Competing Conceptions of Justice: Faculty Moral Reasoning About Affirmative Action |
| |
Authors: | Elizabeth C. Vozzola Ann Higgins-D'Alessandro |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Business Administration Program, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Dr, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7B8, Canada;(2) DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4M4 |
| |
Abstract: | College faculty (N = 115) were recruited to investigate the influence of moral reasoning on hiring decisions about affirmative action dilemmas. Participants completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a standard test of moral reasoning, a measure that presented two hypothetical moral dilemmas about affirmative action that manipulated candidates' race and moral issues, and a scale evaluating the use of external norms versus self-chosen principles. Results indicated that moral issue but not race of a minority candidate affected hiring decisions. Faculty used greater percentages of principled reasoning when solving the more salient affirmative action dilemmas than when solving the hypothetical dilemmas of the DIT. Higher scores on the DIT were related to the use of principles rather than norms when making hiring decisions. Findings suggest that faculty decisions about hiring a hypothetical affirmative action candidate are more influenced by moral reasoning level and competing conceptions of justice than racial bias or ambivalence. |
| |
Keywords: | affirmative action moral reasoning university faculty Kohlberg Defining Issues Test |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|