Researchers encounter challenges that require making complex professional decisions. Strategies such as seeking help and anticipating consequences support decision-making in these situations. Existing evidence on a measure of professional decision-making in research (the PDR) that assesses the use of decision-making strategies revealed that NIH-funded researchers born outside of the U.S. tended to score below their U.S. counterparts. To examine potential explanations for this association, this study recruited 101 researchers born in the United States and 102 born internationally to complete the PDR and measures of basic personal values, values in scientific work, discrimination between the seriousness of rules in research, exposure to unprofessional research practices, and acculturation to American culture. Several variables were associated with PDR scores—discrimination between types of rules in research, exposure to unprofessional research practices, acculturation, and the basic personal values of power, security, and benevolence. However, only security, benevolence, acculturation, and rule discrimination were also associated with nation of origin. In multivariate models, the variance explained by these variables in accounting for the association of nation of origin and PDR scores was somewhat overlapping, thus, only security and benevolence remained as unique, statistically significant predictors. Thus, this study identified some important variables in the association of nation of origin and PDR, but more research is needed. In a secondary analysis to examine the “clinical significance” (the practical importance) of scores on the PDR, this study examined aggregated PDR score data from the present sample and past samples of investigators. This analysis identified scores that may suggest a concern versus those scores that may be interpreted as excellent, proficient, or marginal. Implications for training and mentoring, along with considerations for future research are discussed.
Professionalism Decision-making Nation of origin Culture
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research was funded by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, ORIIR140009 (JMD), and in part by a National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science Award, UL1 TR002345. The effort of ALA was supported in part by the National Human Genome Research Institute, K01HG008990.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis (ID#201511060) and was conducted in accord with the standards for ethical research with human participants.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine,82(9), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education,35(3), 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aycan, Z., & Gelfand, M. (2012). Cross-cultural organizational psychology. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(10), 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude-value linkages. Psychological Bulletin,139(5), 1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,70(3), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, S. H., Bumpus, M. A., Logan, J. E., & Ciesla, J. R. (1997). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics,16, 1319–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
InterAcademy Partnership. (2016). Doing global science: A guide to responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,140, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kung, F. Y., Kim, Y.-H., Yang, D. Y.-J., & Cheng, S. Y. (2016). The role of regulatory fit in framing effective negative feedback across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,47(5), 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(5), 878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology,95(3), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar