@article{a14489a6ab564e13a12bcf7f66ceac51,
title = "Structuring Case-Based Ethics Training: How Comparing Cases and Structured Prompts Influence Training Effectiveness",
abstract = "This study examined how structuring case-based ethics training, either through (a) case presentation or (b) prompt questions, influences training outcomes. Results revealed an interaction between case presentation and prompt questions such that some form of structure improved effectiveness. Specifically, comparing cases led to greater sensemaking strategy use and decision-ethicality when trainees considered unstructured rather than structured prompts. When cases were presented sequentially, structuring prompts improved training effectiveness. Too much structure, however, decreased future ethical decision making, suggesting that there can be too much of a good thing when structuring case-based ethics education. Implications for designing ethics training programs are discussed.",
keywords = "case comparison, case-based learning, ethical decision making, structured prompts",
author = "Harkrider, {Lauren N.} and MacDougall, {Alexandra E.} and Zhanna Bagdasarov and Johnson, {James F.} and Thiel, {Chase E.} and Mumford, {Michael D.} and Shane Connelly and Devenport, {Lynn D.}",
note = "Funding Information: Case presentation was manipulated to either present two cases sequentially or to allow for simultaneous comparison of the cases. In every condition, participants read the same two ethical cases, Big Pharma and Tight Schedule, which were counterbalanced to control for order effects (see Appendix A). Both cases single-spaced were approximately .75 pages long. These cases were chosen because although differing in surface-level, contextual aspects, they shared structural-level, underlying principles (Gentner et al., 2004). Specifically, Big Pharma depicted a biology postdoc struggling to replicate another labmate{\textquoteright}s results for a privately funded project, whereas Tight Schedule depicted a psychology graduate student experiencing time pressures to complete both class work and research for the National Institute of Mental Health. Although peripheral issues differed, both situations contained similar underlying principles including pressures to falsify/fabricate data, mentor/mentee relationships, personal/professional goal conflicts, subordinate roles, lack of expertise biases, resource pressures, and decisions with consequences for others. Funding Information: This research was made possible through funding from the National Science Foundation grant No. 0931539.",
year = "2013",
month = may,
doi = "10.1080/10508422.2012.728470",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "179--198",
journal = "Ethics and Behavior",
issn = "1050-8422",
publisher = "Ethics and Behavior",
number = "3",
}