Jurnal Internasional

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316044872
What is Working, What is Not, and What We Need to Know: a Meta-Analytic

Review of Business Ethics Instruction
Article in Journal of Academic Ethics · September 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10805-017-9281-2
CITATIONS READS
22 919
6 authors, including:
Kelsey E Medeiros Logan L. Watts

University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Texas at Arlington
54 PUBLICATIONS 532 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 476 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Tyler Mulhearn Logan Steele

Neurostat Analytical Solutions University of South Florida
43 PUBLICATIONS 249 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 432 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reminders of Ingroup Privilege Often Threat Identity but Rarely Change Beliefs View project
Cues to Credibility View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Logan L. Watts on 31 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: META-ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS ETHICS INSTRUCTION 1
What is working, what is not, and what we need to know:
A meta-analytic review of business ethics instruction
Kelsey E. Medeiros
University of Texas at Arlington
501 S. Nedderman Drive
Arlington, TX 76019
Logan L. Watts
Baruch College, The City University of New York
55 Lexington Ave
New York, NY 10010
Tyler J. Mulhearn
University of Oklahoma
5 Partners Place
201 Stephenson Parkway, Suite 4100
Norman, OK 73019
Logan M. Steele
Michael D. Mumford
Shane Connelly
Corresponding Author: Michael D. Mumford, Center for Applied Social Research, University
of Oklahoma, 5 Partners Place, 201 Stephenson Parkway, Suite 4100 Norman, OK 73019.
mmumford@ou.edu, phone: (405) 325-0770, fax: (405) 325-9066
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Alison Antes, Jason Borenstein, Jeffrey Engler,
Michael Kalichman, Brian Martinson, Michael Verderame, Noorain Chaudhry, and Bailey
Schrock for their assistance with the present effort. The project described was supported by
Grant Number ORIIR140010-01-00 from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of
Research Integrity. The contents of this publication
Text are solely the responsibility of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Health and Human
Services or the Office of Research Integrity.
Please note that this is not the final published version of the manuscript and may be
cited as follows:
Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford,
M. D. (2017). What is working, what is not, and what we need to know: A meta-
analytic review of business ethics instruction. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15,
245-275.
META-ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS ETHICS INSTRUCTION 2
Abstract
Requirements for business ethics education and organizational ethics trainings mark an important
step in encouraging ethical behavior among business students and professionals. However, the
lack of specificity in these guidelines as to how, what, and where business ethics should be
taught has led to stark differences in approaches and content. The present effort uses meta-
analytic procedures to examine the effectiveness of current approaches across organizational
ethics trainings and business school courses. to provide practical suggestions for business ethics
interventions and research. Thus, the primary questions driving this research are as follows: (1)
what course characteristics moderate the effectiveness of ethics instruction?, and (2) have ethics
education and training efforts improved? Findings suggest that professional, focused, and
workshop-based training programs are especially effective for improving business ethics.
However, results also reveal considerable problems with many of the criteria used to evaluate the
effectiveness of business ethics interventions. Practical suggestions for course design and
evaluation in business ethics efforts are discussed along with future research needs.
What is working, what is not, and what we need to know:
A meta-analytic review of business ethics instruction
Requirements for the inclusion of ethics content in business school education around the
globe by the AACSB (AACSB, 2013), EFMD (EFMD, 2013), and AMBA (AMBA, 2016) have
furthered, and in some instances spurred, the development of undergraduate and MBA ethics
curricula. These courses, and more broadly, curricula, emphasize the importance of conducting
ethical business practices while providing business students with an understanding and
framework for making ethical decisions. Gioia (2002) urged business schools to play an active
role in fixing the business ethics crisis by embedding ethics in the curriculum. Similarly, a report
by an AACSB special task force highlighted business’ moral responsibility to society and
encouraged business schools to incorporate ethics education into the curriculum, placing a
specific emphasis on ethical awareness and reasoning (AACSB, 2013). These calls and
requirements by governing organizations, however, leave how to implement these educational
efforts up to the discretion of university administrators and instructors. This ambiguity has led to
a variety of approaches for including ethics in business student education.
Similarly, the introduction of government legislation has also required that organizations
address the growing concern over business ethics. For example, the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) enacted by the United States government encouraged the
implementation of ethics and compliance programs (Trevino, Weaver, & Brown, 2008). In
response, many organizations adopted training as part of their ethics program and now require
formal ethics training for their employees (Weber, 2007). As with business schools, the language
in these guidelines leaves room for variation in interpretation and implementation. The FSGO,
for instance, states that organizations must periodically communicate standards and procedures
through effective training programs (USSC, 2016). Again, this vague requirement allows for a
wide range of approaches to ethics training in organizations. As a whole, variations in
approaches within both settings has led many scholars to argue how, what, and where ethics
should be taught (Hartman & Hartman, 2004; Sims & Brinkmann, 2003).
Variations in approaches within business school education and within professional
training efforts are further exaggerated by the inherent differences between the two contexts. For
instance, business school courses are most frequently delivered over the course of a semester,
whereas organizational interventions are more likely to occur over a short timeframe such as
one-time, professional ethics training. Further still, the context of an organizational intervention
allows for more tailored content to specific organizational rules and concerns. In contrast, ethics
education within business schools are often broader and aimed at introducing students to the
subject in a more traditional academic manner.
Although ethics education and organizational trainings differ in these ways, they
ultimately share a common, albeit broad, overarching goal – improving business ethics.
Additionally, although the approaches may differ, previous research examining the effectiveness
of ethics efforts, as measured by Cohen’s d, suggests that certain approaches are more effective
than others (Mulhearn, Steele, Watts, Medeiros, Mumford, & Connelly, 2016). A previous meta-
analysis spanning both contexts conducted by Waples, Antes, Murphy, Connelly, and Mumford
(2009) suggests that, in general, ethics education and training appear to be effective. Further,
they examined several course characteristics including quality of instruction, instructional
content, general program characteristics, instructional methods, and participant characteristics.
Their findings suggest shorter-length workshops using a case-based approach, multiple activities,
and a focus on ethical rules, principles, guidelines, and strategies were most effective when
compared to other approaches.
Despite these promising findings, the Waples et al. meta-analysis included only 25
studies. Therefore, the conclusions are limited due to the small number of courses with
evaluation data. Given the increasing interest in ethics education in business schools and
organizations, the literature in this area continues to expand and include new studies examining
the effectiveness of these approaches. Thus, a new meta-analysis including both novel, and
replicated or similar approaches to those examined in Waples et al. may provide more stable
estimates regarding the effectiveness of each approach as well as generalized estimates which
could not previously be examined due to a lack of available data.
Examining the effectiveness of each approach across both groups, may provide insights
regarding which approaches show potential and which do not. Further, comparing results across
both settings may allow for a symbiotic-learning relationship between education and professional
settings, whereby one may identify new, potentially more effective, approaches from the other.
Thus, the purpose of the present effort is to conduct a meta-analytic review of business ethics
education and organizational training interventions to address two key questions 1) which
approaches do the data suggest are most effective and 2) is the overall effectiveness of these
efforts improving?
Moderators of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness
The training and course design literatures (e.g., Goldstein & Ford, 2002; Whetten, 2007),
suggest several approaches and characteristics which may moderate course effectiveness. For
instance, Goldstein and Ford discuss the importance of careful content selection, providing
practice opportunities, delivery methods, and appropriate evaluation procedures. Similarly,

Whetten argues for the development of explicit course objectives, inclusion of relevant learning
activities, and the use of valid assessment to measure student learning. Previous reviews of ethics
education (e.g., Sekerka, 2009; Waples et al., 2009) provide additional instructional
characteristics to consider. Drawing on these literatures and the availability of information, the
present effort investigates nine key training intervention characteristics including: (1) criteria, (2)
study design, (3) quality, (4) general instructional parameters, (5) course content, (6) delivery
methods, (7) processes, (8) training development, and (9) trainee characteristics.
Criteria. Kirkpatrick (1979) describes four types of criteria: reaction, learning, behavior,
and results. Reactions include affective responses (e.g., how satisfied are you with this course?),
learning includes the facts, principles, or techniques gained (e.g., knowledge tests), and behavior
refers to performance in a transfer setting (e.g., ethical decision making on the job). Lastly,
results refer to organizational objectives such as reduction in ethics scandals. Indeed, Williams
and Dewett (2005) summarize three goals of ethics education including awareness, moral
development, and complex problem solving which span the learning and behavior domains to
ultimately influence results.
Previous work identified a range of reactions and learning criteria such as perceptions of
self and others, ethical awareness, moral reasoning, and ethical behavior (Steele, Mulhearn,
Medeiros, Watts, Connelly, & Mumford, 2016). In their review, Waples et al. (2009) found a
wide range of training effectiveness depending on the type of criteria employed, with those
measuring moral reasoning showing the largest effects, perceptions revealing small effects, and
ethical behavior showing negative effects. Thus, the type of criteria used may reveal for which
outcomes current ethics education efforts prove most effective. Additionally, characteristics of
criteria measurements such as measure development and field-specificity may influence results
and therefore, should be examined.
Although previous work has examined ethical behavior, it has focused exclusively on the
immediate effects, ignoring whether or not these effects are maintained over time. Thus, in the
present effort, we also address Kirkpatrick’s third category of behavior, or transfer to the job.
Training transfer measurement offers a look at the lasting effects of ethics education and training
to provide insight into the question, do these effects hold over time?
Study design. The study design may also influence results (Goldstein & Ford, 2002).
