research on ethical behavior

Behavioral Ethics: Ethical Practice Is More Than Memorizing Compliance Codes

• Discussion and Review Paper
• Published: 15 June 2021
• Volume 14 , pages 1169–1178, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Frank R. Cicero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3486-2189 1  

2102 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Disciplines establish and enforce professional codes of ethics in order to guide ethical and safe practice. Unfortunately, ethical breaches still occur. Interestingly, it is found that breaches are often perpetrated by professionals who are aware of their codes of ethics and believe that they engage in ethical practice. The constructs of behavioral ethics, which are most often discussed in business settings, attempt to explain why ethical professionals sometimes engage in unethical behavior. Although traditionally based on theories of social psychology, the principles underlying behavioral ethics are consistent with behavior analysis. When conceptualized as operant behavior, ethical and unethical decisions are seen as being evoked and maintained by environmental variables. As with all forms of operant behavior, antecedents in the environment can trigger unethical responses, and consequences in the environment can shape future unethical responses. In order to increase ethical practice among professionals, an assessment of the environmental variables that affect behavior needs to be conducted on a situation-by-situation basis. Knowledge of discipline-specific professional codes of ethics is not enough to prevent unethical practice. In the current article, constructs used in behavioral ethics are translated into underlying behavior-analytic principles that are known to shape behavior. How these principles establish and maintain both ethical and unethical behavior is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethical Behavior Analysis: Evidence-Based Practice as a Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Making behavioral ethics research more useful for ethics management practice: embracing complexity using a design science approach, ethical behavior as a product of cultural design.

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2015). Occupational therapy code of ethics . https://www.aota.org/About-Occupational-Therapy/Ethics.aspx

American Physical Therapy Association. (2019). Code of ethics for the physical therapist . https://www.apta.org/uploadedFiles/APTAorg/About_Us/Policies/Ethics/CodeofEthics.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Code of ethics . https://www.asha.org/Code-of-Ethics/

Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25 , 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Baum, C. G., Forehand, R., & Zegiob, L. E. (1979). A review of observer reactivity in adult-child interactions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1 (2), 167–178.

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts . Littleton, Co.: Author.

Bowman, J. S. (2018). Thinking about thinking: Beyond decision-making rationalism and the emergence of behavioral ethics. Public Integrity, 20 , 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1410461 .

Cameron, J. S., & Miller, D. T. (2009). Ethical standards in gain versus loss frames. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 91–106). Information Age Publishing.

Chugh, D., & Kern, M. C. (2016). A dynamic and cyclical model of bounded ethicality. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36 , 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.07.002 .

Cialdini, R., Li, Y. J., Samper, A., & Wellman, N. (2019). How bad apples promote bad barrels: Unethical leader behavior and the selective attrition effect. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04252-2 .

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

Cox, D. J. (2020). Descriptive and normative ethical behavior appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis . https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.761 .

Dana, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290 (2), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.2.252 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

De Cremer, D. (2009). Psychology and ethics: What it takes to feel ethical when being unethical. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 3–13). Information Age Publishing.

De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Schminke, M. (2010). On understanding ethical behavior and decision making: A behavioral ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (1), 1–6.

Drumwright, M., Prentice, R., & Biasucci, C. (2015). Behavioral ethics and teaching ethical decision making. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 13 (3), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12071 .

Duska, R. F. (2017). Unethical behavioral finance: Why good people do bad things. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 71 (1), 25–28.

Google Scholar  

Feldman, Y., Gauthier, R., & Schuler, T. (2013). Curbing misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry: Insights from behavioral ethics and the behavioral approach to law. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41 (3), 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12071 .

James Jr., H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28 (1), 43–58.

Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C., & Babcock, L. (1993). Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 22 (1), 135–159.

Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (Rev. ed.). Society for the Advancement of Behavior Analysis.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18 (1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105 .

Moore, C. (2009). Psychological processes in organizational corruption. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 35–71). Information Age Publishing.

O’Brien, K., Wittmer, D., & Ebrahimi, B. P. (2017). Behavioral ethics in practice: Integrating service learning into a graduate business ethics course. Journal of Management Education, 41 (4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917702495 .

Prentice, R. (2014). Teaching behavioral ethics. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 31 (2), 325–365.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2009). On the causes and conditions of moral behavior: Why is this all we know? In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 17–33). Information Age Publishing.

Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2019). Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (2), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5 .

Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Teaching behavioral ethics: Overcoming the key impediments to ethical behavior. Journal of Management Education, 41 (4), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917701501 .

Sheridan, C. L., & King, R. G. (1972). Obedience to authority with an authentic victim. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7 (1), 165–166.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . Free Press.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17 (2), 223–236.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32 (6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258 .

Wazana, A. (2000). Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283 (3), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.3.373 .

Zhong, C., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 75–89). Information Age Publishing.

Download references

Availability of data and materials

The current article does not include the collection of original data.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Studies, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Ave, South Orange, NJ, 07079, USA

Frank R. Cicero

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The idea for the current work, completion of the literature review, writing of the manuscript, and any revisions were and will be the work of the author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank R. Cicero .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

The author has no conflicts of interest or competing interests to disclose with regard to the current article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cicero, F.R. Behavioral Ethics: Ethical Practice Is More Than Memorizing Compliance Codes. Behav Analysis Practice 14 , 1169–1178 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00585-5

Download citation

Accepted : 31 March 2021

Published : 15 June 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00585-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Behavioral ethics
• Ethical decisions
• Professionalism
• Interdisciplinary
• Behavior analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Nih clinical research trials and you, guiding principles for ethical research.

Pursuing Potential Research Participants Protections

“When people are invited to participate in research, there is a strong belief that it should be their choice based on their understanding of what the study is about, and what the risks and benefits of the study are,” said Dr. Christine Grady, chief of the NIH Clinical Center Department of Bioethics, to Clinical Center Radio in a podcast.

Clinical research advances the understanding of science and promotes human health. However, it is important to remember the individuals who volunteer to participate in research. There are precautions researchers can take – in the planning, implementation and follow-up of studies – to protect these participants in research. Ethical guidelines are established for clinical research to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity of the science.

NIH Clinical Center researchers published seven main principles to guide the conduct of ethical research:

Social and clinical value

Scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent.

• Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

Every research study is designed to answer a specific question. The answer should be important enough to justify asking people to accept some risk or inconvenience for others. In other words, answers to the research question should contribute to scientific understanding of health or improve our ways of preventing, treating, or caring for people with a given disease to justify exposing participants to the risk and burden of research.

A study should be designed in a way that will get an understandable answer to the important research question. This includes considering whether the question asked is answerable, whether the research methods are valid and feasible, and whether the study is designed with accepted principles, clear methods, and reliable practices. Invalid research is unethical because it is a waste of resources and exposes people to risk for no purpose

The primary basis for recruiting participants should be the scientific goals of the study — not vulnerability, privilege, or other unrelated factors. Participants who accept the risks of research should be in a position to enjoy its benefits. Specific groups of participants  (for example, women or children) should not be excluded from the research opportunities without a good scientific reason or a particular susceptibility to risk.

Uncertainty about the degree of risks and benefits associated with a clinical research study is inherent. Research risks may be trivial or serious, transient or long-term. Risks can be physical, psychological, economic, or social. Everything should be done to minimize the risks and inconvenience to research participants to maximize the potential benefits, and to determine that the potential benefits are proportionate to, or outweigh, the risks.

To minimize potential conflicts of interest and make sure a study is ethically acceptable before it starts, an independent review panel should review the proposal and ask important questions, including: Are those conducting the trial sufficiently free of bias? Is the study doing all it can to protect research participants? Has the trial been ethically designed and is the risk–benefit ratio favorable? The panel also monitors a study while it is ongoing.

Potential participants should make their own decision about whether they want to participate or continue participating in research. This is done through a process of informed consent in which individuals (1) are accurately informed of the purpose, methods, risks, benefits, and alternatives to the research, (2) understand this information and how it relates to their own clinical situation or interests, and (3) make a voluntary decision about whether to participate.

Respect for potential and enrolled participants

Individuals should be treated with respect from the time they are approached for possible participation — even if they refuse enrollment in a study — throughout their participation and after their participation ends. This includes:

• respecting their privacy and keeping their private information confidential
• respecting their right to change their mind, to decide that the research does not match their interests, and to withdraw without a penalty
• informing them of new information that might emerge in the course of research, which might change their assessment of the risks and benefits of participating
• monitoring their welfare and, if they experience adverse reactions, unexpected effects, or changes in clinical status, ensuring appropriate treatment and, when necessary, removal from the study
• informing them about what was learned from the research

More information on these seven guiding principles and on bioethics in general

This page last reviewed on March 16, 2016

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2024

Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice

• Amanda M. Lindkvist   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3984-5081 1 ,
• Lina Koppel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-0047 1 &
• Gustav Tinghög   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8159-1249 1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  3050 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3519 Accesses

206 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

Bounded ethicality refers to people’s limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. These effects were stable across all academic fields, but strongest among researchers in the medical sciences. Taken together, our findings illustrate inflated self-righteous beliefs among researchers and research disciplines when it comes to research ethics, which may contribute to academic polarization and moral blindspots regarding one’s own and one’s colleagues’ use of questionable research practices.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Genome-wide association studies

Interviews in the social sciences

Introduction.

We would like to think that researchers are the pinnacle of objectivity and driven by purely scientific motives. However, researchers are also humans (surprise!) and restricted by the same cognitive boundaries and self-serving motivations as people in general. Over the past decade, there have been widespread discussions about the credibility of scientific claims due to a number of high-profile cases of scientific misconduct, low replication rates across several academic fields 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and empirical evidence that the use of questionable research practices is surprisingly common 5 , 6 , 7 . To improve scientific research, we need to better understand the social and psychological mechanisms that contribute to the continued use of bad and questionable research practices. The need to explore how external and internal factors influence scientific activities was also recently highlighted in a call for the “psychology of science” 8 . Here, we investigate researchers’ beliefs about the extent to which they, and researchers in their field, follow good research practice, relative to other researchers. Our findings suggest that researchers on average hold inflated beliefs about their own research ethicality and the research ethicality of their field. In other words, researchers are not immune to ordinary psychological processes such as self-enhancement, which influence ethical decision-making.

People do not always behave ethically, even when they intend to do so. For example, we fail to help others in need 9 and overclaim credit for group work 10 . The concept of bounded ethicality has been used to explain these and other phenomena in which there is a gap between people’s intended and their actual ethical behavior 11 , 12 . Bounded ethicality refers to “the systematic and ordinary psychological processes of enhancing and protecting our ethical self-view, which automatically, dynamically, and cyclically influence the ethicality of decision-making” 12 . Specifically, according to Chugh and Kern’s 12 model of bounded ethicality, people are motivated to view themselves as ethical, and to uphold this self-view we engage in self-enhancement and self-protection. Which of these two processes are activated at a given time depends on the perceived level of self-threat. If self-threat is low, we engage in self-enhancement, by which we view our ethical behaviors as more ethical than they actually are and our unethical behaviors as less unethical than they actually are. For example, people tend to rate themselves as higher than others on a number of traits associated with being ethical 13 , 14 , to make overly positive predictions of how ethically they are likely to behave 15 , and to believe that their own moral behavior reflects something about themselves while their immoral behavior is due to circumstances 16 . Self-enhancement increases our positive self-view, but over time may lead to a slippery slope of increasingly unethical behavior as we fail to see the ethical implications of our own decisions.

The tendency to self-enhance and self-protect is also a defining feature of Homo Ignorans (“neglecting man”), which refers to humans’ choice to avoid, neglect, and distort information that poses a threat to one’s identity 17 , 18 . Enhancing and protecting one’s self-view can have benefits on an individual level, for example, by promoting and protecting one's confidence and self-esteem 19 . However, it can have harmful effects on a collective level, where it may lead to increased polarization between groups, escalating conflicts and undermining cooperation, whether in political, cultural, or academic contexts.

In this study, we investigate whether researchers exhibit a self-enhancing bias in their perceptions of the extent to which they follow good research practice. Specifically, we asked researchers to rate (a) the extent to which they follow good research practice compared to other researchers in their field, and (b) the extent to which researchers in their field follow good research practice compared to researchers in other fields. Given that people have a general tendency to rate themselves as better than others on favorable traits and skills 20 , 21 and strive to maintain an ethical self-view 11 , 12 , we predicted that researchers would rate themselves as following good research practice to a greater extent than other researchers in their field. This hypothesis is in line with results from surveys on research misbehavior and questionable research practices showing higher frequencies for observed behavior than for self-reported behaviors 7 .

We also predicted that researchers would rate researchers within their field as following good research practice to a greater extent than researchers in other fields. This hypothesis is in line with the idea that perceptions of in-group members are closely tied to self-perceptions—extending enhancement tendencies to individuals whom one is invested in 22 , 23 , 24 . In addition, individuals tend to exaggerate the relative importance of reaching the goals of one’s in-group over those of out-groups 25 . These exaggerations of goal importance are associated with the perception that one is justified to cut corners or behave unethically to reach those goals. In-group effects based on gender and seniority have previously been found among researchers, indicating a tendency to apply positive traits to other researchers who share one’s identity to a larger extent than to researchers from out-groups 26 . Here, we focus on shared identities based on academic discipline, which become established over time by learning the discipline-specific set of ways to think about and study the world. These discipline-based social identities strengthen over time by focusing on the similarities within fields and exaggerating the divides between them, resulting in academic silos 27 . Thus, researchers may view researchers in their field as more ethical than other researchers because they are highly identified with their discipline and strive to protect their identity as an (ethical) academic.

