Ethical characteristics of whistle blowers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Thirty-two undergraduates participated in a confederate-peer study of "whistle blowing" behavior. Using J. R. Rest's (1979, Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Minneapolis, Minnesota Moral Research Projects) Defining Issues Test as a measure of moral reasoning subjects were determined to be at conventional or principled levels of moral reasoning. Subjects individually read an article authored by the professor-investigator and answered questions about the article on a multiple choice test. A confederate-peer pointed out predesigned errors in the article to each subject. In treatment I the confederate referred to an article in The American Psychologist to point out discrepancies in information. In treatment II she referred to a typed transcript of the same article; authorship was ambiguous. Subjects who "blew the whistle" on the professor's errors, e.g., pointed out the discrepancies to the investigator, were found to be significantly different in level of moral reasoning from those who did not (p = .025). These differences remained when grade point average, assertiveness scores, and sex of subject were statistically controlled. There was no difference in behavior of subjects in treatment I and treatment II. Subjects' stated reasons for blowing the whistle or not blowing the whistle are summarized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)41-53
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Research in Personality
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1984

Fingerprint

Whistleblowing
Research Personnel
Assertiveness
Authorship
Psychology
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Ethical characteristics of whistle blowers. / Brabeck, Mary.

In: Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1984, p. 41-53.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fdfbfa905f9e4c5e96a3dd48cb98a2c9,
title = "Ethical characteristics of whistle blowers",
abstract = "Thirty-two undergraduates participated in a confederate-peer study of {"}whistle blowing{"} behavior. Using J. R. Rest's (1979, Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Minneapolis, Minnesota Moral Research Projects) Defining Issues Test as a measure of moral reasoning subjects were determined to be at conventional or principled levels of moral reasoning. Subjects individually read an article authored by the professor-investigator and answered questions about the article on a multiple choice test. A confederate-peer pointed out predesigned errors in the article to each subject. In treatment I the confederate referred to an article in The American Psychologist to point out discrepancies in information. In treatment II she referred to a typed transcript of the same article; authorship was ambiguous. Subjects who {"}blew the whistle{"} on the professor's errors, e.g., pointed out the discrepancies to the investigator, were found to be significantly different in level of moral reasoning from those who did not (p = .025). These differences remained when grade point average, assertiveness scores, and sex of subject were statistically controlled. There was no difference in behavior of subjects in treatment I and treatment II. Subjects' stated reasons for blowing the whistle or not blowing the whistle are summarized.",
author = "Mary Brabeck",
year = "1984",
doi = "10.1016/0092-6566(84)90037-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "41--53",
journal = "Journal of Research in Personality",
issn = "0092-6566",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical characteristics of whistle blowers

AU - Brabeck, Mary

PY - 1984

Y1 - 1984

N2 - Thirty-two undergraduates participated in a confederate-peer study of "whistle blowing" behavior. Using J. R. Rest's (1979, Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Minneapolis, Minnesota Moral Research Projects) Defining Issues Test as a measure of moral reasoning subjects were determined to be at conventional or principled levels of moral reasoning. Subjects individually read an article authored by the professor-investigator and answered questions about the article on a multiple choice test. A confederate-peer pointed out predesigned errors in the article to each subject. In treatment I the confederate referred to an article in The American Psychologist to point out discrepancies in information. In treatment II she referred to a typed transcript of the same article; authorship was ambiguous. Subjects who "blew the whistle" on the professor's errors, e.g., pointed out the discrepancies to the investigator, were found to be significantly different in level of moral reasoning from those who did not (p = .025). These differences remained when grade point average, assertiveness scores, and sex of subject were statistically controlled. There was no difference in behavior of subjects in treatment I and treatment II. Subjects' stated reasons for blowing the whistle or not blowing the whistle are summarized.

AB - Thirty-two undergraduates participated in a confederate-peer study of "whistle blowing" behavior. Using J. R. Rest's (1979, Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Minneapolis, Minnesota Moral Research Projects) Defining Issues Test as a measure of moral reasoning subjects were determined to be at conventional or principled levels of moral reasoning. Subjects individually read an article authored by the professor-investigator and answered questions about the article on a multiple choice test. A confederate-peer pointed out predesigned errors in the article to each subject. In treatment I the confederate referred to an article in The American Psychologist to point out discrepancies in information. In treatment II she referred to a typed transcript of the same article; authorship was ambiguous. Subjects who "blew the whistle" on the professor's errors, e.g., pointed out the discrepancies to the investigator, were found to be significantly different in level of moral reasoning from those who did not (p = .025). These differences remained when grade point average, assertiveness scores, and sex of subject were statistically controlled. There was no difference in behavior of subjects in treatment I and treatment II. Subjects' stated reasons for blowing the whistle or not blowing the whistle are summarized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0002798931&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0002798931&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0092-6566(84)90037-0

DO - 10.1016/0092-6566(84)90037-0

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0002798931

VL - 18

SP - 41

EP - 53

JO - Journal of Research in Personality

JF - Journal of Research in Personality

SN - 0092-6566

IS - 1

ER -