True experimental designs, for instance, provide more control over extraneous variables,
increasing one’s confidence in the causal effects of the intervention. However, practical
constraints exist and result in a variation of experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-
experimental designs. Additionally, previous research suggests studies receiving funding are
more likely to produce significant results than non-funded studies (Conn, Valentine, Cooper, &
Rantz, 2003). Finally, study characteristics such as the quality of publication, sample size, and
publication type (i.e., published or unpublished) may prove influential. For instance, published
studies are more likely to show significant effects compared to unpublished studies (Rosenthal,
1979).
Study timing. With new studies bringing forth alternative methods and landscape-
changing topics such as technology use and global issues, it bears examining whether these
newcomers in fact represent progress. To measure progress, new studies are compared against
those included in last major meta-analytic effort (Waples et al., 2009). Thus, the present effort
examines changes in overall effectiveness from studies conducted prior to 2007 and those
conducted between 2007 and 2015.

Quality. Previous research suggests the quality of instruction, criterion, and methodology
may influence findings. Indeed, Waples et al. (2009) found consistent effects across instruction,
criteria, and design, where above average quality programs produced the largest effects, average
produced the second largest, and below average or poor programs produced the smallest effects.
Thus, the overall quality of these variables may produce unique effects.
General instructional parameters. Variation in program execution is further seen in the
general training parameters such as the purpose and size of the class. For instance, previous
discussion obviates the different settings in which these efforts occur –– academic and
professional. Waples et al. (2009) found professional workshops to be more effective than
traditional academic courses. Additionally, two approaches for incorporating ethics education
intro industry and academia have been proposed –– embedded and stand-alone programs (e.g.,
McDonald, 2004). Waples et al. offered some evidence for the former, finding larger effects for
integrated courses compared to stand-alone course. Previous work also suggests that mandatory
instruction is less effective than voluntary training, a result not surprising given likely
motivational differences of trainees. Furthermore, class size and length may influence training
effectiveness.
The growing use of online technology begs the comparison of face-to-face and online
approaches (Todd et al., 2017). Although many organizations and business schools have adopted
online ethics courses (Sekerka, 2009), face-to-face training may be particularly important in this
arena as it encourages critical processes such as interaction, reflection, and practice. However,
online courses offer more convenience and use fewer resources.
Instructional content. Reflecting the range in purpose, instructional content also varies
widely. Indeed, a quick scan of the literature reveals content such as legal requirements,
sustainable practice (e.g., Rundle-Thiele & Wymer, 2010), corporate social responsibility (e.g.,
Christensen, Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier, 2007), moral philosophy (e.g., Jones, 2009),
and decision processes (e.g., Ritter, 2006). Waples et al. (2009) examined these content types in
terms of specificity, skills, and general approaches. Results suggest that cognitive approaches
prove more effective than social-interactional approaches. Additionally, courses emphasizing
both decision-making strategies and behaviors underperform those emphasizing only decision-
making strategies. Little difference, however, was observed between courses focusing on global
skills compared to skills specific to a job domain. The ethical decision-making literature (e.g.,
Craft, 2013; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005) and business ethics texts (e.g., Ferrell, Fraedrich, &
Ferrell, 2014), however, present several additional content areas which have not been examined
using a meta-analytic approach.
Delivery method. Pedagogical methods such as lecture, cases, and practice opportunities
may influence effectiveness (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Case-based practice offers trainees the
opportunity to see how actors made decisions, the effects of those decisions, and store this
information for later recall in a new situation (Kolodner, 1992). A more nuanced investigation,
however, examining length, frequency, emotional content and realism may reveal suggestions for
how to appropriately implement these findings. For instance, Thiel et al. (2013) found that
emotionally rich cases encouraged retention and transfer. Additionally, delivery and practice
methods extend beyond case-based and lecture to include activities such as self-reflection,
essays, and discussion. These activities may be completed in an individual or group setting.
Although previous research suggests the importance of multiple practice opportunities, the
question remains as to what activities prove most effective and how to execute them.
Processes. Just as ethics education and training emphasizes different content and
maintains differing goals, it may also stress differing processes. For instance, some emphasize
ethical awareness (e.g., Baker & Comer, 2012) while others focus on analyzing personal values
(e.g., Allen, Bacdayan, Kowalski, & Roy, 2005). Further, business ethics education places a
large emphasis on stakeholders and stakeholder analysis. As noted by Furman (1990), students
and employees must interface with their environment in order to make ethical decisions. Thus,
processes such as stakeholder analysis and constraint analysis may be particularly important for
making sound ethical decisions. Much remains unknown regarding the comparative effectiveness
of these processes. Thus, the present effort examines a number of processes and their relationship
with training effectiveness.