Materials and methods

Our methods, hypotheses, and data analysis plan were preregistered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/f453z .

Sample and study design

The data were collected in a survey sent out to 33,290 Swedish researchers. The survey was distributed by the public agency Statistics Sweden. We used a total population sampling approach, inviting all individuals who met the following three criteria: 1) are registered in the Swedish population register, 2) have a PhD degree or are currently a PhD student, and 3) are hired at a Swedish university or higher learning facility. This last criterion only included state-funded educational institutions. Invitations to the study were sent out in September 2022 by postal mail and digital mailbox with a link to the web-based survey. Three reminders were sent out. Data collection was stopped in December 2022. Participants were able to view the survey in Swedish or English. In addition to the measures collected for the purposes of this study, the survey contained several different measures relating to ethical research behavior. To ensure readability, the survey underwent an initial pilot phase with a group of researchers who provided feedback. To further refine clarity, the survey underwent a metrological review by Statistics Sweden prior to the commencement of data collection.

In total 11,050 researchers responded, resulting in a response rate of 33.2%. Demographic and occupational variables were accessed from national registries and connected to individual survey responses by Statistics Sweden. Academic field included the 6 OECD categories: Natural sciences, Engineering and Technology, Medical and Health Sciences, Agricultural and Veterinary sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities and the Arts. As specified in our preregistration, this variable was re-coded into a 4-level factor by including researchers from Engineering and Technology and Agricultural and Veterinary sciences as part of the broader category Natural sciences. Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample between genders, age, academic fields, and employment categories. The sample was close to representative of the sampling frame (i.e., the full population of researchers in Sweden) with regards to these variables, apart from slightly lower response frequencies for younger researchers and PhD students. Supplementary Table S1 shows response rates among different demographic and occupational characteristics.

After answering a series of questions about research ethics, respondents were presented with a description of good research practice taken from the Swedish Research Council 28 . The description outlined 8 general rules for good research practice: (1) To tell the truth about one’s research; (2) To consciously review and report the basic premises of one’s studies; (3) To openly account for one’s methods and results; (4) To openly account for one’s commercial interests and other associations; 5) To not make unauthorized use of the research results of others; (6) To keep one’s research organized, for example through documentation and filing; (7) Striving to conduct one’s research without doing harm to people, animals or the environment; and (8) To be fair in one’s judgement of others’ research. After reading this description, respondents were asked two questions: (1) In your role as a researcher, to what extent do you perceive yourself as following good research practices—compared to other researchers in your field? (2) To what extent do you perceive researchers within your field as following good research practices–compared to researchers within other fields? Each item was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 =  Much less than other researchers to 7 =  Much more than other researchers , with 4 =  As much as other researchers as the midpoint. The full survey is available on the OSF page for the overarching (parent) project ( https://osf.io/hw8zf/ ).

Data analysis

All analyses were performed using R 29 . Our main analyses consist of two-sided one-sample t-tests (coded as linear regressions) for each of the main measures, with the scale midpoint (i.e., 4) as the reference point. In addition, we ran linear regressions for each of the two main measures, predicting the difference between ratings and the midpoint of the scale by age and a binary coded gender variable. Confidence intervals for regression estimates were bootstrapped using the bootstrap percentile method with 10,000 replications, to address potential issues with non-normality. To illustrate potential differences in the effect between academic fields, we calculated effect sizes and confidence intervals for each field. All analyses specified in the pre-registration were followed without deviations or unreported exclusions. All respondents without missing data for the relevant analyses were included.

Ethics statement

We consulted the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and it was concluded that research of the kind that is conducted in this project is not covered by the Swedish Ethical Review Act (2003:460) and therefore ethical approval is not required. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants gave informed consent.

Do researchers rate themselves as following good practice more than others in their field?

The top panel of Fig.  1 shows the distribution of ratings when comparing oneself to other researchers in one’s field. Although many respondents (55%) rated themselves as following good research practice as much as their peers, practically no one (less than 1% of respondents) rated themselves as following good practice less than their peers. The remainder of the sample (about 44%) rated themselves as following good practice to a greater extent than other researchers in their field. On average, respondents rated themselves as 0.65 scale points higher than the scale midpoint, t (10,905) = 77.25, p  < 0.001. This difference translates into an effect size of Cohen’s d  = 0.74, 95% CI = [0.70, 0.78]. The effect remained when controlling for age and gender ( B  = 0.65, 95% bootstrapped CI = [0.58, 0.71], t (10,903) = 18.78, p  < 0.001; see Table 2 for full regression output).

Distributions of ratings of research ethicality. Top panel: comparisons between oneself and researchers in one’s field, n  = 10,906. Bottom panel: comparisons between researchers in one’s field and those in other fields, n  = 10,816.

The effect was consistent across the four academic fields, varying from a Cohen’s d of 0.60 for respondents within Humanities and Arts to a d of 0.88 for respondents within Medical and Health sciences (see Fig.  2 , top panel). Exploratory analyses of effect sizes at the second level categorization of academic fields showed that all 38 subfields showed a positive effect in the range between Cohen’s d 0.50–0.94 (see Supplementary Fig. S2 ). Note, however, that for 2 of 38 subfields the 95% confidence intervals for d crossed 0. Only academic subfields with 30 or more respondents were included into these analyses.

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the full sample and divided by academic field. Top panel: comparisons between oneself and researchers in one’s field. Bottom panel: comparisons between researchers in one's field and in other fields.

Do researchers rate researchers in their own field as following good practice more than researchers in other fields?

The bottom panel of Fig.  1 shows the distribution of ratings when comparing researchers in one’s field to researchers in other fields. Again, many respondents (63%) rated researchers in their field as following good practice as much as researchers in other fields, but only a small proportion (about 8% of respondents) rated researchers in their field as following good practice less than researchers in other fields. The remainder of the sample (29%) rated their field as following good practice more than other fields. The overall mean rating was 0.31 scale points higher than the scale midpoint, t (10,815) = 36.76, p  < 0.001, d  = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.32, 0.39]. The effect remained but was slightly smaller when controlling for age and gender in a linear regression model ( B  = 0.24, 95% bootstrapped CI = [0.17, 0.31], t (10,813) = 6.87, p  < 0.001; see Table 2 ). The change is explained by females on average giving slightly higher ratings than males ( B  = 0.06, 95% bootstrapped CI = [0.02, 0.09], t (10,813) = 3.27, p  = 0.001). Age was not a statistically significant predictor.

The effect was consistent across the four academic fields, varying between a Cohen’s d of 0.32 for respondents in the Social sciences to a d of 0.41 for respondents in the Medical and Health sciences (see Fig.  2 , bottom panel). Exploratory analyses of effect sizes at the second level categorization of academic fields showed a large degree of variation. While all of the 38 subfields (with 30 or more respondents) showed a positive Cohen’s d , the effect size ranged between 0.07 and 0.74 (see Supplementary Fig. S4 ) and for 16/38 subfields the 95% confidence intervals crossed zero.

As exploratory analyses we also preregistered correlational analysis between ratings of oneself (vs. one's field) and ratings of one's field (vs. other fields), which showed a positive correlation of r (10,793) = 0.14, p  < 001.

We conducted a large-scale survey of 11,050 researchers and found that researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. Given that it is statistically impossible for the majority of a group to be better than the group median, our results suggest that researchers on average have inflated beliefs about their own research ethicality and the research ethicality of their field. It is worth noting that many respondents rated themselves as following good research practice as much as their peers, thus not self-enhancing relative to others; but the effect we observed occurred on the aggregate level. Importantly, the effect was consistent across all academic fields, although researchers working within Medical and Health Sciences displayed the largest effects both for perceptions about themselves and for perceptions about researchers within their field. Our findings add to the existing literature on the prevalence and predictors of questionable research practices 5 , 6 , 7 , by suggesting that researchers are not immune to ordinary psychological processes such as self-enhancement, which influence the ethicality of decision-making.

According to Chugh and Kern’s 12 model of bounded ethicality, self-enhancement contributes to the maintenance of an ethical self-view but leads to increasingly unethical behavior over time. Thus, one could speculate that inflated beliefs about one’s research ethicality may lead researchers to underestimate the ethical implications of the decisions they make and to sometimes be blind to their own ethical failures. For example, researchers may downplay their own questionable practices but exaggerate those of other researchers, perhaps especially researchers outside their field. Such distortion of information may be comfortable on an individual level in that it protects one’s (academic) identity, but on a collective level it may contribute to increased academic polarization that hinders constructive discourse, collaboration, and the pursuit of shared knowledge between researchers and academic disciplines. Thus, the finding that inflated beliefs extend to one’s academic discipline could help explain why interdisciplinary collaboration is so difficult to maintain. In addition, self-enhancement may be especially likely to lead to less ethical behavior among researchers who win the “academic game”. That is, researchers who believe they are superior to others in terms of research ethicality may be especially likely to engage in questionable research practices (because they may not see the ethical implications of their behaviors), and these practices are positively reinforced for researchers who also succeed in their career (e.g., who get tenure, publish in prestigious journals, etc.). Furthermore, if we believe ourselves to be more ethical than others in terms of our research practices, then we are less likely to pay attention to information and guidelines aimed at counteracting questionable research practices, because such information and guidelines will appear to be directed to someone else and not to ourselves.

How can people’s inflated ethical self-views be “de-biased” and ethical behavior be increased? According to Chugh and Kern's model of bounded ethicality, people continue to engage in self-enhancement as long as the perceived threat to one’s ethical self-view is low 12 . However, if the perceived self-threat is high, people will engage in self-protective processes, leading them to either behave more ethically (a primary control mechanism) or continue to behave unethically but reframe or justify the behavior (e.g., by placing the responsibility for any negative consequences of the unethical behavior in someone else’s hands; a secondary control mechanism). Thus, one way to increase ethical behavior is to ”nudge” people out of self-enhancement and into self-protection, and, once there, to increase people’s moral awareness (to activate primary rather than secondary control mechanisms). In the context of scientific research, several measures have been proposed (and to some degree implemented) to increase researchers’ moral awareness. These include, for example, affirmative disclosure statements for conflicts of interest 30 and for methodological practices 31 . Moreover, pre-registration of hypotheses and analysis plans can be one way to constrain researchers' ethical degrees of freedom in a research climate that incentivizes researchers to cut corners to achieve academic success. Overall, structural and cultural changes leading to increased transparency of research practices ought to increase self-threat and, by extension, ethical research behavior.

As with any study, some limitations are warranted. Firstly, although the survey was distributed to all researchers in Sweden via a government agency, we cannot rule out the possibility of self-selection bias. One could speculate that those who chose not to respond might be more likely to rate themselves below average in research ethicality, resulting in an overestimation of the true effect size in the present study. On the other hand, it seems less likely that such self-selection bias would influence ratings of one’s field compared to other fields. Secondly, although the better-than-average effect has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts and is a well-replicated finding 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , it is difficult to extrapolate to what extent responses on the types of scales used in this literature reflect overconfidence or self-serving bias. Benoît and Dubra 36 argue that a population of completely rational individuals—who accurately update their beliefs in the light of available information—can display beliefs that can be (mis)interpreted as overconfidence or underconfidence. In particular, studies of better-than-average effects rarely ask about the strength of people’s beliefs, which complicates the interpretation of results. Better-than-average effects also tend to be larger for positive (vs. negative) attributes and when using the direct method (by which participants rate themselves compared to an average other on one single response scale) compared to the indirect method (by which participants rate themselves and the average other on two separate scales 34 ;). Hence, it is an open question whether we would obtain effects of the same magnitude if we asked about engagement in un ethical research practices, relative to others.

The spotlight of the ongoing credibility crisis in science is often on the extreme and clear-cut cases of research misconduct. However, there is a more pressing concern that goes beyond high-profile incidents of research fraud and data fabrication. It pertains to the "everyday" questionable research practices—instances where researchers who want to uphold research ethical principles breach those same principles, often without being aware of it. The current study speaks to this issue. John et al. 6 refer to questionable research practices as “ the steroids of scientific competition” . In a world where questionable research practices inadvertently are rewarded, researchers who strictly play by the rules find themselves at a disadvantage. On an everyday basis, researchers are faced with the dilemma of whether they should do what is best for themselves and their career or what is best for scientific progress. Therefore, research ethics should not primarily be about pointing fingers at others, but about looking at oneself in the mirror. We are all boundedly ethical researchers who sometimes breach our own research ethical standards. To restore science’s credibility, we need to create incentive structures, institutions, and communities that foster ethical humility and encourage us to be our most ethical selves in an academic system that otherwise incentivizes us to be bad.

Data availability

Data for this study are openly accessible at https://osf.io/ku9nd/ .

Code availability

All analysis code needed to reproduce the study’s main analyses are publicly available on the project’s OSF repository ( https://osf.io/ku9nd/ ). In addition, the uploaded HTML-document includes output, packages, and package versions.

Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351 , 1433–1436 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 637–644 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Errington, T. M. et al. Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. eLife 10 , e71601 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 , 4716 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Gopalakrishna, G. et al. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE 17 , e0263023 (2022).

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23 , 524–532 (2012).

Xie, Y., Wang, K. & Kong, Y. Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 27 , 41 (2021).

Aczel, B. Why we need a ‘psychology of science’. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8 , 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01786-4 (2024).

Darley, J. M. & Latane, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 8 , 377–383 (1968).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Caruso, E. M., Epley, N. & Bazerman, M. H. The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 857–871 (2006).

Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H. & Banaji, M. R. Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest. in Conflicts of Interest (eds. Moore, D. A., Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G. & Bazerman, M. H.) 74–95 (Cambridge University Press, 2005). doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610332.006 .

Chugh, D. & Kern, M. C. A dynamic and cyclical model of bounded ethicality. Res. Organ. Behav. 36 , 85–100 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Tappin, B. M. & McKay, R. T. The illusion of moral superiority. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8 , 623–631 (2017).

Tenbrunsel, A. E. Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Acad. Manage. J. 41 , 330–339 (1998).

Epley, N. & Dunning, D. Feeling ‘holier than thou’: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 , 861–875 (2000).

Han, K. & Kim, M. Y. Mechanism of the better-than-average effect in moral issues: Asymmetrical causal attribution across moral (vs. immoral) contexts. Acta Psychol. 226 , 103575 (2022).

Tinghög, G., Barrafrem, K. & Västfjäll, D. The good, bad and ugly of information (un)processing; Homo economicus, homo heuristicus and homo ignorans. J. Econ. Psychol. 94 , 102574 (2023).

Hertwig, R. & Engel, C. Homo ignorans: Deliberately choosing not to know. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 , 359–372 (2016).

Loewenstein, G. & Molnar, A. The renaissance of belief-based utility in economics. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 166–167 (2018).

Alicke, M. D. & Govorun, O. The Better-Than-Average Effect. in The Self in Social Judgment (eds. Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A. & Krueger, J.) 85–106 (Psychology Press, 2005).

Svenson, O. Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?. Acta Psychol. 47 , 143–148 (1981).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J. & Vredenburg, D. S. Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68 , 804–825 (1995).

Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: Historical overview and conceptual framework. in Handbook of Self-Enhancement and Self-Protection (eds. Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C.) 1–19 (Guilford Press, 2010).

Perloff, L. S. & Fetzer, B. K. Self–other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 , 502–510 (1986).

Hoyt, C. L., Price, T. L. & Emrick, A. E. Leadership and the more-important-than-average effect: Overestimation of group goals and the justification of unethical behavior. Leadership 6 , 391–407 (2010).

Veldkamp, C. L. S., Hartgerink, C. H. J., Van Assen, M. A. L. M. & Wicherts, J. M. Who believes in the storybook image of the scientist?. Account. Res. 24 , 127–151 (2017).

Poole, G. Academic Disciplines: Homes or Barricades? in The University and its Disciplines: Teaching and Learning Within and Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries (ed. Kreber, C.) 74–81 (Routledge, 2009).

Swedish Research Council. Good research practice. (2017).

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2022).

Dana, J., Loewenstein, G. & Weber, R. Ethical immunity: How people violate their own moral standards without feeling they are doing so. in Behavioral Business Ethics: Shaping an Emerging Field (eds. De Cremer, D. & Tenbrunsel, A. E.) 197–214 (Routledge, 2011).

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. A 21 word solution. SSRN Scholarly Paper at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588 (2012).

Koppel, L., Andersson, D., Tinghög, G., Västfjäll, D. & Feldman, G. We are all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers: Successful replication and extension of Svenson (1981). Meta-Psychol. 7 , (2023).

Korbmacher, M., Kwan, C. & Feldman, G. Both better and worse than others depending on difficulty: Replication and extensions of Kruger’s (1999) above and below average effects. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17 , 449–486 (2022).

Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 146 , 118–149 (2020).

Ziano, I., Mok, P. Y. & Feldman, G. Replication and extension of Alicke (1985) better-than-average effect for desirable and controllable traits. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12 , 1005–1017 (2021).

Benoît, J.-P. & Dubra, J. Apparent overconfidence. Econometrica 79 , 1591–1625 (2011).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Erika Bergentz at Statistics Sweden for help during the data collection. Funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by Linköping University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Economics, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden

Amanda M. Lindkvist, Lina Koppel & Gustav Tinghög

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.L., L.K., and G.T. designed the study together. A.L analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript together with L.K. and G.T. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustav Tinghög .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

All authors declare no conflicting interests that could have appeared to influence the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lindkvist, A.M., Koppel, L. & Tinghög, G. Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice. Sci Rep 14 , 3050 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53450-0

Download citation

Received : 20 November 2023

Accepted : 31 January 2024

Published : 06 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53450-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 17 February 2020

Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour

• Jean Gabriel Guerrero-Dib   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3150-9363 1 ,
• Luis Portales   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1508-7826 1 &
• Yolanda Heredia-Escorza   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7300-1918 2  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  16 , Article number:  2 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

76k Accesses

59 Citations

12 Altmetric

Metrics details

Corruption is a serious problem in Mexico and the available information regarding the levels of academic dishonesty in Mexico is not very encouraging. Academic integrity is essential in any teaching-learning process focussed on achieving the highest standards of excellence and learning. Promoting and experiencing academic integrity within the university context has a twofold purpose: to achieve the necessary learnings and skills to appropriately perform a specific profession and to develop an ethical perspective which leads to correct decision making. The objective of this study is to explore the relationship between academic integrity and ethical behaviour, particularly workplace behaviour. The study adopts a quantitative, hypothetical and deductive approach. A questionnaire was applied to 1203 college students to gather information regarding the frequency in which they undertake acts of dishonesty in different environments and in regards to the severity they assign to each type of infraction. The results reflect that students who report committing acts against academic integrity also report being involved in dishonest activities in other contexts, and that students who consider academic breaches less serious, report being engaged in academic misconduct more frequently in different contexts. In view of these results, it is unavoidable to reflect on the role that educational institutions and businesses can adopt in the development of programmes to promote a culture of academic integrity which: design educational experiences to foster learning, better prepare students to fully meet their academic obligations, highlight the benefits of doing so, prevent the severity and consequences of dishonest actions, discourage cheating and establish clear and efficient processes to sanction those students who are found responsible for academic breaches.

Introduction

Corruption and dishonesty are deeply rooted problems and have a long history in many countries and communities and Mexico is no exception. There is usually more attention given to corrupt activities perpetrated by government authorities and public officers. The fact that many of these instances of corruption are carried out with the collusion of private sector businesses and individuals is largely ignored. Private citizens themselves are usually involved in corrupt activities where they can gain a personal benefit through the abuse of their position of power or authority (Rose-Ackerman and Palifka 2016 ).

Rose-Ackerman and Palifka ( 2016 ) affirm that personal ethical standards are one of the three categories of causes that promote corruption. This moral “compass” develops through a long and complex educational process which starts at home and, we could say, ends with death. Education becomes one of the key elements in the global strategy for the promotion of a culture of integrity and the fight against corruption. It is difficult to think that education can contribute efficiently if the phenomenon of academic dishonesty exists within the educational sphere. To develop a moral compass, it is not enough to know what has to be done, it is essential to do good (Amilburu 2005 ).

In almost every educational system in the world, it is a widely held view that all people must receive mandatory basic education, thus, almost all children and youths are subject to experience -or not experience- academic integrity during their education, a period that is long enough to develop habits. Daily behaviours during these mainly formative years may be considered as the standard that can perpetuate itself over time (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo 2015 ).

In addition to the work carried out by the basic educational system, the university must fully form and develop the moral vision and purpose of its students, since it is not possible to consider professional education separate from ethical formation. Being a professional must include not only mastery of technical, practical and/or theoretical competencies, but also personal integrity and ethical professional behaviour that helps to give an ethical meaning to all university endeavours (Bolívar 2005 ). In so doing, academic integrity is necessary to learn and an essential requirement of academic quality.

Academic integrity is much more than avoiding dishonest practices such as copying during exams, plagiarizing or contract cheating; it implies an engagement with learning and work which is well done, complete, and focused on a good purpose – learning. It also involves using appropriate means, genuine effort and good skills. Mainly it implies diligently taking advantage of all learning experiences. From this perspective, experiencing and promoting academic integrity in the university context has a twofold purpose: achieving the learning intended to develop the necessary competencies and skills for a specific profession and, more importantly, developing an ethical perspective for principled decision making applicable to any context (Bolívar 2005 ).

Orosz et al. ( 2018 ) identified a strong relationship between academic dishonesty and the level of corruption of a country. Other studies (Blankenship and Whitley 2000 ; Harding et al. 2004 ; Laduke 2013 ; Nonis and Swift 2001 ; Sims 1993 ) demonstrate that students who engage in dishonest activities in the academic context, particularly undergraduate students, are more likely to demonstrate inappropriate behaviours during their professional life and vice versa.

From this point of view one can say that: the individual who is used to cheating in college, has a higher probability of doing so in the professional and work fields (Harding et al. 2004 ; Payan et al. 2010 ; Sims 1993 ).

Taking these studies in other parts of the world as a reference, the objective of the current work is to determine the relationship between the most frequent academic dishonesty practices, or lack of academic integrity amongst college students, and their predisposition to demonstrate ethical behaviour at work and in their daily lives within the Mexican context.

This research paper is divided into four sections. The first one presents a brief review of literature on academic integrity, academic dishonesty and its relationship with workplace ethical behaviour. The second section presents the methodology followed during the study, considering the design and validation of the instrument, data gathering, and the generation of academic dishonesty and ethical behaviour indexes. The third section shows the results of the analysis and its discussion. The last section displays a series of conclusions for the research presented, as well as its limitations and scope.

Literature review

• Academic integrity

According to Bosch and Cavallotti ( 2016 ), the term integrity has four common elements that are included in the different ways to describe it: justice, coherence, ethical principles and appropriate motivation. Thus, a definition in accordance to this concept would be to act with justice and coherence, following ethical principles and a motivation focused on good purposes. In the educational context, academic integrity could be understood as the habit of studying and carrying out academic work with justice and coherence, seeking to learn and to be motivated by the service that this learning can provide others. However, there has been a wide variety of interpretations about this concept (Fishman 2016 ).

The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), conceptualizes academic integrity as a series of basic principles which are the foundation for success in any aspect of life and represent essential elements that allow achievement of the necessary learning which enable the future student to face and overcome any personal and professional challenges (International Center for Academic Integrity 2014 ).

Academic integrity is considered a fundamental quality for every academic endeavour, essential in any teaching-learning process focused on achieving the highest standards of excellence and learning and thus, it must represent a goal to which every academic institution, seriously engaged in quality, must aspire to (Bertram-Gallant 2016 ). Enacting academic integrity means taking action with responsibility, honesty, respect, trust, fairness, and courage in any activity related to academic work and avoiding any kind of cheating or dishonest action even when the work is especially difficult (International Center for Academic Integrity 2014 ).

The current approaches to academic integrity provide ideas offering a conceptual framework, but there is still the need to specify concrete academic integrity behaviours characteristic of students such as: speaking the truth, complying with classes and assignments, carrying out activities by their own efforts, following the instructions given, providing answers on exams with only the material approved, citing and giving credit to others’ work, and collaborating fairly during teamwork assignments (Hall and Kuh 1998 ; Von Dran et al. 2001 ). To these “observable” behaviours we must add a condition: that they must be preceded by the desire to learn in order to call them genuine manifestations of academic integrity (Olt 2002 ; Sultana 2018 ).

Despite the importance of the academic integrity concept, in most cases it is common to find an explanation of the concept in more negative terms that refers to behaviours that should be avoided. The general idea expressed in most honor codes is that academic integrity is to do academic work avoiding dishonesty, fraud or misconduct.

Dishonesty and academic fraud

Stephens ( 2016 ) argues that the problem of cheating is endemic and is at the root of human nature, thus it should not be surprising that it occurs. It is a strategy, conscious or not, used by humans to solve a problem. However, recognizing that cheating has always existed should not foster a passive and pessimistic attitude since human beings have a conscience that enables them to discern ethical behaviours from those that are not.

Understanding the phenomenon of dishonesty is important since the strategies used to try to counteract it will depend on this. For example, if dishonesty is considered a genetic disorder that some people suffer, the way to deal with it would be to identify those who suffer from it, supervise them, segregate them and/or try to “treat” them. If it is a common deficiency that everyone experiences to a greater or smaller degree, other kinds of tactics should be used to counteract it (Ariely 2013 ).

In general terms, there are different types of academic dishonesty that may be grouped into four major categories:

Copying. Copying or attempting to copy from a classmate during an examination or assessment.

Plagiarism. Copying, paraphrasing or using another author’s ideas without citing or giving the corresponding credit to them.

Collusion. Collaboration with someone else’s dishonesty, and includes not reporting dishonest actions which have been witnessed. The most representative actions of this type of misconduct are: submitting assignments on behalf of classmates, allowing others to copy from you during an exam and including the names of people who did not participate in teamwork assignments or projects.

