Display options
Share it on

Ethics Behav. 2012;22(2):113-130. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2012.655646.

Applying Cases to Solve Ethical Problems: The Significance of Positive and Process-Oriented Reflection.

Ethics & behavior

Alison L Antes, Chase E Thiel, Laura E Martin, Cheryl K Stenmark, Shane Connelly, Lynn D Devenport, Michael D Mumford

Affiliations

  1. Northern Kentucky University.
  2. The University of Oklahoma.
  3. Midwestern State University.
  4. Angelo State University.

PMID: 26257506 PMCID: PMC4527578 DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2012.655646

Abstract

This study examined the role of reflection on personal cases for making ethical decisions with regard to new ethical problems. Participants assumed the position of a business manager in a hypothetical organization and solved ethical problems that might be encountered. Prior to making a decision for the business problems, participants reflected on a relevant ethical experience. The findings revealed that application of material garnered from reflection on a personal experience was associated with decisions of higher ethicality. However, whether the case was viewed as positive or negative, and whether the outcomes, process, or outcomes and processes embedded in the experience were examined, influenced the application of case material to the new problem. As expected, examining positive experiences and the processes involved in those positive experiences resulted in greater application of case material to new problems. Future directions and implications for understanding ethical decision-making are discussed.

Keywords: case analysis; case method; cases; ethical decision-making; experience; knowledge; self-reflection

References

  1. Ethics Behav. 2011 Jan;21(1):1-12 - PubMed
  2. Acad Med. 1993 Sep;68(9 Suppl):S67-71 - PubMed
  3. J Appl Psychol. 2006 Jul;91(4):737-48 - PubMed
  4. Behav Res Ther. 2010 Apr;48(4):335-40 - PubMed
  5. Am Psychol. 1998 Apr;53(4):429-39 - PubMed
  6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;81(6):973-88 - PubMed
  7. Mem Cognit. 2003 Jan;31(1):1-14 - PubMed
  8. Conscious Cogn. 2004 Dec;13(4):844-58 - PubMed
  9. Ethics Behav. 2011 Jan 1;21(2):127-146 - PubMed
  10. J Abnorm Psychol. 1992 Aug;101(3):575-80 - PubMed
  11. Acad Med. 2004 Mar;79(3):265-71 - PubMed
  12. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Dec;2(4):15-34 - PubMed
  13. Ethics Behav. 2009 Sep 1;19(5):379-402 - PubMed
  14. Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):769-96 - PubMed
  15. Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):519-26 - PubMed
  16. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Mar;14(1):3-31 - PubMed
  17. Ethics Behav. 2008 Oct 1;18(4):315-339 - PubMed
  18. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Nov;83(5):1198-212 - PubMed
  19. J Appl Psychol. 2008 Mar;93(2):296-316 - PubMed
  20. Account Res. 2003 Oct-Dec;10(4):205-28 - PubMed
  21. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2(2):111-23 - PubMed
  22. Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34 - PubMed
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 - PubMed
  24. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Nov;76(2):149-188 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support