07 -.40** 1 Subjective Norms (SN) 4.23 4.43 -.44**.30** 1 Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) 3.64 5.37.67** -.31** -.42** 1 Moral Obligation (MO) 5.81 3.63 -.67**.33**.40** -.50** 1 Social Desirability (SD) 4.31 2.57 -.16**.10**.18** -.20**.06 1 Note. **p <.01 Relationships among Variables Pearson s bivariate correlations were used to examine the relationships between each of the variables in the study; they are presented in Table 2. The data indicates that moderate to strong correlations exist between the key independent variables and the dependent variable, intention to share confidential information. Negative correlations indicate that as scores go down for an independent variable the intention to share confidential information decreases. For example, participants indicated that they felt a strong moral obligation to avoid sharing confidential information (M = 17.42), moral obligation is negatively correlated (r = -.67, p <.01)
29 with intention to share confidential information. These findings are consistent with the literature. It should be noted that social desirability bias had weak correlations with the key variables in this study. While any correlation could be cause for some concern, social desirability bias was negatively correlated (r = -.16, p <.01) with intention to share confidential information. Further, the mean score of 4.31 is below the reported mean score for the scale in general. Reynolds (1982) conducted reliability and validity testing of the various Marlow- Crowne short forms and reported a mean of 4.81 on the short form used for this study. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the study s hypotheses. Data were first analyzed to ensure key assumptions were met. An examination of histograms of the residuals as well as normal probability plots indicated that key variables follow a normal distribution. Scatterplots of the data indicate that the assumption of linearity was also met. Scatterplots of the residuals and histograms of the normality of errors, as well as the Durbin-Watson statistic (d = 2.08) indicate that the assumption of homoscedasticity has been met. An examination of the tolerances and the fact that VIF values were well below 10 indicate that the assumption of multicollinearity has been met. Finally, no cases were excluded following an examination of outliers. To examine the hypotheses a hierarchical regression analysis was performed in which intention to share confidential information was used as the dependent variable. Step 1 included each component of the theory of planned behavior (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control). Step 2 added moral obligation to the model. Results are in Table 4.
30 Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Step1: Theory of Planned Behavior Attitude toward Behavior Subjective Norms Perceived Behavioral Control Step 2: Moral Obligation Attitude toward Behavior Subjective Norms Perceived Behavioral Control Moral Obligation Note. **p <.01 B SEB R 2 R 2.50**.50** -.16.03 -.19** -.14.04 -.15**.43.03.54**.61**.11** -.11.03 -.13** -.06.04 -.07.31.03.39** -.46.05 -.40** The first model (Step 1) significantly predicted intention to share confidential information, F(4,355) = 89.79, p =.00, adjusted R 2 =.50. This indicates that the variables in the theory of planned behavior account for 50% of the variance in intentions to share confidential information. Each of the three variables is a significant predictor of intention, confirming H1, H2 and H3. Further, as predicted in H3a, perceived behavioral control was the strongest predictor of intention to share confidential information,.54, t(355) = 12.74, p =.00. With the inclusion of moral obligation, the second model (Step 2) explained additional significant variance in intention to share confidential information, F(4,355) = 111.36, p =.000, adjusted R 2 =.61. The inclusion of moral obligation accounts for an 11% increase in the overall predictive ability of the model and confirms H4. In this model, perceived behavioral control,
31.39, t(355) = 9.62, p =.00, and moral obligation -.40, t(355) = -9.93, p =.00, are equally predictive of the intention to share confidential information. However, in Step 2 subjective norms was no longer a significant contributor to the overall model,.07, t(355) = -1.80, p =.08.
32 Chapter V: Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine if a modified version of the theory of planned behavior, that includes moral obligation, is predictive of ethical decision-making among graduate assistants in psychology programs. The proposed hypotheses were supported and the study produced expected results based on the literature. Recommendations for future research and positive action are also made. Discussion The findings here provide support for the modified theory of planned behavior first proposed by Beck & Ajzen (1991). The results obtained in the current study suggest that a modified version of the theory of planned behavior best explains the intentions of psychology graduate assistants to share confidential information. The research findings have supported each of the proposed hypotheses. H1, H2 and H3 stated that attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, respectively, would be significant predictors of intention. These results are generally consistent with the literature in that there is some evidence for each construct, but the weakest predictor is subjective norms. H4 stated that moral obligation would be a significant addition to the theory model. The findings also supported this hypothesis and confirmed earlier research that also found evidence for the use of the modified version in academic settings (Alleyne & Phillips, 2011; Harding et al., 2004). These findings are consistent with Beck & Ajzen s (1991) assertion that moral obligation will be a significant predictor for behaviors with a strong moral component. H3a stated that perceived behavioral control would be the most predictive of the variables. This hypothesis was supported in both models that were analyzed. Previous studies have found mixed results for the influence of perceived behavioral control, but the results here strongly support the influence of this construct. Participants in this study reported generally
33 lower levels of perceived behavioral control. Moral obligation was as predictive as perceived behavioral control in the final model, indicative of its salience in ethical situations. The least predictive construct in the current study was subjective norms. This is consistent with Armitage & Conner s (2001) finding that subjective norms was the least predictive construct across 185 theory of planned behavior studies. It is also apparent that the participants in this sample exhibit a low overall intention to engage in the unethical behavior that was proposed in the survey questions. It cannot be determined from this research if the low overall intention is related to the specific scenario that was used in the survey (share confidential information) or is related to other factors. It should also be noted that while overall intention was low, there is still a portion of respondents who exhibit a higher than average intention to engage in the specified unethical behavior. This should remain a concern and focus for program directors and faculty in psychology graduate programs. Limitations The key limitation of this study, and any study utilizing a survey, is the reliance on selfreport. Social desirability bias is a concern particularly when socially undesirable behaviors are being assessed. Participants were asked to consider their own personal experience as a graduate assistant when answering the survey questions and may have responded in a way that made them appear to be more ethical. The fact that the survey was confidential and virtually anonymous may have helped to alleviate concerns about social desirability bias, but it is still possible that people are unwilling to reveal their true feelings about unethical behavior. The analysis of the data in this study did not reveal any systematic effects of social desirability bias, but it is always possible that the self-perception that is reported by the participant is inaccurate and not reflective of their actual intention or ultimate behavior.
34 Another possible limitation is the use of sharing confidential information as the scenario. No other research has utilized this specific scenario, although research has revealed it to be one of the most common ethical transgressions committed by psychologists and psychology students (Pope & Vetter, 1992; Fly et al., 1997). It may be more likely that participants can envision situations in which sharing confidential information might be desirable or needed. While the APA code of ethics is clear on the nature of confidentiality, in practice, individuals may find more gray areas, which might indicate why it is one of the most commonly committed transgressions. The selection of a scenario that is more clearly unethical, such as engaging in a sexual relationship with a client or student, may yield different results. Inclusion of qualitative data could have helped to elucidate how students perceived the scenario. Implications This study demonstrated that the modified version of the theory of planned behavior is applicable to the understanding of ethical decision-making among graduate assistants in psychology programs. Specifically, perceived behavioral control and moral obligation have been shown to explain the most variance in intentions to engage in an unethical behavior. Ethical Climate. Understanding the role that perceived behavioral control and moral obligation play in the ethical decision-making of psychology graduate assistants should be a focus of future research. Perceived behavioral control could be influenced by many factors, but program directors would be wise to investigate the role that departmental environment plays in influencing the level of volitional control that a student perceives. The ethical climate within the department and the actions of individual faculty members could have wide-ranging influence on the ethical behavior of the students in the program. Students should be provided with clear,