Cheating. Among the most common actions in this category we find: using notes, technology or other forbidden materials during an exam; including non-consulted references; inventing or making up data in assignments or lab reports; contract cheating; distributing or commercializing exams or assignments; submitting apocryphal documents; impersonating another student’s identity; stealing exams; altering grades; bribing individuals to improve grades.

The list is not exhaustive since it does not include every possible type of dishonesty. Every situation creates unique circumstances and different nuances so it should not be surprising that the emergence of “new” ways to threaten academic integrity arise (Bertram-Gallant 2016 ). Students’ creativity and the continual development of technology will cause different manifestations of academic fraud (Gino and Ariely 2012 ), a fact that has been documented in university contexts in the past.

The results of recent research show that 66% of students have engaged in some type of academic misconduct at least once during their university education (Lang 2013 ). There are similar results in other studies carried out around the world. In the Mexican case, 84% of students in a Mexican university have witnessed a dishonest action during their education (UDEM 2018 ), and 6 out of 10 at another university have engaged in some kind of copying (UNAM 2013 ). In Colombia, a private university reported that 63% of the students accepted the addition of the name of a classmate that did not collaborate actively on a team assignment (EAFIT 2016 ). In England, half of the students would be willing to buy an assignment (Rigby et al. 2015 ). In Ukraine, 82% of students have used non-authorized support during exams (Stephens et al. 2010 ). While in China, 71% of students at one university admit to having copied a homework assignment from his/her classmates (Ma et al. 2013 ).

Academic dishonesty and its relationship with the lack of ethical professional behaviour

Establishing a relationship between the level of corruption in a country and the level of academic dishonesty in its educational institutions is a difficult task to carry out since fraud and corruption have many different forms and causes, particularly in complex contexts such as the social dynamics of a country (International Transparency 2017 ). However, it can be established that academic dishonesty is a manifestation of a culture in which it is easy and common to break rules and where integrity is not as valued as it should be. Under this logic, it is possible to establish a certain relationship between a poor civic culture and academic dishonesty (García-Villegas et al. 2016 ).

This poor civic culture tends to be reflected in the daily activities of the citizens, particularly within organizations, where a relationship between students who cheat and unethical behaviour in the workplace has been identified (Winrow 2015 ). From this point of view, integrity and ethical behaviour, expressed in different terms such as decision making, conflict resolution or accountability, is one of the competencies most requested by employers (Kavanagh and Drennan 2008 ) and one of the critical factors needed to efficiently develop inter-organizational relationships of trust (Connelly et al. 2018 ). This is the reason behind the study, the understanding of this relationship.

A study carried out with 1051 students from six North American universities concluded that students who considered academic dishonesty as acceptable tended to engage in such activities and the same individuals tended to show unethical behaviour later during their professional lives (Nonis and Swift 2001 ). In another study with Engineering students, it was found that those who self-reported having engaged in dishonest actions, also carried it out in the professional field, which suggests that unethical behaviour shown at the college level continued into professional life (Harding et al. 2004 ). Findings of another study carried out at a nursing school demonstrated that students who showed academic dishonesty had a greater incidence of dishonest behaviour once they worked as health professionals (Laduke 2013 ).

In a study carried out with 284 psychology students who reported having engaged in some kind of academic dishonesty, specifically having copied during exams and lying in order to meet their obligations during their college education, also reported participating in actions considered illegal or unethical within the context of the research, specifically those related to substance abuse - alcohol and drugs, risky driving, lying and other sort of illegal behaviours. This data suggests that, besides the contextual factors, there are also individual causes such as attitudes, perceptions and personality traits that can influence the individual’s behaviour in different aspects of their lives (Blankenship and Whitley 2000 ).

In one of the most recent studies, where data from 40 countries was collected, a strong relationship was identified between the self-reporting “copying in exams” of the student population and the level of corruption of the country, expressed in the corruption perception index published by Transparency International (Orosz et al. 2018 ).

Despite the increase in the number of studies related to academic integrity and ethical behaviour in the companies in different parts of the world since the 1990s, it has not been possible to identify any research in Mexico that explores the relationship between the ethical behaviour of an individual in his/her different life stages, as a college student and as a professional; or to put it differently, between academic integrity and ethical performance in the workplace.

Methodology

This study followed a quantitative approach under a hypothetic - deductive approach. Since there is no suitable instrument available that explores the relationship between academic integrity and ethical behaviour, one designed for this study was used. It was based on questions from previous research instruments.

The “International Center for Academic Integrity” (ICAI) perception survey, created by Donald McCabe and applied to more than 90,000 students in the United States and Canada (McCabe 2016 ) was adapted with the addition of a section of questions related to personal and workplace ethical behaviour.

The McCabe survey ( 2016 ) consists of 35 questions that can be grouped into four sections. The first one explores the characteristics of the academic integrity programme, the educational atmosphere in general and the way in which the community is informed and trained in regards to current regulations. The second one requests information about the students’ behaviour. It specifically asks about the frequency with which students are involved in dishonest activities at the moment and in previous academic levels, how severe they considered each kind of misconduct and their perception in regards to the level of peer participation in actions against integrity. The third section collects the opinions of the students regarding different statements related to academic work, faculty and students’ engagement in the development of an academic integrity culture, strategies to fight dishonesty, the degree of social approval towards academic fraud, its impact and the perception of fairness in managing the cases of misconduct. The last group included demographic questions that contained basic information about the person answering the survey. The students were asked to provide their age, gender, marital status, nationality, place of residence, accumulated grade point average (GPA), programme he/she studies and the number of years at the university.

A section was added to this survey (Additional file  1 ) addressing the professional ethical behavioural construct. In this section, items from questionnaires described in Table  1 were used; all related to self-reporting of ethical behaviour. An additional validation was carried out for this instrument section through the assessment of experts from the internal control area of different companies and industries.

Except for a couple of open questions, the rest of the items used responses built under a five-point Likert scale to categorize their judgments in regards to the statements suggested. There are two types of responses used specifically: from totally agree to totally disagree about the perceptions and opinions; and always or never in the case of self-reported behaviours.

The responses were recorded automatically in the data base of the SurveyMonkey technology tool and values were assigned to each one of the responses in order to calculate an index per response, assigning a value of 5 to “Totally agree” and 1 to “Totally disagree” in a positive or favorable statement, and vice-versa, 1 and 5 respectively, in a negative or unfavorable statement.

The sample considers 1203 undergraduate and graduate students from a private university in northern Mexico who chose to respond to their professors’ invitations to answer the survey as part of a diagnostic exercise that the university carries out periodically to learn about the students’ perceptions regarding the degree of academic integrity culture on their campus. The participants were 51% women and 49% men. From them, 31% were in their first year, 25% the second year, 26% the third year, 11% the fourth year and only 7% had been studying for five or more years. Nearly 70% of the students still lived in their parents’ homes and 42% reported having a good or outstanding average grade (higher than 80 over 100).

Once the data was collected, the internal validation of the instrument was done and indexes were generated for each one of the variables introduced into the model, through a factorial analysis of the main components. This type of analysis studies the relationship between a set of indicators or variables observed and one or more factors related to the research to obtain evidence and thus, validate the theoretical model (Hayton et al. 2004 ).

In order to define the indexes related to academic fraud and ethical behaviour there were three factorial analyses carried out, which took as selection criteria eigenvalues higher than one and varimax component rotation with the purpose to maximize the variances explained for each response and identify the items that represented the factors identified by the analysis itself in a linear way (Thompson 2004 ).

The first analysis considered questions related to the level of frequency with which specific dishonest actions were carried out. It included 27 items or questions in total, and five components accounted for 66.33% of the variance, with a KMO (Kaiser, Meyer and Olkin) of 0.955 and being significant for the Bartlett’s sphericity test, a fact that shows the internal consistency of the indicator and its statistical validity. The five components were classified according to the weight that each question had in the rotated and stored components matrix such as regression variables to generate an indicator for each of them (Table 5 in Appendix). These indicators were defined as frequency in: 1) cheating in general, 2) copying in any way, 3) falsifying information, 4) using unauthorized support, and 5) plagiarizing or paraphrasing without citing.

The second analysis took the same criteria of the latter, but it only included the 27 questions related to how severe the misconduct or academic dishonesty was considered. The result was three components that accounted for 67.66% of the variance observed, with a KMO of 0.962 and the Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant. The rotated components were classified and kept as a regression to generate three indicators, related to the perceived severity of: 1) cheating in general, 2) plagiarizing or copying and paraphrasing without citing, and 3) using unauthorized support (Table  6 in Appendix ).

The third factorial analysis included the 47 questions related to the behaviour or ethical attitude of the respondents. This analysis generated six components that accounted for 64.54% of the variance observed, a KMO of 0.963 and the Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant. When analyzing the components generated by the analysis, it was observed that four of them had only two questions with a weight greater than 0.4 in the rotated component matrix. Considering this situation, it was decided to eliminate these questions and a new factorial analysis was carried out considering only 39 questions. The result was two main components that accounted for 58.66% of the variance observed, with a KMO of 0.965 and the Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant. The two components were classified into two indicators: 1) workplace ethical behaviour and, 2) personal ethical behaviour (Table  7 in Appendix ).

Once the indicators for frequency and perceived severity of dishonesty or academic fraud, as well as those related to the behaviour or self-reported ethical attitude (workplace and personal) were generated, a linear regression analysis was carried out to determine how academic dishonesty influences a specific ethical behaviour.

The linear regression analysis took as dependent variables the ones related to ethical behaviour self-reported by the respondents, and the frequency and severity of the academic dishonesty acts reported by the respondents as the independent variables. This analysis was carried out in two stages; the first one considered only the variable of the frequency with which academic dishonesty was reported, and the second one considered the variables related to the severity with which the respondents perceived these actions.

The first analysis took as independent variables the frequency of each component of self-reported academic misconduct: cheating in general, copying in any way, falsifying information, using unauthorized support, and plagiarizing or paraphrasing without citing. The result of the model was significant for the case of workplace ethical behaviour (sig. = 0.001), accounting for only 3.4% of the variance observed (Table  2 ). In terms of analysis by variables, it was found that only the frequency of carrying out any kind of cheating, and copying in any way, had a significant impact on the workplace ethical behaviour of the respondents. The negative coefficient in both cases shows that a frequency reduction in academic misconduct, increased the self-reported workplace ethical behaviour (Table 2 ). The variables for falsifying information, using unauthorized support and plagiarizing didn’t show significance.

In terms of personal ethical behaviour, the model proved significant (sig. = 0.000) explaining 9% of the variance (Table 2 ) thus it may be stated that the severity of academic dishonesty influences personal ethical behaviour. In regards to the impact level that the variables have on personal ethical behaviour, we found that only using unauthorized support did not prove significant. The remaining variables were significant and with negative coefficients, thus we may conclude that the lower the frequency of academic dishonesty reported by the respondents, the higher the reported personal ethical behaviour. In this sense, the variable of cheating in general had a greater weight in this kind of behaviour, followed by falsifying information and lastly plagiarizing.

The obtained results indicate that engaging in academic dishonesty with a greater frequency is directly and negatively related to the respondent’s ethical behaviour and attitude. Therefore, it can be assumed that discouraging students from carrying out academic dishonesty will have a positive effect on their ethical behaviour, both in the work context as well as in their daily lives. In the same way, it was also found that respondents who performed academic dishonest activities less frequently, tended to have better ethical behaviour in general.

It is interesting to observe that the model does little to explain workplace ethical behaviour and that only the variable of cheating in general and copying had significant impacts on this behaviour. While in the case of personal ethical behaviour, academic dishonesty practices occurred more frequently and only the use of unauthorized support had no significant impact. This situation allows us to assume that academic dishonesty practices have a greater impact on daily ethical behaviour but less so in the workplace. This situation can be explained by the fact that organizations have codes of ethics and programmes which guide actions to be carried out by their personnel that are based on specific ethical and moral rules of conduct.

The second regression analysis took as independent variables the ones related to the perceived severity of the respondents in regards to cheating in general, copying and plagiarizing, and using unauthorized support. As in the previous case, the dependent variables were the ones related to the behaviour or ethical attitude in the workplace and in personal contexts. In regards to the workplace, we found that the model proved significant (sig. = 0.000), explaining 10% of the variance observed (Table 3 ). Despite this result, the variable analysis showed that only the cheating in general variable had a significant impact on such behaviour with a positive coefficient, which means that the greater the perceived severity of the misconduct, the better the ethical behaviour within the organization.

In the case of personal ethical behaviour, the model also proved significant (sig. = 0.001), explaining only 5% of the variance observed in the indicator. In the case of workplace ethical behaviour, only the perceived severity of cheating in general variable had a significant impact on personal ethical behaviour. The positive coefficient of this variable enables us to establish that when any type of cheating was rated as severe, respondents tended to have better personal ethical behaviour (Table 3 ).

The findings enable us to recognize the impact that the perceived severity towards cheating in general has on the ethical behaviour of the respondents, since it is the only variable that proved significant in the model. Hence, the extent to which students perceived the committing of any kind of cheating within the university as severe, their behaviour, both inside and outside the workplace, was more ethical.

Additionally, it is interesting to observe that the perception of the severity of cheating, plagiarizing or using any kind of unauthorized help does not have a significant impact on the ethical behaviour self-reported by the respondents. Therefore, it can be assumed that it is not as important to point out the severity of a specific act of academic dishonesty to influence the ethical behaviour of students and professionals, but rather to emphasize the severity of the misconduct that is associated with any act of academic dishonesty.