Course development. Courses may be developed in-house, use an extant or off-the-shelf
training, or may be a modification of an off-the-shelf training to meet customized needs. In-
house training may be more tailored to specific needs, where as an off-the-shelf course may be
broader and focus less on specific issues relevant to a particular organization. Further,
development should include specifying the instructional objectives or goals for the course
(Goldstein & Ford, 2002). A study examining ethics training efforts within Fortune 500
companies found that a majority aimed to develop employee awareness, while others aimed to
present potential issues, improve management, provide practice opportunities through cases, and
address the current literature and recent events (Kohls, Chapman, & Mathiem 1989). This
variation in objectives and the number of intended objectives may influence training
effectiveness. For instance, courses based on too many objectives may lack the focus and depth
necessary to produce significant change.

Student characteristics. Researchers have conducted several reviews regarding
individual characteristics and their influence on ethical decision making (e.g., Craft, 2013;
O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Results suggest several characteristics including age, gender,
education, and experience influence ethical decision making. Furthermore, the training literature
notes the influence of participant characteristics on training effectiveness (Baldwin & Ford,
1988; Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992; Noe, 1986).
Waples et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis suggests professionals gain more than students and those
with prior instruction gained more than those with less. Additionally, audiences consisting of
mostly professionals or a mix of professionals and students benefited more than students alone.
Primarily male audiences gained slightly more than mixed gender audiences and audiences
averaging 35 years or older benefited more than those younger than 35 or mixed audiences.
Career stage, field, and country of instruction may also influence training effectiveness.
For instance, ethics education within business schools may be implemented at both the
undergraduate and MBA levels. But, one group may benefit more than the other. Trainees in
different fields may also see marked differences in training effectiveness (Mulhearn et al., 2016).
For instance, the accounting scandals of the early twenty-first century placed a large emphasis on
ethics in accounting. However, less of an emphasis may be seen in other fields of business.
Lastly, given requirements by the U.S. government and encouragement by business school
governing bodies, one may expect the U.S. to invest more effort into ethics education and
thereby, produce more effective methods (Steele et al., 2015).
In summary, the previous meta-analytic work by Waples and colleagues (2009) provides
a foundation for understanding more and less effective methods of ethics instruction. Studies
conducted since 2007 offer new insights and suggest alternative methods. Thus, the present
effort examines 35 years of business ethics instruction to address the following research
questions:
Research Question 1: What course characteristics moderate the effectiveness of business
ethics education and training?
Research Question 2: Have business ethics education and training efforts improved in
effectiveness since 2007?
METHOD
Literature Search
A five-pronged literature search was conducted to identify studies relevant to business
ethics education. First, prior to searching journals and databases, researchers identified previous
meta-analytic and narrative review reference lists to identify relevant studies.
Second, 32 databases were searched including, ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic
Search Elite, American bibliography of Slavic and Eastern European Studies, Anthropology
Plus, Article 1st, ASCE Library, ASTM Standards and Engineering Digital library, Blackwell-
Synergy, Business Source Premier, Chronicle of Higher Education, CINAHL Plus,
Communication and Mass Media Complete, Communication Abstracts, CompendexWeb,
Current Contents Connect, Eric, Google Scholar, Health Source; Nursing/Academic Edition,
IEEE Xplore, INSPEC, JSTOR, LexisNexis Academic, MasterFILE Premier, MEDLINE,
Military and Government Collection, Natural Sciences Collection, Philosopher’s Index,
Professional Development Collection, PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO, PubMed, and SocINDEX.
Third, to comply with meta-analysis best practices (APA, 2008; Kepes, McDaniel,
Brannick, & Banks, 2013), researchers searched eight journals relevant to ethics education
including Accountability in Research, Ethics and Behavior, Journal of Moral Education,

Teaching Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, Teaching of Psychology, and Journal of Empirical Research in Human Ethics.
Databases and journals were searched using keywords including, “ethics training,” “ethics
education,” “ethics instruction,” “professional ethics training,” and “moral development
training.” Database searches also included limiters such as “human,” “English only,” adult
population,” and “peer-reviewed.”
Fourth, researchers identified a list of doctoral-degree granting institutions and
institutions receiving funding awards from the National Institutes of Health and the National
Science Foundation. These universities’ websites were then searched to identify integrity offices
and ethics education centers to request unpublished data from their training efforts.
Fifth, researchers took several steps to address the file-drawer effect. This began with a
search of relevant conference program (e.g., APA, SIOP, AOM, SBE) for unpublished papers
relevant to the present effort. Next, authors with two or more publications in ethics training since
2000 were emailed with requests for any unpublished manuscripts. Lastly, researchers searched
the Dissertation Abstracts database to identify unpublished dissertation relevant to business
ethics education. This search approach resulted in 4,671 studies, including all studies included in
the Waples et al (2009) meta analysis, for potential inclusion in this meta-analytic review.
