Obedience

2021 ◽  
pp. 115-128
Author(s):  
Joe Ungemah

This chapter discusses the life and work of Stanley Milgrim, who created an electrical shock box to see how far the average person would go to appease an authority figure. In his study, the majority of participants followed instructions to the end, putting aside their own reservations about what was ethical and right. Milgrim discovered that obedience could be expected in situations with a legitimate authority figure, established obligations, worthy goals, vague ethical guidelines, limited time to contemplate, and binary decisions. Seeing that these same traits characterize the traditional workplace, questions are raised about whether the average employee can overcome pressures against whistle-blowing and hold their organization accountable for unethical behavior.

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

PurposeThousands of preprints related to Covid-19 have effused into the academic literature. Even though these are not peer-reviewed documents and have not been vetted by medical or other experts, several have been cited, while others have been widely promoted by the media. While many preprints eventually find their way into the published literature, usually through integrated publishing streams, there is a small body of preprints that have been opaquely withdrawn/retracted, without suitable reasons, leaving only a vestigial or skeletal record online. Others have, quite literally, vanished. This paper aims to examine some of those cases.Design/methodology/approachFor peer-reviewed literature, a retracted academic paper is usually water-marked with “RETRACTED” across each page of the document, as recommended by ethical bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, which represents thousands of journals and publishers. Curiously, even though pro-preprint groups claim that preprints are an integral part of the publication process and a scholarly instrument, there are no strict, detailed or established ethical guidelines for preprints on most preprint servers. This paper identifies select withdrawn/retracted preprints and emphasizes that the opaque removal of preprints from the scholarly record may constitute unscholarly, possibly even predatory or unethical, behavior.FindingsStrict ethical guidelines are urgently needed for preprints, and preprint authors, in the case of misconduct, should face the same procedure and consequences as standard peer-reviewed academic literature.Originality/valueJournals and publishers that have silently retracted or withdrawn preprints should reinstate them, as for regular retracted literature, except for highly exceptional cases.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-370
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva ◽  
Judit Dobránszki

Purpose Whistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic, and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined. Findings Four issues in the Neuroskeptic–Wager case were debated: the solicitation by Wager to publish in RIPR; the use of commercial software by Neuroskeptic to make anonymous reports to journals; the links between “publication ethics” leaders and whistle-blowers or pseudonymous identities; the issues of transparency and possible hidden conflicts of interest. Only one publisher (Wiley) out of 15 scientific publishers examined claimed in its official ethical guidelines that anonymous reports should be investigated in the same way as named reports, while three publishers (Inderscience, PLOS and Springer Nature) referred to the COPE guidelines. Originality/value No such Twitter-based case has yet been examined in detail in the publishing ethics literature.


2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Keith

Abstract. The positive effects of goal setting on motivation and performance are among the most established findings of industrial–organizational psychology. Accordingly, goal setting is a common management technique. Lately, however, potential negative effects of goal-setting, for example, on unethical behavior, are increasingly being discussed. This research replicates and extends a laboratory experiment conducted in the United States. In one of three goal conditions (do-your-best goals, consistently high goals, increasingly high goals), 101 participants worked on a search task in five rounds. Half of them (transparency yes/no) were informed at the outset about goal development. We did not find the expected effects on unethical behavior but medium-to-large effects on subjective variables: Perceived fairness of goals and goal commitment were least favorable in the increasing-goal condition, particularly in later goal rounds. Results indicate that when designing goal-setting interventions, organizations may consider potential undesirable long-term effects.


Crisis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn M. Wilson ◽  
Bruce K. Christensen

Background: Our laboratory recently confronted this issue while conducting research with undergraduate students at the University of Waterloo (UW). Although our main objective was to examine cognitive and genetic features of individuals with schizotypal personality disorder (SPD), the study protocol also entailed the completion of various self-report measures to identify participants deemed at increased risk for suicide. Aims and Methods: This paper seeks to review and discuss the relevant ethical guidelines and legislation that bear upon a psychologist’s obligation to further assess and intervene when research participants reveal that they are at increased risk for suicide. Results and Conclusions: In the current paper we argue that psychologists are ethically impelled to assess and appropriately intervene in cases of suicide risk, even when such risk is revealed within a research context. We also discuss how any such obligation may potentially be modulated by the research participant’s expectations of the role of a psychologist, within such a context. Although the focus of the current paper is on the ethical obligations of psychologists, specifically those practicing within Canada, the relevance of this paper extends to all regulated health professionals conducting research in nonclinical settings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-226
Author(s):  
Katharina Schmitte ◽  
Bert Schreurs ◽  
Mien Segers ◽  
I. M. “Jim” Jawahar

Abstract. Adopting a within-person perspective, we theorize why ingratiation use directed toward an authority figure increases over time and for whom. We posit that as the appraisal event draws closer, the salience of achieving good evaluations increases, leading to an increasing use of ingratiation. We further propose that the increase will be stronger for individuals with low relative to high self-esteem. Participants were 349 students enrolled in a small-group, tutor-led management course. Data were collected in three bi-weekly waves and analyzed using random coefficient modeling. Results show that ingratiation use increased as time to the evaluation decreased, and low self-esteem students ingratiated more as time progressed. We conclude that ingratiation use varies as a function of contextual and inter-individual differences.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneke K. Oostrom ◽  
Henk T. Van der Molen ◽  
Alec W. Serlie ◽  
Marise Ph. Born

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document