Diversity And Ethics Research Paper

Diversity and Ethics

By

Karen W. Pouncy

May 30, 2010

Address: 201 Calhoun Street

Town: Clio, South Carolina

E-mail: [e-mail]

Instructor: Dr. Joan Durante More often than not organizations put their trust in small groups rather than individuals when pertinent decisions have to be made on the assumption that groups possess a broader range of informational resources than individuals do. This process could improve the quality of decision making because the groups are able to process task relevant information effectively. However, research indicates that groups are unsuccessful in exchanging their members’ unique informational resources; and when they do exchange this information, they fail to utilize
the resources effectively and merge them in making a decision. It is understandable then that identifying factors that influence groups’ use of their distributed informational resources is an important ask for research in group dynamics (Koij de Bode, M. K, van Knippenberg, D. & van Ginkel, W. P., 2008). Group diversity has not been very prevalent in research. Research on information that has been distributed mainly dealt with groups that are otherwise relatively homogeneous in their make up, but the reality of various organizational groups is that they are diverse in terms of the characteristics of their membership, and bring together members who may differ in ethnicity, gender, age, educational background, functional background, etc. In relation to theory and practice, one may ask if and how group diversity will effect the decision-making in groups with information that has been distributed. Research that has been conducted recently could have a negative effect on the quality of decisions made in such groups (Kooij de Bode et al, 2008). Diversity is a characteristic of a social group that images the degree to which there are objective or subjective differences between the persons participating in the groups. When work group members associate such differences with meaningful task-relevant differences, diversity may form the basis for the categorization of others as in-group (self) or out-group (different from self). Research findings show that people are more in favor of in-group members rather than out-group members. Trust often lies with those who are in-group members. These particular group members are viewed as valid sources of information and are more willing and cooperative (Kooij de Bode et al, 2008). Work group diversity is a fact of organizational life.
A large amount of research conducted on both the individual and group level effects of work group diversity suggests that diversity may be related with a group of positive and negative outcomes. The majority of theoretical analyses seem to embark upon the conclusions that diversity has negative effects on the psychological relationship between the individual and group and affective/evaluative responses to the group and the job (van Knippenberg, Haslam & Platow, 2007). Groups are often called upon within organizations when important decisions need to be made. This happens mostly when members of the group are different with respect to the information and the expertise they can provide. Groups more than likely will perform than individuals in terms of the quality of the decisions they make (Homan, van Knippenbert, Van Keef & De Dreu, 2007).
Organizations heavily rely on cross-functional work groups and project teams in an effort to stimulate innovation, solve problems and make decision. Frequently, informational diversity within such teams go hand in hand with differences on other dimensions, such as demographic characteristics and deeply rooted values and beliefs. Informational diversity is differences in knowledge bases and perspective that members bring to the group. Informational diversity has also been called functional or knowledge diversity (Homan et al,
2007).
In making decisions, it is very important to insure that professional ethnic codes and standards are adhered to in conducting research. Psychologists have always been obligated in protecting confidentiality. Confidentiality has a history of being regarded as the foundation of the helping relationship. The American Psychological Association (APA) has emphasized the importance of confidentiality and state that it is the core of their profession (Fisher, 2008).
Throughout the years, psychologists have overwhelmingly endorsed the importance of protecting clients’ confidences. They have sometimes described confidentiality as their professional duty. However, psychologists have also indicated that confidentiality causes some serious ethical problems and it is the source of a great deal of ethical dilemmas than any other facet of their professional practice (Fisher, 2008).
The problems that exist are not new problems. Over the course of the 1970’s, psychologists dealt with the issues created by new legal demands for disclosure. Over half (61.9%) of the psychologists in the 1980’s reported sometimes confidentiality was violated unintentionally; half named it the ethical mandate they were most like to violate unintentionally. It was greatly represented among APA ethic cases. Between 1983 and 1987, confidentiality was the fourth most often-adjudicated ethical violation. This led to the APA Ethics Committee noting that psychologists had difficulty with confidentiality. This continued to be a serious problem during the 1990’s. This violation led to disciplinary action, with psychologists in one state acknowledging it to be the second most often cause of complaints the licensing board received (Fisher, 2008).