With the aim to identify the relationship that exists among all the variables of the model (frequency and severity), a third regression was conducted. This regression considered as independent variables, workplace ethical behaviour and personal ethical behaviour, and as dependent variables, the frequency and severity of academic misconduct. Both models, ethical behaviour in the workplace and personal, turned out to be significant. In the case of the workplace ethical behaviour, it was found that the model explains 9.1% of the variance of the indicator, while in the case of personal ethical behaviour, only 7.4% of the variance was explained (Table  4 ). Based on these results, it can be concluded that the lack of academic integrity generally affects people’s ethical behaviour.

It is interesting to note that, in the case of ethical behaviour in the workplace, the only variable that was significant and positive was the severity of widespread dishonesty. That is, those respondents who considered any type of dishonesty as a serious offense had a greater tendency to be ethical in their workplace. This situation may be supported by the fact that academic integrity is presented in institutionalized spaces, such as school, university or business, and where the perception of greater severity tends to limit unethical behaviour within these institutions or organizations.

On the other hand, personal ethical behaviour was significantly influenced by the variables related to committing any act of academic dishonesty in general (frequency and severity). The negative sign in frequency indicates that those who reported having committed less academic dishonesty - whichever it may be - have better ethical behaviour on a personal level. In the same way, those who consider that committing academic dishonesty is something serious, also have a better ethical behaviour on a personal level. Another variable that was significant was the frequency in plagiarism or paraphrasing without citing, in the personal ethical behaviour, being those that had a lower frequency the ones that reported a better ethical behaviour.

The results of this third regression complement the findings of the first two regressions and allow to evidence the specific weight of considering academic dishonesty as a serious fault in people’s ethical behaviour.

Based on the results generated in the previous section, some reflections and conclusions can be drawn related to academic integrity, academic misconduct, and ethical behaviour.

The respondents’ ethical behaviour shows a relationship to the practice of academic dishonesty, both in terms of the frequency with which they carry out these acts, as well as the severity they assign to them. The more severe the students consider an act of academic dishonesty, the more ethically they behave outside of the university. Likewise, it is important to establish measures to discourage or reduce the number of acts of academic misconduct, since the habitual practice of unethical actions may promote a normalization of these behaviours, and reduces a student’s interest in practising ethical behaviours after graduating from college. It is important to disclose a basic assumption, that a person faces ethical dilemmas first, in an educational environment and later, in a workplace context. This situation suggests that, since academic integrity is usually experienced earlier than workplace ethical behaviour in a person’s life, the former may influence the latter.

These results encourage the reflection on the importance of student perceptions about academic dishonesty and the opportunities they have to act on these dishonest practices. Interestingly, in terms of perception, students who have developed a conscience about the severity of any kind of cheating in an academic setting, exhibit a greater degree of ethical behaviour. Likewise, when a student frequently practices academic misconduct shows less ethical behaviour within other contexts. These findings add another reason why higher education institutions should establish systematic programmes focused on promoting a culture of academic integrity to convince students of the severity of these unethical actions, to discourage them from committing them and to punish them if the previous endeavours do not work.

The results of this study suggest that it is not enough to teach academic integrity in a theoretical or conceptual way, but that it is learned and acquired through real contexts and practices, where the prevention or discouragement of gaining benefits through misconduct contributes to student learning and development. This learning goes beyond the classroom and the university context and becomes an ethical behavioural pattern in the work and personal environments. Likewise, organizations should have ethical codes and other elements of a business ethics and compliance programme to foster a culture of integrity and continue the formative process started within educational institutions.

It can be stated that a part of a professional’s ethical behaviour is related to their awareness of the risks or severity of getting involved in academic dishonesty, as well as having the opportunity to engage in these acts. For this reason, it is not enough to convince students of the importance of following integrity criteria, it is also necessary to create an environment where cheating or deceptions are very difficult to practice. It is essential that students are convinced to act with integrity during their college years and that they are made aware of the risks or penalties that come with not doing so. This will strengthen a positive behavioural pattern in different contexts of their lives, and encourage them to become ethical professionals, business people, and citizens.

It is essential for higher education institutions to demonstrate a commitment to building a culture of academic integrity, both in terms of their awareness and their practice, since through them the ethical behaviour of students and future graduates is strengthened and forged. In this respect, the university campus is featured as a favourable environment to train individuals and promote ethical behaviour within and outside the university, meeting its commitment to the community and the world to develop more ethical and engaged citizens who do things well in all aspects of their lives.

Conclusions

There has been little research published regarding the relationship of students perceptions about their behaviour on academic integrity in schoolwork, and on professional performance. This study, like the ones identified previously, points out a relationship that can and should be explored in greater depth. Academic integrity - concept, benefits, strategies - and its counterpart, academic dishonesty - frequency causes, consequences, management - have not received, in México and Latin America, the attention they have earned in other countries and regions.

Considering that corruption is a major problem afflicting Mexican society and that academic dishonesty is related one way or another with corruption, it becomes particularly important to understand the academic dishonesty phenomenon in depth.

In order to achieve this, it is necessary to invest resources to identify the strategies which most effectively promote academic integrity, because doing so, not only prevents fraud and economic losses, but also builds the foundations of a more humane and fair society, resulting in a common interest. Viewed from this perspective, academic integrity is not an issue that should be addressed only within educational institutions, but it should also awaken the interest and the action of the business and production sectors.

Limitations of the research

The instrument used to collect information for this research project was a survey created with the support of others and thus the questions have only been validated in this exercise.

It is a self-reporting tool regarding ethical behaviour, that is, it reflects the self-reported participants’ perceptions of themselves and not about their own behaviours. This situation shows two limitations. The first one is that it does not discuss behaviours per se, but the perception participants have about them. The second limitation is that the results are subjected to the biases of the same person who self-reports. The results depend not only on the “objectivity” of respondent’s perception but also on the sincerity with which each question is answered. Despite the prevailing atmosphere of illegality, it is still desirable to seem somewhat honest to others. Additionally, the application of the survey was done via an electronic format on the personal devices of the participants, which can raise suspicions about the true anonymity of the participants’ responses.

Self-reported surveys leave aside the profound answers related to the causes of correlations found. A qualitative approach to the phenomenon could complement our results and lead to a more in depth analysis of the relationship between corruption and/or unethical behaviour and academic dishonesty in the Mexican context.

Another important limitation of the study, derived from its exploratory perspective, is that the instrument did not consider as a relevant variable the employment situation, years of work experience or hierarchical level of the respondents. This limitation causes the self-report of ethical behaviour in the workplace to be presented in a general way and not with a greater level of depth. However, the results found in this research and the identification of the relationship between academic integrity and ethical work behaviour in an exploratory way, open the door for studies where it is sought to deepen the understanding of this relationship that was identified by this study, as mentioned in the next section.

Implications for future investigations

As mentioned in the previous section, the following works related to the study of the academic integrity and ethical behaviour of individuals could point to the confirmation of the results found in this research. These future studies could be based on the causal relationships found in this research, which were generated based on the review of the literature and the assumptions that arise from it. In this sense, the use of structural equations is necessary as a method of confirmation from a quantitative perspective, as well as the use of a qualitative approach that contribute to a better understanding of this phenomenon. This study is a first step towards the realization of scientific research that demonstrates the impact that efforts to promote academic integrity in universities have on the ethical behaviour of its students and graduates.

It would be useful to replicate the research by gathering information periodically to validate the results and/or conduct a longitudinal study that allows monitoring of the “real-time” habits of the different graduating classes over time. Thereby, self-reporting of what happened at each moment in time would be collected and would enable researchers to explore different associations.

Many questions still remain unanswered in the Mexican context: What is academic integrity? How is it experienced? How is it perceived? How is it assessed? What are the benefits in doing so? What are the most appropriate strategies? What are the levels of academic dishonesty? Who carries it out? Why do they do it? What are the reasons that cause it? What is the mindset of people that behaves ethically? What are the reasons why someone turns out to be more or less ethical? How should it be addressed and managed? What consequences does it trigger? What role do professors and other educational stakeholders play? What is the impact of technology?

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Standardized coefficients

Non-standardized coefficients

International Center for Academic Integrity

Kaiser, Meyer and Olkin

Adjusted R squared

Significance

Amilburu, M. (2005). Literatura, virtudes y educación moral. http://www.redined.mec.es/oai/indexg.php?registro=01420073001633

Google Scholar  

Ariely D (2013) The honest truth about dishonesty (first). Harper Collins Publishers, New York

Bertram-Gallant T (2016) Systems approach to going forward. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity (First, pp. 975–978). Springer, Singapore

Blankenship KL, Whitley BE (2000) Relation of general deviance to academic dishonesty. Ethics Behav 10(1):1–12 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.udem.edu.mx/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=3176620&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Article   Google Scholar  

Bolívar A (2005) El lugar de la ética profesional en la formación universitaria. Rev Mex Investig Educ 10(24):93–123 Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=14002406

Bosch M, Cavallotti R (2016) ¿Es posible una definición de integridad en el ámbito de la ética empresarial? Revista Empresa y Humanismo XIX(2):51–68. https://doi.org/10.15581/015.XIX.2.51-68

Connelly BL, Crook TR, Combs JG, Ketchen DJ Jr, Aguinis H (2018) Competence-and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: which matters more? J Manag 44(3):919–945

EAFIT. (2016). Encuesta de auto-reporte de fraude académico

Fishman T (2016) Academic integrity as an educational concept, concern and movement in US institutions of higher education. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity (First. Springer, Singapore, pp 7–22

García-Villegas M, Franco-Pérez N, y Cortés-Arbeláez A (2016) Perspectives on academic integrity in Colombia and Latin America. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity, 1st edn. Springer, Singapore, pp 161–185

Gino F, Ariely D (2012) The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. J Pers Soc Psychol 102(3):445

Hall TL, Kuh GD (1998) Honor among students: academic integrity and honor codes at state-assisted universities. NASPA J 36(1):2–18

Harding TS, Passow HJ, Carpenter DD, Finelli CJ (2004) An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and professional behavior. Antennas Propagation Magazine, IEEE 46. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2004.1388860

Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods 7(2):191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

International Center for Academic Integrity. (2014). Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf

International Transparency. (2017). Corruption perceptions index 2017. Retrieved from https://www.transparwww.transparency.org/cpi

Kavanagh MH, Drennan L (2008) What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations. Accounting Finance 48(2):279–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00245.x

Laduke RD (2013) Academic dishonesty today, unethical practices tomorrow? J Prof Nurs 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.10.009

Lang JM (2013) Cheating lessons, learning from academic dishonesty (first). Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Lawson R (2004) Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the “real world”? J Bus Ethics 49(2):189–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015784.34148.cb

Lombardo MM, Eichinger RW (2009) FYI: for your improvement: a guide for development and coaching (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company.

Ma Y, McCabe D, Liu R (2013) Students’ academic cheating in Chinese universities: prevalence, influencing factors, and proposed action. J Acad Ethics 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9186-7

McCabe, D. (2016). Cheating and honor: lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag, Handbook of academic integrity (First, p. 1097). Singapore: Springer

Nonis S, Swift CO (2001) An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. J Educ Bus 77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320109599052

Olt MR (2002) Ethics and distance education: strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online assessment. Online J Distance Learning Adm 5(3):1–7

Orosz G, Tóth-Király I, Bőthe B, Paskuj B, Berkics M, Fülöp M, Roland-Lévy C (2018) Linking cheating in school and corruption. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée 68(2):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2018.02.001

Payan J, Reardon J, Mccorkle DE (2010) The effect of culture on the academic honesty of marketing and business students. J Mark Educ 32(3):275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475310377781

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2015). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/content/undp/es/home/sdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg2/

Rigby D, Burton M, Balcombe K, Bateman I, Mulatu A (2015) Contract cheating & the market in essays. J Econ Behav Organ 111:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.019

Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ (2016) Corruption and government: causes, consequences, and reform, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Sims RL (1993) The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. J Educ Bus 68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117614

Stephens J, Romakin V, Yukhymenko M (2010) Academic motivation and misconduct in two cultures: a comparative analysis of US and Ukrainian undergraduates. Int J Educ Integr 6:47–60

Stephens JM (2016) Creating cultures of integrity: a multilevel intervention model for promoting academic honesty. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity (First, pp. 995–1008). Springer, Singapore

Sultana F (2018) The false equivalence of academic freedom and free speech: defending academic integrity in the age of white supremacy, colonial nostalgia, and anti-intellectualism. ACME: An Int E-Journal for Crit Geographies 17(2):228–257

Thompson B (2004) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications, 1st edn. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

UDEM. (2018). Encuesta de Integridad Académica

UNAM. (2013). Reporte de encuesta sobre percepción del plagio en la UNAM. Retrieved from http://www.eticaacademica.unam.mx/encuestas.pdf

Von Dran GM, Callahan ES, Taylor HV (2001) Can students’ academic integrity be improved? Attitudes and behaviors before and after implementation of an academic integrity policy. Teach Bus Ethics 5(1):35–58

Winrow AR (2015) Academic integrity and the heterogeneous student body. Glob Educ J 2015(2):77–91 Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=4e798cc8-2b70-4094-8a36-117ad8990b24%40sessionmgr101

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Victoria Loncar and Veronica Montemayor for their valuable help English editing the manuscript.

