The study aimed to examine whether the use of words related to different moral foundations can predict the perceived severity of research misconduct. We gave two groups of participants, undergraduate medical students, the same hypothetical scenarios of research misconduct cases containing words related to different aspects of morality, and asked them to assess how inappropriate the described behavior was. Students ranked the described behaviors differently by the inappropriateness of the behavior, but the group wording was not a significant predictor of appropriateness. The reasons for the ranking were not related to any standardized procedures for research integrity but were related to the moral assessment of the students, which was assessed using qualitative approach. The results of this study implicate that personal moral views are an important part in research integrity training.
All European Academies (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. ALLEA Germany.
2.
AntesA. L.ChibnallJ. T.BaldwinK. A.TaitR. C.Vander WalJ. S.DuBoisJ. M. (2016). Making professional decisions in research: Measurement and key predictors. Accountability in Research, 23(5), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1171149
3.
BuljanI.BaraćL.MarušićA. (2018). How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Accountability in Research, 25(4), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162
4.
ChristiansC. G.FacklerM.RichardsonK. B.KreshelP. (2020). Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning. Routledge.
5.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
6.
GantmanA.Devraj-KizukS.Mende-SiedleckiP.Van BavelJ. J.MathewsonK. E. (2020). The time course of moral perception: An ERP investigation of the moral pop-out effect. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa030
7.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Chapter two - moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In DevineP.PlantA. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.
8.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
9.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
10.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
11.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
HeekerenH. R.WartenburgerI.SchmidtH.PrehnK.SchwintowskiH. P.VillringerA. (2005). Influence of bodily harm on neural correlates of semantic and moral decision-making. Neuroimage, 24(3), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.026
14.
HrenD.SambunjakD.MarušićM.MarušićA. (2013). Medical students’ decisions about authorship in disputable situations: Intervention study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9358-7
15.
HrenD.VujaklijaA.IvanisevićR.KnezevićJ.MarusićM.MarusićA. (2006). Students’ moral reasoning, Machiavellianism and socially desirable responding: Implications for teaching ethics and research integrity. Medical Education, 40(3), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02391.x
16.
Institute of Medicine & National Research Council (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. The National Academies Press.
17.
JASP Team (2020). JASP (Version 0.12.1)[Computer software].
18.
JiaL. A.ShaoB. J.WangX. C.ShiZ. H. (2021). Phrase depicting immoral behavior dilates its subjective time judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 784752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.784752
19.
KatsarovJ.AndornoR.KromA.van den HovenM. (2022). Effective strategies for research integrity training –a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count. Retrieved February 12, 2022, fromhttps://www.liwc.app/
22.
MarušićA.MaličkiM.SambunjakD.JerončićA.MarušićM. (2014). Teaching science throughout the six-year medical curriculum: Two-year experience from the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. Acta Medica Academica, 43(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.100
23.
MarušićA.SambunjakD.JerončićA.MaličkiM.MarušićM. (2013, July). No health research without education for research–experience from an integrated course in undergraduate medical curriculum. Medical Teacher, 35(7), 609. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.772969
24.
McHughC.McGannM.IgouE. R.KinsellaE. L. (2022). Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC). Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 17(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621990636
25.
Mojon-AzziS. M.MojonD. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: From salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica, 218(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000074559
26.
Moral Foundations Theory | moralfoundations.org. (2021). MoralFoundations.Org. Retrieved February 10, 2022, fromhttps://moralfoundations.org/
27.
ResnikD. B.RasmussenL. M.KisslingG. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218
28.
RheeJ.ScheinC.BastianB. (2019). The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12511
SatalkarP.ShawD. (2019). How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x
YangQ.LuoC. H.ZhangY. (2017). Individual differences in the early recognition of moral information in lexical processing: An event-related potential study. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1475. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01623-5
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