The ethical principles and rules of professions may assist individuals in making their choices and guide the actions they choose to take when dealing with moral issues. Psychologists may face a tremendous amount of ethical dilemmas throughout their professional careers. These dilemmas include issues related to dual relationships, confidentiality, legal or financial issues. When professionals confront ethical problems, they will become involved in a decision-making process. During this process, the professionals must be able to recognize, evaluate, decide and execute an action that will alleviate the dilemma (Lincoln & Holmes, 2010).
An ethical decision making model was developed by James Rest. He brought together theoretical approaches from research in moral development and education. Rest proposed four distinctive psychological steps. These steps included moral sensitivity/awareness, moral judgment, moral motivation/intention, and moral action/courage. Moral awareness is the recognition that a situation contains a moral dilemma. Moral judgment involves developing and considering choices and their consequences. Moral intention refers to the intention to choose the moral decision over another choice representing a different value. The last and final step in the decision-making process is moral action. This step requires that the individuals carry out their own decision (Lincoln et al, 2010).
Moral intensity has six characteristics of a moral issue. These characteristics are magnitude of consequences, temporal immediacy, and social consensus, probability of effect, proximity, and concentration of effect. Magnitude of consequences is the degree to which an individual may be harmed by or benefit from the decision maker’s actions; temporal immediacy is defined as the length of time between an action and the expected consequences. Social consensus is the decision maker’s perception of how his or her social group views a situation. Probability of effect is defined as the likelihood that the predicted consequences will occur and cause the expected level of harm or benefit. Proximity is the physical, psychological, social, or cultural closeness of the decision maker to the affected individual(s); and concentration of effect is defined as the relationship between the number of people affected by the decision and the magnitude of the harm. Together, these six characteristics of the moral situation is the moral intensity model. Jones indicated that an increase in moral intensity would strongly influence the individual’s decision-making process. There is limited empirical research validating Rest’s model of ethical decision-making and its relationship with moral intensity is limited (Lincoln et al, 2010).
It is necessary to incorporate moral intensity into the ethical decision-making model because it will serve as a reminder that decision making does not occur in a vacuum and may be subject to external and internal influences.
Even though the characteristics of the moral situation can effect the decision making process in a negative and positive manner, it is important to be aware of them so that individuals can use these factors to heighten their moral sensitivity. It will also strengthen their moral judgment, increase the likelihood that they will intend to act morally, and strengthen their resolve to respond to a moral dilemma with moral courage (Lincoln et al,
2010).
Research studies can be more effective if they utilize the ethical codes as outlined by APA. The ethnic codes provided by APA are internally consistent. The principles and standards of these ethnic codes are not in conflict with each other. The codes call for fairness which give everyone access to the benefits from the contributions of psychology and respect for cultural, individual, and role differences. They do not compete against with standards. The standards and principles are valid equally (Johnson, 2009). A researcher must insure that participants are fully aware of what is going on in the research. If they follow the ethical codes, the participants would be more apt to participate and respond truthfully in the research.

References

Kooij-de Bode, H. J., van Knippenberg, D. & van Ginkel, W. P. (2008). Ethnic diversity

and distributed information in group decision making: The Importance of

information elaboration. Group Dynamics: Theory Research, and Practice, 12(4),

307-320.

van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A. & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity:

Value-in-Diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 207-222.

Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Bridging faultiness by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189-1199.

Fisher, M. A. (2008). Protecting confidentiality rights: The Need for an ethical practice model. American Psychologist, 63(1), 1-13.

Lincoln, S. H. & Holmes, E. K. (2010). The Psychology of making ethical decisions: What affects the decision?. Psychological Services, 7(2), 57-64.

Johnson, J. (2009). Ethics and multiculturalism: Merging, not colliding. Psychological Services, 6(3), 430-433.