Inclusion Criteria
After reviewing the 4,671 studies and removing duplicates, non-empirical articles, and
studies irrelevant to business ethics education and training, the three first authors coded the
remaining studies for the inclusion criteria. First, studies needed to conduct an empirical
investigation of business ethics education or professional ethics training. Business ethics
education was defined as formal teaching efforts communicating ethics-related content to

business students or working professionals. Of note here, is that only studies where actual
interventions were conducted were included. If little to no course information was described, the
study was excluded. Second, studies needed to describe at least one of the potential moderator
categories previously described. Third, the study must have provided the necessary statistics to
calculate Cohen’s d. Studies meeting these criteria were retained for analyses.
Retained studies were next assessed to determine independence of the data. When studies
contributed more than one effect size in the same criterion category, these effects were
aggregated to form a single score for that category within that study. If the multiple effects
represented unique criteria (e.g., ethical behavior and attitudes), both were included as
independent effects. Lastly, these effects were corrected for sampling error in the analysis
process using the Comprehensive Meta Analysis Software version 3. This process resulted in 46
studies contributing 83 effect sizes.
Of the 46 studies, 12 were retained from the Waples et al. meta-analysis. The additional
13 studies included in Waples et al.’s review were excluded in the present effort due to limited
course information or the lack of an intervention as described by the first inclusion criterion.
Additionally, four studies published prior to 2007 which were not included in the previous
Waples et al. meta-analysis were included in the present effort. A total of 29 studies conducted
after 2007 were also included. Additionally, seven dissertations were included in the present
effort.
Included studies originated from multiple sources, including nineteen from business
ethics journals (e.g., Journal of Business Ethics), ten from field-specific education journals (e.g.,
Marketing Education Review), three from general ethics education journals (e.g., Journal of
Moral Education), and seven from non-ethics journals (e.g., Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management). Although a majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n =
39), three studies were conducted in Australia, one in Sweden, one in South Africa, and one in
Finland. Lastly, five studies were executed in a professional setting (e.g., banking) while the
remaining 40 studies were conducted in academia with undergraduates or MBA students.
Coding
Remaining studies were content coded by three industrial-organizational psychology
doctoral students familiar with the literature in business ethics and ethics training. Prior to
coding, the same three doctoral students reviewed the business ethics education literature and
current study sample to identify relevant and available variables for coding. Next, these coders
developed benchmark-rating scales for each potential moderator. Seven experts in ethics
education then reviewed the rating scales and provided feedback. Changes were made based on
the reviewers’ suggestions. Coders then completed approximately 30 hours of frame-of-reference
training (Bernardin & Buckley, 1981) involving a review of variables and their definitions.
Additionally, coders completed practice ratings for three studies. During this practice, coders
discussed discrepancies and issues encountered during the coding process. Discrepancies
between raters were discussed until an agreement was reached. After completing the training,
coders began the rating process for the remaining business ethics education articles.
A majority of variables were rated on a scale of one to five where one represented a small
amount or presence in training, a three represented a moderate amount or presence, and a five
represented an extensive amount or presence. For instance, a training program using an
approximately equal balance of lecture and cases would be coded as three for both variables.
Variables that were not described in a study were given a missing variable code. In most
instances, studies explicitly described the moderators presented in the following sections.
However, coders had to make judgments regarding their presence in some cases. The high inter-
rater reliability estimates, however, suggest that the three coders exhibited similar ratings across
the moderator categories (rwgoverall = .78; rwgCriteria = .74; rwgStudyDesign = .91; rwgQuality = .75;
rwgParamaters = .82; rwgContent = .67; rwgDelivery = .77; rwgProcesses = .60; rwgDevelopment = .83;
rwgTrainees = .96). Interrater agreement coefficients above .70 are generally considered strong
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Moderators
Criterion type. Studies in the present effort assessed a wide-range of criteria. Thus, all
criteria were coded into one of seven categories: (1) moral reasoning, (2) general attitudes, (3)
ethical awareness, (4) ethical decision making, (5) perceptions of self, (6) moral judgment, and
(7) ethical behavior. Additionally, criterion measure characteristics such as reported reliability,
the extent to which measures were developed in-house, and the field-specificity of the measure
were coded. In-house development and field-specificity were both rated on a scale of 1 to 5 and
later collapsed into broader categories of below average, average, and above average.
Study design. Studies were coded for the type of study design used to assess program
effectiveness. Four types of common designs were identified including: (1) pre-test and post-test
with control group, (2) single group pre and post-test, (3) post-test with control group, and (4)
transfer designs with three or more time points. Additionally, the sample size (less than 100, 100-
200, more than 200), funding status (yes/no), and whether the study was peer-reviewed were
recorded.
Study timing. To date, the most comprehensive meta-analysis examining business ethics
instruction is Waples et al.’s (2009) review. However, their effort only included studies through
the year 2006. Many other investigations have taken place, using new approaches and examining
more specific variables. Thus, the present effort aims to address this question by comparing
studies published prior to 2007 and those published between 2007 and 2015.
Quality. Coders assessed the degree to which studies met the literature’s standards for
instruction, design, and measurement. Specifically, coders assessed the instruction quality (e.g.,
appropriateness, inclusion of practice opportunities), design quality (e.g., pre-post design), and
criterion quality (e.g., validity and reliability) according to best practices. Quality was coded on a
scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low quality, 5 = high quality). These variables were later collapsed into below
average, average, and above average categories.
General training parameters. The purpose of training was coded into one of three
categories: academic, professional, or experimental. Additionally, the nature of participation was
coded as voluntary or mandatory. Timing of instruction was recorded in the total hours of
instruction and training time span. These parameters were divided into broad categories based on
trends in the data. Class size, instructional format (integrated or stand-alone), and delivery format
(face-to-face, hybrid, online) were also recorded.
Content. To identify specific training content proving more or less effective, researchers
coded the extent to which training programs included a number of frequently discussed topics.
These topics included: codes of conduct, common rule, privacy/confidentiality, general
compliance, institutional compliance, legality, financial compliance, sensemaking, personal
integrity, professionalism, strategies, diversity, whistleblowing, stakeholders, conflicts of
interest, virtues, values, personal responsibility, moral philosophy, social responsibility,
environmental impacts, nature of ethical dilemmas, contemporary ethical issues, and the
historical development of business ethics. These course topics were coded on a scale of 1
(included a small amount) to 5 (included extensively). Additionally, raters recorded the degree to
which the content, as a whole, was field-specific.
Delivery methods. Common delivery methods were coded on a Likert scale with ratings
ranging from 1 (a small amount present) to 5 (an extensive amount). The delivery methods coded
were as follows: case-based, lecture, problem-based, team-based, discussion, web-based
discussion, debates, current events, self-reflection, and essays. Furthermore, course activities
were coded using the scale mentioned above with respect to the extent to which these activities
were guided or self-directed, individual- or group-based, and focused on whole- or part-learning.
Additionally, coders assessed the level of trainee active participation expected based on delivery
methods and course descriptions. Lastly, practice characteristics such as frequency, length, and
realism were coded.
Processes. Coders assessed the degree to which training focuses on specific processes
using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (small amount of analysis) to 5 (extensive amount of
analysis). These processes included ethical awareness, consequences, constraints, forecasting,
motives, strategies, cognitive processes, errors, stakeholders, virtues, values, and meta-ethics.
Course development. The extent to which courses were developed in house was coded
on a scale of 1 (off-the-shelf training) to 5 (course developed entirely in-house). Additionally,
coders retained the number of instructional objectives provided.
Student characteristics. The average age and gender of trainees in each course was
recorded. The location of the training program was also recorded as an indicator of trainee
nationality. Additionally, trainee career stage and field were recorded. Career stage was
categorized as one of the following: undergraduate students, MBAs, professionals, or mixed.
Trainee field was categorized as accounting, communication, management, sales, information

technology, or banking. When a more specific field was not listed, the field was coded as general
business.
Analysis Plan
Analyses were conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software
version 3 (2016). The random-effects model was used to approximate the inverse-variance
weighted effect sizes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). No additional corrections were made beyond this
weighting procedure. The random-effects model is appropriate when researchers do not expect
one true, underlying effect across studies (Borenstein, Hedges, & Rothstein, 2007) as is the case
when comparing ethics interventions across multiple settings and conditions. Additionally, the
random-effects model was used to pool the within-group tau-squared estimate, thus assuming
common variance from subgroups within studies. The I2 statistic for the overall meta-analysis
provides an estimate of heterogeneity, which suggests the consistency of results across studies.
When the inverse of this statistic is small (< 75%), it suggests moderators may be influencing
this relationship (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Kepes et al., 2013). Lastly, due to the nature of the
data, transfer effects were not included in the primary analysis. These data were only included as
“skill decay” in the design category.
Researchers suggest (e.g., Arthur, Bennett, & Huffcutt, 2001; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004)
examining moderators when the there are at least 10 studies including that moderator (k > 10)
Due to the wide-range of approaches to ethics education and training, however, the present effort
examines moderators including three or more effects. Interpretations of moderators with a small
k size are, therefore, made with caution. For more information regarding meta-analysis practices,
see Cooper, Hedges, and Valentine (2009).