Declarations

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

We will respond promptly to IJEI correspondence regarding reviewer comments, copyeditor revisions and publishing agreement.

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidad de Monterrey, Av. Ignacio Morones Prieto 4500, 66238, San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León, Mexico

Jean Gabriel Guerrero-Dib & Luis Portales

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

Yolanda Heredia-Escorza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

G-D designed the study and collected the data, P-D performed the statistical analysis, H-E contributed with results analysis. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

G-D. J. is Board Member of the International Center for Academic Integrity and Director of the Center for Integrity and Ethics at Universidad de Monterrey

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Gabriel Guerrero-Dib .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

ICAI’s Academic Integrity Survey – for students (McCabe 2016 ) plus ethical behaviour.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Guerrero-Dib, J.G., Portales, L. & Heredia-Escorza, Y. Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. Int J Educ Integr 16 , 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3

Download citation

Received : 10 September 2019

Accepted : 26 January 2020

Published : 17 February 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic misconduct
• Higher education
• Workplace behaviour
• Work environment
• Latin America

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Behav Anal Pract
• v.16(1); 2023 Mar
• PMC10050523

Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice

Matthew p. normand.

Department of Psychology, University of the Pacific, 3601 Pacific Avenue, Stockton, CA 95211 USA

Hailey E. Donohue

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions—they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. This is advantageous because the research literature is focused on individual behavior change and has direct relevance to behavior analysts who need to change the behavior of individuals in need. Also, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice. Thus, behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined. However, when behavior analysts in practice conduct research and use their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or institutions. This article focuses on several areas of special concern when conducting research in practice settings, including dual relationships and conflicts of interest, obtaining informed consent, and using ethical review panels.

Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts 1 : 6.01 Conforming with Laws and Regulations in Research. Behavior analysts plan and conduct research in a manner consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as requirements by organizations and institutions governing research activity.

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions—they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. The advantage is really twofold. First, the research literature is largely focused on individual behavior change and thus has direct relevance to behavior analysts who seek to change the behavior of individuals in need. Second, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice, and to evaluate the effectiveness of practice in general. Behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined.

Outside of behavior analysis, many psychologists in practice say they rely primarily on clinical experience and relatively little on the research literature to inform what they do. Indeed, a fair amount of evidence spanning several decades indicates that psychologists in practice say that they infrequently contact the research literature and seldom change their practice based on research findings (e.g., Cohen et al., 1986 ; Gyani et al., 2014 ; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986 ; Safran et al., 2011 ; Stewart & Chambless, 2007 ; Stewart et al., 2012 ). Moreover, it seems that practicing psychologists rarely conduct research themselves (Cohen et al., 1986 ; Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996 ; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986 ; Norcross & Karpiak, 2012 ). Several possible reasons for this have been discussed (Cohen et al., 1986 ; Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996 ; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986 ), but survey research suggests that one factor is the kinds of experimental designs employed in most psychology research (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996 ; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986 ). The reliance on large group designs and aggregate outcome data means that psychologists in practice do not know how any individual will respond to a particular intervention. It also means that most psychologists in practice will not be able to evaluate their own effectiveness using the research designs most common in the literature, because the arrangement of large groups using random assignment is simply not feasible for the psychologist who sees one person at a time.

For these and other reasons, some have called for the wider adoption of single-case experimental designs as a research strategy in psychology (e.g., Barlow & Nock, 2009 ; Morgan & Morgan, 2001 ; Normand, 2016 ). It is fortunate that no such call is needed for behavior analysts in practice because single-case designs already fuel the basic and applied sciences that inform what they do. In addition to consuming that research literature and using single-case experimental designs to evaluate day-to-day clinical practices, many behavior analysts in practice also contribute to the research literature by conducting experimental evaluations of behavioral assessments and interventions. A cursory review of the authors listed on research published in applied behavior analysis journals suggests that many practitioners are also researchers, because many of the contributors list clinical-service affiliations in their bylines. 2 This can be a boon to scientists and consumers, alike, but it also raises some important ethical concerns regarding clinical research.

All research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or research institutes. When behavior analysts in practice conduct research using their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Clear ethical guidance about practitioner-led research in the realm of psychology is difficult to find, perhaps because few psychologists in practice conduct research. The same holds true for various allied professions, such as education and special education, where the intersection of research and practice is typically depicted in terms of independent researchers collaborating with practice sites. For example, the British Educational Research Association ( 2018 ) offers the following guidance:

The institutions and settings within which the research is set also have an interest in the research, and ought to be considered in the process of gaining consent. Researchers should think about whether they should approach gatekeepers before directly approaching participants, and about whether they should adopt an institution’s own ethical approval and safeguarding procedures; this is usually a requirement. (p. 9)

It is clear from this statement that the code assumes researchers will not themselves be practitioners working in the institution where the research is being conducted.

The American Education Research Association ( 2011 ) Code of Ethics does specifically advise, “In planning research, education researchers select research participants with whom they have no other relationship (e.g., teacher, supervisor, mentor, or employer”; p. 152). The code briefly acknowledges that research will sometimes need to involve participants with whom the research has another relationship, but such situations, and others related to practice, are not otherwise addressed anywhere else in the ethics code. The medical literature, however, is replete with discussions of the ethical issues arising when a physician serves as a clinician and a researcher in practice settings. Although the circumstances of physicians are not identical to those of behavior analysts in practice, there are some similarities, including face-to-face interactions, involvement in both the assessment and treatment of various problems, and the supervision of other professionals involved in assessment and treatment. Because of these similarities, and despite the differences, guidance from the medical literature will be discussed, where relevant.

Specific to behavior analysis, Section 6 of the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts contains 11 entries pertaining to research ethics. Most of these entries do not suggest any unique concerns for behavior analysts in practice. That is, they apply similarly to researchers working in a variety of circumstances. For example, Section 6.06 stipulates that behavior analysts must be competent to conduct research before doing so, and this applies no matter the setting in which the research takes place. It is true that many practitioners might have earned degrees from graduate training programs that did not effectively teach research skills, but the same might well be true of any graduate training program. The key issue is whether the behavior analyst has developed the requisite skills, and this is not directly affected by the setting and concomitant activities in which they are engaged. This article focuses on selected areas of Section 6 that do suggest unique concerns for behavior analysts conducting research alongside their practice.

Dual Relationships and Conflicts of Interest

Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts : 6.03 Research in Service Delivery. Behavior analysts conducting research in the context of service delivery must arrange research activities such that client services and client welfare are prioritized. In these situations, behavior analysts must comply with all ethics requirements for both service delivery and research within the Code. When professional services are offered as an incentive for research participation, behavior analysts clarify the nature of the services, and any potential risks, obligations, and limitations for all parties.

Dual Relationships

A dual relationship is problematic because there are similar, salient discriminative stimuli across two different situations that should otherwise evoke different behavior. The more stimuli that are common to the two situations, the more difficult the discrimination. In any dual relationship, the same people are present in two circumstances that differ in other important respects. Because relationships are characterized by social interaction, the individuals involved are arguably the most salient stimuli, and those people are the mediators of other discriminative, motivating, reinforcing, and punishing interactions. When the same people are interacting in similar ways in the same physical environment, such as a treatment room or office, this leaves only more subtle discriminative stimuli to occasion differential responding. Those subtle discriminative stimuli might be insufficient, making necessary the arrangement of supplementary discriminative events across situations.

In clinical research, a dual (role) relationship exists when the researcher also provides clinical services or otherwise supervises or manages the delivery of clinical services to the research participant. Acting in two or more such roles blurs the line between research and practice (Hay-Smith et al., 2016 ). This can be especially problematic when conducting assessment or intervention research because the activities of each role are similar, if not identical. Thus, the participant can have a difficult time discriminating circumstances involving research activities and those involving clinical activities. This can lead to problems, such as when the circumstances involving research activities evoke behavior relevant to the circumstances in which clinical services are provided. For example, requests for subtle alterations to an intervention procedure might be easily accommodated as part of clinical practice but not as easily accommodated when a research protocol demands consistency across time and participants. Being denied the alterations in the research setting could have an impact on subsequent interactions in the clinical setting.

Research in clinical settings raises questions regarding the distinction between research endeavors and clinical interventions for the researcher, as well. Of primary importance is determining when some activity qualifies as research, which might not be straightforward. According to the BACB, “the use of an experimental design does not by itself constitute research” (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020 , p. 8). Instead, research and practice can be distinguished, in part, by asking whether the focus of the activity is on developing generalizable knowledge or on helping an individual client, respectively (Brody et al., 2005 ). That said, it is helpful to ask whether the intent is to publish or present the results of the activity, although this will not always be known ahead of time; plans to publish or present findings might be made only after an innovative intervention has been completed (Brody et al., 2005 ). For behavior analysts, “any data-based activity, including analysis of preexisting data, designed to generate generalizable knowledge for the discipline,” is considered research (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020 , p. 8). Determining whether an activity constitutes research is important because certain ethical considerations (e.g., Section 06 of the BACB Ethics Code) can come into play. If activities are viewed purely as clinical practice, some important issues, such as those discussed in this article, might be overlooked.

Once research activities are identified, it is prudent to state, in writing, which activities are research activities and to provide this information to the participant. Behavior analysts play a dual role when they conduct research alongside clinical activities with the same person or persons, even if the activities do not change appreciably for the sake of the research. One approach to handling such dual relationships is to avoid them by having different people provide clinical services and administer research procedures. However, this does not necessarily remove the dual role in situations where all parties know each other and interact with one another on a regular basis. In small agencies, it might not be possible to keep one or more persons strictly in a research or clinical services role. In addition, in many cases it might not be appropriate for the research procedures to be administered by someone other than clinicians already working with the research participant as a client. If the same person or persons will sometimes be providing clinical services and sometimes be acting as a researcher, care should be taken to explain the differences in those roles and what can be expected from the various people involved during those different situations. Also, if possible, the activities could be conducted in different settings to enhance the discriminative properties of clinical and research activities.

Conflicts of Interest

Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts. 6.07 Conflict of Interest in Research and Publication: When conducting research, behavior analysts identify, disclose, and address conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, organization related, service related). They also identify, disclose, and address conflicts of interest in their publication and editorial activities.

Conflicts of interest are problematic because relevant motivating operations and discriminative stimuli relevant to two or more conflicting, perhaps incompatible, classes of behavior are present. In such situations, the class of behavior that is mandated or otherwise expected in each situation might not be forthcoming because the MO and SDs relevant to an incompatible or alternative class of behavior are prepotent. When conflicts of interest are unavoidable, arranging sources of countercontrol (Delprato, 2002 ; Skinner, 1953 ) might be the best course of action. This can be done, in part, by clearly stating the conflicting circumstances so that they can, to some extent, also influence the behavior of the participant. In addition, arranging supervision from other people for whom the competing MOs and SDs do not occasion conflicting behavior could help.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

The line between clinical research and the promotion of products or services from which a provider stands to gain, financially or otherwise, also can be difficult to see. In an ideal situation, research is a matter of uncovering functional relations to better predict and control behavior. In putting behavior-analytic research into practice, the prediction and control should first and foremost improve the lot of the consumer. But other variables also influence research practices. Publishing noteworthy research findings can lead to prestige, career advancement, and financial gain, among other things (Chivers, 2019 ). When the conduct of a study and the reporting of the results is strongly influenced by variables other than the prediction and control of the behavior being studied, there is a risk of slipping toward advocacy research (Johnston & Pennypacker, 2009 , p. 64). That is, setting out to show that something works rather than evaluating  whether  something works.

In medicine, for example, there are circumstances in which a physician is also acting as a researcher when they have invented the device or method under study. In such circumstances, it is considered inappropriate for the physician-researcher to be the one to obtain informed consent from participants because the physician’s “conflicting motivations unacceptably compromise their ability to provide recommendations that serve the patient’s best interests” (Morain et al., 2019 , p. 15). Although behavior analysts in practice are more likely to develop specific intervention procedures than, say, marketable medical devices, intervention procedures can be profitable and pose a conflict of interest. For example, practitioners sometimes manualize the procedures they develop and then profit by selling these manuals, giving workshops on related topics in which the manuals are part of the workshop fee, and so on. This introduces a range of extraneous controlling variables that can influence the practitioner’s behavior while engaged in both research and practice. Showing that the procedures one uses, especially those that one develops, are particularly effective can affect the bottom line. From one point of view, the reports of those findings can be seen as advertisements for the quality of services provided and justification for the fees that are charged.

Conflicts of interest can also involve more subtle sources of control. An interesting example receiving attention in recent years is the payment of speaking fees to psychologists of some renown, especially when those speaking fees can be many thousands of dollars per event (Chivers, 2019 ). Although behavior analysts might not regularly command five- or six-figure speaking fees, some regularly command relatively large consulting or workshop fees. In most cases, the speaking fee is not dependent on any specific research finding, but the research findings an individual has reported are usually important to their reputation and, hence, to the invitation to speak or consult for a fee or the decision someone makes to attend a workshop. When a psychologist or other scientists gains a reputation for a certain line of research with certain kinds of findings, the incentives to defend that research and those findings grows—even more so when fame and finances are tied up in it all.

This is not to say that behavior analysts should not develop and sell manualized procedures, publish clinical research, conduct workshops, and the like. But such activities do create conflicts of interest that need to be clearly identified. Careful steps should be taken in the way research is conducted such that those conflicts of interest are minimized. At minimum, it is important to disclose such conflicts of interest when publishing related research findings and other academic papers (and clearly disclosed during speaking engagements and workshops and while consulting). At maximum, it might be appropriate to refrain from profiting until independent evidence, free of undue conflicts of interest, is available supporting the products or procedures being promoted.

Conducting research that involves the delivery of clinical services raises an additional financial consideration. One assumes that the participants already are paying for clinical services and, if research activities occur alongside those clinical services, they might then be paying to participate in the research, in some sense. When experimental procedures co-occur with standard procedures, the conservative solution would be to waive all fees that would otherwise accrue. If the research is actual research, and not advocacy research (Johnston & Pennypacker, 2009 , p. 64), then the investigators are presumably unsure about the effects of the procedures being evaluated. Charging someone to receive services with unknown outcomes would not be ethically defensible. However, things get murky when other necessary clinical services (functional assessments, preference assessments) are provided alongside, but independent of, the experimental procedures. The murkiest situation is probably a common situation, wherein specific clinical services (such as an assessment for a specific problem behavior) are not billed independently and, instead, an hourly (or equivalent) fee is charged that covers all services. Again, in such cases we would suggest waiving all fees during the times the experimental procedures are being delivered.

Other Conflicts of Interest

Financial gain, prestige, and career advancement are not the only conflicts of interest that can arise. Especially pertinent to the conduct of assessment and intervention research is when decisions about treatment for the benefit of the client conflict with decisions about procedures dictated by the research protocol. As clearly stated in section 6.03 of the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts , “Behavior analysts conducting research in the context of service delivery must arrange research activities such that client services and client welfare are prioritized” (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020 ). Perhaps the most obvious circumstance related to applied behavior analysis research is the use of baseline conditions. Delaying treatment beyond what would be typical in practice or removing a seemingly effective treatment for purposes of demonstrating experimental control pits the best interests of the client against those of the research(er). Much of the published literature discussing ethical issues in clinical research or reporting patient opinions about research participation (e.g., Cho et al., 2015 ; Kelley et al., 2015 ) is focused on studies in which the participants would be randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. This research suggests that participants do not always understand the randomization process and the role it plays, but many participants report being concerned about the degree to which research procedures might undermine their individual care (e.g., Kelley et al., 2015 ).

The degree to which these concerns are true of participants in single-case research, especially behavior-analytic research, is unknown. It is important to note that most behavior-analytic research in practice differs from typical medical studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treatment might be delayed to some extent or briefly removed, the single-case experimental designs most often used by behavior analysts result in each participant being exposed to the intervention, usually after only a brief waiting period. This is not always the case in group (between-subjects) research designs such as RCTs. In research designs involving control or comparison groups, some number of participants do not receive treatment until a considerable period of time has passed or, in some cases, at all. Still, it is important that potential participants understand that treatment might be delayed or removed, not for clinical benefit, but because of the demands of the experimental design. This is especially important so that participants can truly provide informed consent (see below) for their participation. Examples of situations in which treatment might be delayed or removed should be provided and explained during the informed consent process. When feasible, participants could be reminded of the purpose of the delay or removal at the point such situations arise during the research activities.

Informed Consent

Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts : 6.04 Informed Consent in Research. Behavior analysts are responsible for obtaining informed consent (and assent when relevant) from potential research participants under the conditions required by the research review committee. When behavior analysts become aware that data obtained from past or current clients, stakeholders, supervisees, and/or trainees during typical service delivery might be disseminated to the scientific community, they obtain informed consent for use of the data before dissemination, specify that services will not be impacted by providing or withholding consent, and make available the right to withdraw consent at any time without penalty.

Informed consent, in the ideal, means that a participant consents to take part in an experiment free of the influence of any irrelevant controlling variables supplied by the experimenters. The variables influencing the participant’s behavior should be those that already are part of their personal histories, as well as the relevant SDs related to research events, as described by the experimenter. The experimenter should be cautious about arranging MOs during the consent process, especially those that might be related to treatment procedures and outcomes. It might be impossible to avoid arranging MOs altogether, but it probably is safest to err on the side of creating abolishing rather than establishing relations (Laraway et al., 2003 ), in the sense of decreasing the effectiveness of reinforcement for participation and abating behaviors indicating consent. The discriminative stimuli introduced should be restricted to verbal descriptions of the experimental procedures with relatively few autoclitics. And, to the extent possible, MOs and SDs relevant to clinical activities should be reduced or removed by, for example, using different physical locations and staff during research activities.

Informed consent requires that prospective participants be told about the research activities in which they will be engaged while participating, the various risks and benefits associated with their participation, as well as their right to stop participating at any time or to not participate at all. This information must be explained clearly in language appropriate to the education level of the prospective participants and with appropriate cultural considerations. The prospective participant should have the opportunity to ask questions and be given the time necessary to consider the advantages and disadvantages of participating before agreeing to do so.

Of paramount importance in all research involving human participants is the degree to which the participants can and do provide informed consent freely—that is, without coercion. Prospective participants should be able to decline to participate, or cease participating after agreeing to do so, without any loss of privileges to which they are otherwise entitled. Indeed, one could argue that we feel most free under conditions that are free of conspicuous aversive control (e.g., Skinner, 1971 ), such as the potential loss of privileges for failing to participate in research. It is better to arrange that some advantages will result from participating. However, any favorable inducements to participate should not be so substantial that they create circumstances that make it difficult for the prospective participant to say no. Brody et al. ( 2005 ) warn against the threat of “therapeutic misconception” that occurs “when subjects desperately believe a study offers their last hope,” because this can compromise the voluntariness of their participation (p. 1412). It is important that researchers consider whether the informed consent process truly promotes understanding and voluntary decision making, or if it falls short by serving solely to disclose information to research participants (Brody et al., 2005 ).

The relationship between a client and a service provider conducting research is typically more significant than that between a research participant and, for example, a faculty member or research assistant at a university. From the participant’s perspective, the research is likely assumed to be important to the person conducting that research, such that declining to participate in the research is seen as akin to declining to help the researcher do something important. This would be the case in any sort of research, clinical or otherwise, but in the case of a prospective participant who also is receiving clinical services, an invitation to participate in research conducted by a service provider might suggest that some important losses will occur if they decline. Maybe they will have fewer people attending to their needs or have fewer resources devoted to their services. Maybe they will not be given priority in terms of scheduling treatment sessions or clinical meetings. (Whether a prospective participant will lose any privileges is something different than whether they believe they might lose such privileges.) Under such circumstances, one might ask whether the consumer can freely consent.

Behavior analysts appreciate, of course, that our behavior is not really “free,” but is instead determined by our circumstances, past and present. 3 Still, how relatively free we are might be said to fall along a continuum determined by the amount of conspicuous influence operating on our behavior. Handing over $20 when someone asks for a donation to a charity is a freer act than doing the same with someone holding a gun to your head. In terms of the circumstances being discussed here, the issue is how strong the arranged consequences for participation are, with the degree of perceived freedom being an assessment of how strongly the experimenter-arranged consequences compete with existing reinforcement contingencies outside of the experimenter’s control. For example, offering a large sum of money, especially to an economically disadvantaged person, can lead to a situation in which that person cannot reasonably decline. The same is true of offering intervention services to an individual or family in need of such services. It is important that behavior analysts “clarify the nature of the services, and any potential risks, obligations, and limitations for all parties” when offering intervention services as part of, or as an incentive for, research participation (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020 , 6.03).

There are strategies that can minimize coercion in the informed consent process. To start, it might be advisable to have staff who are not otherwise involved with the client carry out the recruitment and informed consent activities (Persons et al., 2021 ). Although this is not required by federal regulations, the Belmont Report and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, the two seminal statements on human subjects protections, made this recommendation (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical & Behavioral Research, 1978 ; World Medical Association, 2013 ). For example, the Declaration of Helsinki states,

When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.

Like most ethical considerations, the matter is not at all straightforward, however. To date, there are no empirical studies of ethical behavior conducted specifically in the context of behavior analysis research. The medical literature, on the other hand, suggests that prospective participants sometimes, or maybe often, prefer to have the risks and benefits of participating in a study explained by their treating physician (Kelley et al., 2015 ).

It might also be advisable to allow the prospective participant to wait for a period of time before signing and delivering the consent forms (Loewenstein et al., 2011 ; Loewenstein et al., 2012 ; Persons et al., 2021 ). This provides an opportunity for them to consider the benefits and risks associated with participating, and even allows them to get the opinion of others and to learn more about what is being proposed, if they are inclined to do so. Even better, a neutral third party could be made available at a later date to witness the signing and collect the consent form (Loewenstein et al., 2011 ; Loewenstein et al., 2012 ). To the extent possible, it is advisable to keep participation status anonymous from other individuals in the organization, except for those parties who must know for legal or methodological reasons or to make decisions about ongoing care. Using contracts and informed consent language that clearly specify the clinical rights of the client that will be maintained even in the case of nonparticipation is important. Finally, it seems reasonable to conduct research activities, including recruitment, at times that are distinct from regularly scheduled treatment or consultation sessions (Persons et al., 2021 ).

Institutional Review Board

Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts : 6.02 Research Review. Behavior analysts conduct research, whether independent of or in the context of service delivery, only after approval by a formal research review committee.

A formidable hurdle for many behavior analysts in practice who want to conduct clinical research is the establishment of, or partnership with, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or similar review panel. The purpose of an IRB is to ensure the protection of human subjects by reviewing the proposed research activities to determine if they are ethically defensible and if the potential benefits of the research findings outweigh the potential risks to participants. In practice, IRB review can help protect the researcher in the case of lawsuits arising from real or perceived harms that result during the course of a study. According to the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), any research activities with human subjects must be reviewed and approved by a panel of individuals not otherwise invested in the proposed research. The OHS also stipulates that the IRB should comprise at least five members drawn from diverse backgrounds and include individuals who have conducted human research, as well as individuals who have not. In addition, the IRB should include at least one member who is not a researcher and one member who is not affiliated with the institution conducting the research. It is important that the individuals who are proposing the research or who will conduct the research cannot vote on the research proposal, but they can provide information about the proposal, as requested by the IRB.

The letter of the law requires that all human research supported with federal funds be approved by an accredited IRB, but the spirit of the law applies to all human research, whether federally funded or not (Osborne & Luoma, 2018 ). In addition, some states have regulations requiring that any research activities with human subjects be approved by a formal review panel, regardless of federal funding status. And more and more journals are requiring attestation that all research activities were approved by an IRB or similar review panel prior to publication, meaning that the dissemination of research findings often hinges on IRB review and approval.

Most IRBs are affiliated with a university or hospital, but this is not a requirement and even small clinical organizations could conceivably convene such a panel. However, larger institutions are in better positions to assemble review boards that conform to federal expectations, especially in terms of membership. Even when clinical organizations partner with larger research organizations, such as universities, IRB procedures can be burdensome for investigators from multiple sites (Brody et al., 2005 ), given that federal regulations assert that “in the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution is responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects” (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Human Research Protections, n.d. ). In other words, independent review is expected from each associated institution’s IRB, unless there is special approval for a joint review arrangement.

LeBlanc et al. ( 2018 ) discussed the challenges associated with forming a research review committee, what we are calling here an IRB, and offered suggestions for establishing and maintaining such a committee in a human service setting (also see Persons et al., 2021 ). Indeed, the standards for establishing a review committee can be prohibitive for a small clinical organization where there are few qualified members to populate an IRB and where most of the otherwise qualified members would be directly involved in any research activities proposed. In lieu of establishing an in-house IRB, an agency could partner with an established IRB at another institution (e.g., a local university) or use the services of a commercial IRB. Partnering with another institution could be difficult, though, as institutional IRBs often are overworked by their own research proposals and there can be little to gain by increasing their workload by assisting outside agencies. Moreover, taking on outside research submissions could expose the institution to additional legal liability. Commercial IRBs, on the other hand, exist for the expressed purpose of serving entities that cannot otherwise access an IRB. The major downside to commercial IRBs is that there is a fee associated with review, though it is worth noting that there are also costs associated with establishing and maintaining an in-house IRB. Still, the fees charged by commercial IRBs can be high, running into the thousands of dollars per review.

One recent alternative to commercial IRBs is the Behavioral Health Research Collective (BHRC), a nonprofit group of behavioral health-care organizations that collectively manage a federally registered IRB ( https://bhrcirb.org ). Although the BHRC was not accepting new members at the time of this writing, the general model could be applied in the establishment of a new collective. That is, several clinical agencies could collaborate to form an interagency IRB such that costs and workload are fairly distributed and conflicts of interest in the review of individual protocols are minimized. Other resources also have recently emerged, primarily within the medical field, with the goal of supplementing the current IRB framework of human-subjects research review (de Melo-Martín et al., 2007 ; Emanuel et al., 2000 ; Porter et al., 2018 ; Sugarman et al., 2003 ). For example, the Research Ethics Consultation (REC) is a forum that has emerged within the medical field in the past decade aimed at discussing new or persisting ethical issues during the research process. More than three dozen U.S. institutions have developed REC services (Porter et al., 2018 ). Likewise, the Clinical Research Ethics Collaborative was established as a nationwide group of medical research ethics consultants working to support clinicians through clinical research ethics consultation; as of 2018, the Collaborative had 54 members spanning 35 institutions (Porter et al., 2018 ). Porter et al. ( 2018 ) suggest that research ethics consultation could be valuable as a resource for researchers with challenging, novel ethical questions during research, to assist with the increasing challenges associated with the informed consent process and the risks and benefits involved in research activities, and as a support system when investigators encounter unforeseen hurdles and conflicts during their research activities.

