On the Simulated Justίfication of Financial and Medical Decision-making ίn Ethical Commission: An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Social Role Expectations

Abstract

  This study tries to analyze if persons expect individuals with different social roles to take different decisions and give different kinds of judgement or justification concerning ethical problems. Subjects (N=551) were asked to think about the situation of individuals who bear certain social roles and to imagine the kind of argumentation these individuals would probably give. Subjects were confronted with one of the following two scenarios: In the first case they were asked to judge about how a specific role keeper (e.g. consultant, politician, lawyer) would act in a situation of economic conflict (Should the production be transferred abroad and thus jobs being cut?). In the other case they were asked to imagine how an individual bearing a certain role (e.g. affected person, physician, social scientist) would proceed in a situation of medical conflict (Should genes be manipulated to prevent heredity diseases from breaking out?).
  At first, subjects had to take a concrete decision. Afterwards, the decision had to be justified by weighing the importance of four classical ethical positions: hedonism, utilitarianism, deontology, and intuitionism.
  The results show that the weighing of the four ethical positions varies with the context (economic versus medical context). In the economic context mainly utilitarianism and deontology are used for justifying the decision. In the medical context mostly hedonism and utilitarianism are used. Numerous differences between social roles can be found in both contexts and concerning all ethical positions. A significant interaction between ethical position and social role can be discovered. Concerning the individual justification, utilitarianism and deontology as well as the individual interpretation of the social role significantly influence the individual decision. Dependent on social roles, individual variance can predict decisions, although only under conditions with less social normalization.
  Comparing the conditions "role expectations" (present study) and "role behavior" (study I) several differences can be found. In the condition "role behavior" variance can be explained to a greater extent by using effects of the ethic scales than in the condition "role expectations" regarding the weighing of the ethical positions. This gives a hint that social norms prescribe the use of special ethical justification to a greater extent with reference to one's own behavior than concerning other person's behavior. In the condition "role behavior" subjects argue more dependently on context and role, suggesting that in this condition, processes of social stereotyping are more important than in the condition  role expectations". Regarding the individual justifications only in the condition "role expectations" significant influences of social role on the individual decision can be found, leading to the conclusion that here social normalizations seem to have a less important impact. The frequency distributions of consent and refusal differ between the conditions.