RESULTS
The present effort applies Cohen’s (1969) effect size classification recommendations in
the interpretation of results. Small effects were inferred when d = .2, medium when d = .5, and
large when d = .8. Thus, the overall meta-analysis across criteria and course characteristics
results suggest a small effect (d = .30, SD = .03) of ethics instruction. However, a closer
examination by criterion type reveals varying effects, with ethical decision making producing
large effects (d = 1.16, SD = .45) and ethical behavior (d = .58, SD = .17) producing large and
medium effects. The smallest effects were produced by attitudes (d = .15, SD = .05), perceptions
of self (d = .17, SD = .10), moral judgment (d = .18, SD = .18), and ethical awareness (d = .21,
SD = .12). Table 1 presents these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 About Here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A clear distinction was observed between decision-making and behavioral criteria (d =
.46, SD = .05) and attitudinal criteria including general attitudes, perceptions of self, moral
judgment, and ethical awareness (d = .16, SD = .03). If these criteria are included as one overall
indicator of effectiveness, then the true effect may be masked, where attitudinal criteria (e.g.,
perceptions of self, general attitudes, awareness, judgment) may reduce the effect size and
behavioral and decision-making criteria (e.g., ethical decision making, moral reasoning) may
inflate the effectiveness of others. To clearly understand ethics intervention effectiveness, it may
be important to delineate the results based on criteria employed. Further, separating the criteria
allows for a more precise examination of which approaches are most likely to influence actual
ethical behavior. Therefore, the remaining analyses are separated into two criterion categories ––
(1) decision-making and behavioral criteria and (2) attitudinal criteria.

Moderators
Tables 2-10 provide the results by moderator for each criterion category. Due to the large
number of results included here, only noteworthy findings are discussed. As expected,
behavioral/decision-making criteria tended to demonstrate larger effects than attitudinal criteria.
Table 2 provides results for criterion characteristics including reported reliability,
measure development, and field-specificity. For decision-making and behavioral criteria, studies
using measures consisting of both field-specific and general material produced large positive
effects (d = .94, SD = .37) while measures with general or field specific content only produced
small positive effects (d = .37, SD = .07; d = .48, SD = .12). A similar pattern emerged when
examining attitudinal criteria with measures consisting of both general and field-specific content
producing a small effect (d = .31, SD = .14). Decision-making and behavioral measures
developed in-house produced a medium positive effect (d = .68, SD = .14) whereas off-the-shelf
measures displayed a small positive effect (d = .41, SD = .07). Perhaps this is due to the context
specificity associated with decision making and behavior and thus, the need for more contextual
information which may be included when developed in-house.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study design. Results bearing on study design are presented in Table 3. Of particular
importance are the findings pertaining to transfer measurement and how the effectiveness of
these efforts has changed since the previous meta-analysis by Waples et al. (2009). Regarding
decision-making and behavioral criteria, studies using a transfer measure revealed a small
decline over time (d = -.37, SD = .16). However, only two effect sizes were included and thus,
limit the interpretability of this result. When examining attitudinal criteria, a near zero effect (d =
-.07, SD = .16) was observed for transfer measurement. These results highlight the need for
continued research examining the longitudinal effects of ethics interventions.
Table 3 also presents a comparison of studies across time. Studies examining behavioral
and decision-making criteria published prior to 2007 demonstrated a moderate positive effect (d
= .62, SD = .11). Interestingly, studies examining similar criteria published after 2007
demonstrated a small to moderate positive effect (d = .40, SD = .07). In comparison, studies
examining attitudinal criteria showed very small effects both prior to 2007 (d = .13, SD = .07)
and after 2007 (d = .18, SD = .04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality. Quality ratings of instruction and design reveal similar patterns with regard to
behavioral and decision-making criteria, whereby average (d = .54, SD = .08; d = .47, SD = .08)
and above average (d = .46, SD = .13; d = .58, SD = .10) instruction and design produced the
largest effects. Regarding attitudinal criteria, results suggest that below (d = .22, SD = .04) and
above average (d = .22, SD = .08) criteria perform better than average designs. Additionally,
quality of instruction ratings suggest that trainings with average instruction produced small
effects (d = .24, SD = .05), while above and below average instruction produced no effect. Table
4 presents the full results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General instructional parameters. General instructional parameter results across both
types of criteria, as presented in Table 5, suggest professional development training is
particularly effective (d = 1.10, SD = .15; d = .34, SD = .10) compared to academic (d = .35, SD
= .06; d = .18, SD = .04) and pure-experimental (d = .41, SD = .29; d = .03, SD = .08) efforts.
Similarly, when examining behavioral and decision-making criteria, efforts spanning less than
one day displayed the largest effects (d = .67, SD = .12), followed by those lasting one to four
months (d = .51, SD = .12). Along these lines, courses lasting approximately four to nine hours
produced the largest effects (d = .80, SD = .12; d = .31, SD = .08) across both types of criteria.
Stand-alone programs (d = .51, SD = .07) displayed the largest effects with regard to
decision-making and behavioral criteria. In comparison, stand-alone (d = .16, SD = .04) and
integrated (d = .18, SD = .07) courses performed similarly, and poorly, when examining
attitudinal criteria. Across both types of criteria, face-to-face (d = .47 SD = .06; d = .22, SD =
.05) and hybrid approaches (d = .53, SD = .23; d = .24 SD = .12) displayed the largest effects.