To further complicate matters, concerns have been raised in the medical community about whether an independent IRB, consisting of a diverse group of researchers, nonspecialists, and community members, is the right fit to review specialized research (Brody et al., 2005 ). Some have suggested that subject matter experts might be better suited to review specialized research (Brody et al., 2005 ). It has also been suggested that commercial, even national, IRBs could review protocols more efficiently and be designated for entire subject matters, such as a national IRB for cancer-related research (Brody et al., 2005 ). Collaboration between researchers and ethicists is essential as problems arise during the research process, and ethics consultation services could increase researchers’ awareness of the ethical implications of their work past the review process, result in better research policies over time, and facilitate an organizational culture that is receptive to the recognition and resolution of ethical conflicts (de Melo-Martín et al., 2007 ). However, these potential benefits have not been investigated empirically and it remains to be seen how useful or widespread ethics consultation will be.

In many ways, behavior analysts in practice are uniquely situated to fulfill the promise of the scientist-practitioner model (Hayes et al., 1999 ) that is so commonly espoused in psychology. Behavior analysts do not face the barriers that prevent many psychologists from consuming and contributing to the research literature. The single-case experimental designs that are most common in the basic and applied research literature provide information about the way specific independent variables affect the behavior of individual participants. Those same designs permit the demonstration of functional relations on an individual-by-individual basis, meaning practitioners can use them to evaluate their practice on a case-by-case basis. This is a good thing, in our opinion. Without ongoing evaluation of practice, rigorous science can inch toward convenient pseudoscience (see Normand, 2008 , for a discussion).

Still, the advantages of conducting research in practice are not reasons to ignore some of the potential disadvantages concerning the protection of human subjects. We stress that these are potential disadvantages insofar as they can be overcome, so long as researchers can identify them in their own practices and take steps to minimize any adverse influences (see summary in Table ​ Table1). 1 ). In our estimation, the most critical steps researchers in practice can take are the establishment of (or partnership with) a conscientious and rigorous review board, the separation of clinical services from research activities (in terms of finances, personnel, and settings) whenever possible, and the liberal disclosure of potential conflicts of interesting in published papers and during conference and workshop presentations. In addition, it is worth considering whether the journals that publish research conducted in practice settings should require more details about recruitment and consent procedures when the participants are also receiving other clinical services delivered by the same persons or agency. These actions would serve to better protect human subjects while continuing to support behavior analysts in practice who are conducting important behavioral research.

Suggestions for Mitigating Ethical Concerns

Declarations

This is a discussion paper, not an empirical investigation, so there are no disclosures relevant to IRB approval or informed consent.

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

1 Throughout the article, Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts refers to Behavior Analyst Certification Board ( 2020 ).

2 For example, since 2017, more than 40% of research articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis include at least one author listing a clinical affiliation.

3 There is no doubt that some would grant that behavior is controlled in most circumstances, but not all. Agreement on this point is not necessary for the sake of the argument that follows.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• American Education Research Association Code of ethics. Educational Researcher. 2011; 40 (3):145–156. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11410403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barlow DH, Nock MK. Why can't we be more idiographic in our research? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009; 4 (1):19–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01088.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts .
• British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research.  https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.
• Brody BA, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Consensus and controversy in clinical research ethics. JAMA. 2005; 294 (11):1411–1414. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.11.1411. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chivers T. Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem? Nature. 2019; 571 :2023. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02041-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, Lee SS-J, Kelley M, Alessi S, Korngiebel D, James C, Kuwana E, Gallagher TH. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: A cross-sectional survey. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015; 162 (10):690–696. doi: 10.7326/M15-0166. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen LH, Sargent MM, Sechrest LB. Use of psychotherapy research by professional psychologists. American Psychologist. 1986; 41 (2):198. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.2.198. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Melo-Martín I, Palmer LI, Fins JJ. Viewpoint: Developing a research ethics consultation service to foster responsive and responsible clinical research. Academic Medicine. 2007; 82 (9):900–904. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318132f0ee. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delprato DJ. Countercontrol in behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst. 2002; 25 (2):191–200. doi: 10.1007/BF03392057. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000; 283 (20):2701–2711. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldfried MR, Wolfe BE. Psychotherapy practice and research: Repairing a strained relationship. American Psychologist. 1996; 51 (10):1007. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.51.10.1007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gyani A, Shafran R, Myles P, Rose S. The gap between science and practice: How therapists make their clinical decisions. Behavior Therapy. 2014; 45 (2):199–211. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2013.10.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hay-Smith EJC, Brown M, Anderson L, Treharne GJ. Once a clinician, always a clinician: A systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2016; 16 :95. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0203-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes SC, Barlow DH, Nelson-Gray RO. The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in the age of managed care . 2. Allyn & Bacon; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston JM, Pennypacker HS. Strategies and tactics of behavioral research . 3. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley M, James C, Alessi Kraft S, Korngiebel D, Wijangco I, Rosenthal E, Joffe S, Cho MK, Wilfond B, Lee SS-J. Patient perspectives on the learning health system: The importance of trust and shared decision making. American Journal of Bioethics. 2015; 15 (9):4–17. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062163. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laraway S, Snycerski S, Michael J, Poling A. Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003; 36 :407–414. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-407. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeBlanc LA, Nosik MR, Petursdottir A. Establishing consumer protections for research in human service agencies. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2018; 11 (4):445–455. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-0206-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein G, Cain DM, Sah S. The limits of transparency: Pitfalls and potential of disclosing conflicts of interest. American Economic Review. 2011; 101 (3):423–428. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.3.423. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM. The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA. 2012; 307 (7):669–670. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.154. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morain SR, Joffe S, Largent EA. When is it ethical for physician-investigators to seek consent from their own patients? American Journal of Bioethics. 2019; 19 (4):11–18. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1572811. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL, Morgan RK. Single-participant research design: Bringing science to managed care. American Psychologist. 2001; 56 (2):119–127. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.119. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrow-Bradley C, Elliott R. Utilization of psychotherapy research by practicing psychotherapists. American Psychologist. 1986; 41 (2):188. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.2.188. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research . https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html . Accessed 7 Jan 2022. [ PubMed ]
• Norcross JC, Karpiak CP. Clinical psychologists in the 2010s: 50 years of the APA Division of Clinical Psychology. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice. 2012; 19 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2012.01269.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Normand MP. Science, skepticism, and applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2008; 1 (2):42–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03391727. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Normand, M. P. (2016). Less is more: Psychologists can learn more by studying fewer people [Opinion]. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (934). 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00934 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Osborne TL, Luoma JB. Overcoming a primary barrier to practice-based research: Access to an institutional review board (IRB) for independent ethics review. Psychotherapy. 2018; 55 (3):255–262. doi: 10.1037/pst0000166. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Persons JB, Osborne TL, Codd RT. Ethical and legal guidance for mental health practitioners who wish to conduct research in a private practice setting. Behavior Therapy. 2021; 52 (2):313–323. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2020.04.012. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter KM, Danis M, Taylor HA, Cho MK, Wilfond BS. The emergence of clinical research ethics consultation: Insights from a national collaborative. American Journal of Bioethics. 2018; 18 (1):39–45. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Safran JD, Abreu I, Ogilvie J, DeMaria A. Does psychotherapy research influence the clinical practice of researcher–clinicians? Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice. 2011; 18 (4):357–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01267.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Science and human behavior . Macmillan; 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Beyond freedom and dignity . Alfred A. Knopf; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart RE, Chambless DL. Does psychotherapy research inform treatment decisions in private practice? Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007; 63 (3):267–281. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20347. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart RE, Stirman SW, Chambless DL. A qualitative investigation of practicing psychologists' attitudes toward research-informed practice: Implications for dissemination strategies. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 2012; 43 (2):100. doi: 10.1037/a0025694. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugarman J, Eckenwiler LA, Emanuel EJ. Research oversight through new lenses: The consortium to examine clinical research ethics. Irb. 2003; 25 (1):9–10. doi: 10.2307/3564407. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (n.d.). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (‘Common Rule’).   http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/ . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.
• World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310 (20):2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Evolution of Consumer Behavior Post-Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, including how consumers interact with businesses and make purchasing decisions. As the world adapts to a post-pandemic era, it is clear that consumer behavior has undergone a significant transformation. In this blog, we’ll explore the evolution of consumer behavior post-pandemic, highlighting the key changes and insights businesses need to understand to successfully navigate this new landscape.

The Shift Toward Digital Channels

A notable transformation in post-pandemic consumer behavior is the rapid shift towards digital platforms . Lockdown measures and health precautions propelled numerous consumers into the realm of online shopping, establishing e-commerce as their preferred method for purchasing various goods and services. Even with the gradual reopening of physical stores, a substantial portion of consumers persists in favoring the ease and security offered by online shopping. 

Market research plays a crucial role in helping businesses navigate this transition effectively. By analyzing consumer trends and preferences, businesses can gain valuable insights into the motivations driving the shift toward digital channels. This data enables companies to tailor their online presence to meet the expectations of digitally adept consumers. 

In response to the preferences of these digitally adept consumers, businesses must allocate resources toward bolstering their online presence. This entails not only developing user-friendly websites but also optimizing customer service channels for efficiency. Ensuring a seamless online experience is paramount for businesses aiming to attract and retain customers amidst the evolving landscape of consumer behavior.

Increased Focus on Health and Safety

The pandemic heightened awareness of health and safety concerns among consumers. As a result, many people are more conscious of the cleanliness and safety measures businesses implement. This includes not only physical spaces but also the products and services they offer.

Market research suggests that consumers prefer businesses to prioritize safety protocols such as sanitization, contactless transactions, and transparent communication about health guidelines. Businesses that emphasize these practices in their operations and marketing efforts can build trust and loyalty with health-conscious consumers.

Rise of Sustainable and Ethical Consumption

Sustainability and ethical considerations have become increasingly important to post-pandemic consumers. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains and highlighted the impact of human activity on the environment. As a result, consumers are more interested in supporting businesses that prioritize sustainability and ethical practices. Check out our Consumer Driven ESG Intelligence cut sheet here . 

Market research shows that consumers are willing to pay more for products and services that align with their values. This presents a unique opportunity for businesses to make a positive impact and meet consumer expectations. Businesses can tap into this trend by offering eco-friendly and ethically sourced options, reducing waste, and being transparent about their supply chain practices.

Changing Preferences in Work and Lifestyle

The pandemic led to a surge in remote work and flexible schedules, which has affected consumer preferences in various ways. Market research reveals that consumers spend more time at home and invest in their living spaces . This shift has fueled demand for home improvement, home entertainment, and health and wellness products.

Businesses that cater to these changing lifestyle preferences can capitalize on this trend by offering products and services that enhance the home environment, such as smart home technology, home fitness equipment, and comfortable work-from-home setups.

Greater Reliance on Reviews and Recommendations

In a post-pandemic world, consumers are more reliant on reviews and recommendations when making purchasing decisions. With the shift toward online shopping, many consumers turn to online reviews and testimonials to gauge the quality and reliability of a product or service.

Market research indicates that businesses should build a strong online reputation by encouraging customers to leave reviews and respond to feedback. Positive reviews can significantly impact a business’s success, while negative reviews can provide valuable insights for improvement.

The Importance of Personalization

Personalization has become a key factor in post-pandemic consumer behavior. Consumers now expect tailored experiences and recommendations based on their preferences and past interactions. Market research shows that businesses that leverage data and analytics to offer personalized content and product suggestions are more likely to attract and retain customers.

To meet these expectations, businesses should invest in customer data management and utilize AI and machine learning technologies to deliver personalized experiences. From targeted marketing campaigns to customized product recommendations, personalization can enhance customer satisfaction and drive sales.

Embracing Change: Key Takeaways for Tomorrow’s Markets

The evolution of consumer behavior post-pandemic presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses. By understanding the key changes and insights from market research, businesses can adapt their strategies to meet the needs and preferences of today’s consumers. From embracing digital channels and prioritizing health and safety to focusing on sustainability and personalization, businesses that navigate these shifts successfully can thrive in the new era of consumer behavior.

Check out our Healthcare Insights Hub.

About InnovateMR – InnovateMR is a full-service sampling and ResTech company that delivers faster, quality insights from business and consumer audiences utilizing cutting-edge technologies to support agile research. As industry pioneers, InnovateMR provides world-class end-to-end survey programming, targeted international sampling, qualitative and quantitative insights, and customized consultation services to support informed, data-driven strategies, and identify growth opportunities. Known for their celebrated status in customer service and results, InnovateMR combines boutique-level service with extensive global reach to achieve partner success.

Related Insights

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Privacy Policy