Notably, online training produced no effect (d = .03, SD = .08) with respect to attitudinal criteria.
Although a small effect was observed for online training (d = .27, SD = .39) with behavioral and
decision-making criteria, only one effect size was included. Thus, more research is needed in
understanding the effectiveness of online training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional content. Content producing large effects on decision-making and
behavioral outcomes include decision-making strategies (d = 1.00, SD = .15), general
compliance (d = .89, SD = .19), and the complexity of ethical dilemmas (d = .68, SD = .14).
However, many of these k sizes fell below the suggested threshold of k > 10. Examining content
variables with larger k sizes reveals that coverage of stakeholders (d = .61, SD = .09) and moral
philosophy (d = .52, SD = .07) produce moderate effects. Comparatively, with the exception of
privacy/confidentiality (d = .07, SD = .12), diversity (d = .18, SD = .29), and environmental
impacts (d = .16, SD = .10), all topics displayed small effects on attitudinal criteria. Again, many
of the k sizes for these categories fell below the suggested number and thus, should be
interpreted with caution.
Although a number of topics could be covered in an ethics course or training, results
reveal a large effect of moderate topic breadth (d = .81, SD = .11) on behavioral and decision-
making criteria. In comparison, attitudinal criteria results suggest that including a moderate (d =
.23, SD = .12) to large (d = .26, SD = .07) breadth of topics is beneficial, however these effect
sizes are both still minimal. Additionally, the field-specificity and generality of the topics
included appears to influence course effectiveness. For instance, field-specific and general
training content produced moderate effects (d = .58, SD = .09; d = .50, SD = .12) while a
balanced approach including both general and field-specific content revealed a small effect (d =
.36, SD = .11) on behavioral and decision-making criteria. A similar pattern of results was seen
with attitudinal criteria. However, field-specific and general training content produced small
effects (d = .24, SD = .09; d = .22, SD = .05) and balanced content produced almost no effect (d
= .10, SD = .06). Table 6 presents the full results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery methods. Results pertaining to specific delivery methods, as presented in Table
7, reveal large effects for problem-based learning (d = 1.64, SD = .19) and debates (d = .74, SD =
.74) on behavioral and decision-making criteria. Along these lines, high-levels of trainee active
participation displayed a moderate effect (d = .63, SD = .11) for decision-making and behavioral
criteria. In comparison, most delivery methods revealed small effects for attitudinal criteria with
the exception of web-based discussion and debates, which revealed no effects. A small effect of
moderate active participation was also observed for attitudinal criteria (d = .27, SD = .05).
Due to the frequency with which lecture and case-based approaches are used in ethics
education, the present effort decomposed the use of cases and lecture into below average,
average, and above average use. Results reveal that extensive (d = .68, SD = .11) case use and a
small amount of lecture results in moderate effects (d = .78, SD = .17) for behavioral and
decision-making criteria. An examination of attitudinal criteria reveals small effects for
moderate amount of lecture (d = .26, SD = .06) and small to moderate amounts of case use (d =
.26, SD = .10; d = .25, SD = .05).
Additionally, results for behavioral and decision-making criteria suggest that a small
number (i.e., 1-2) of different types of activities (d = .55, SD = .09) results in moderate effects
compared to medium and large breadth (d = .37, SD = .12; d = .41, SD = .16). On the other hand,
results reveal a small effect for large activity breadth (d = .29, SD = .09), and essentially no
effect for small or moderate breadth for attitudinal criteria. Across both types of criteria, results
suggest guided training (d = .50, SD = .07; d = .27, SD = .04) outperforms self-directed training
(d = .39, SD = .34; d = -.02, SD = .06). However, a majority of courses involved some guidance
limiting the k size for the self-directed groups. Additionally, results for behavioral and decision-
making criteria reveal a large effect (d = .82, SD = .18) of mixed individual and group activities
and a small effect (d = .45, SD = .07) of individual-based activities. Regarding attitudinal
criteria, a small effect was observed for group-based activities (d = .36, SD = .30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processes. Table 8 displays results regarding the varying processes used in business
ethics education and training. Results suggest that engaging in motive analysis (d = 1.01, SD =
.16), cognitive analysis (d = .61, SD = .14), forecasting (d = .59, SD = .09), strategy analysis (d =
.69, SD = .11), stakeholder analysis (d = .59, SD = .10), value analysis (d = .59, SD = .16), and
meta-ethical analysis (d = .61, SD = .09) may be particular beneficial when aiming to influence
behavioral or decision-making criteria. A similar pattern of results was observed for attitudinal
criteria. Additionally, results across both types of criteria suggest a larger effect for courses
including multiple (6 or more) processes (d = .63, SD = .10; d = .30, SD = .06) compared to
fewer processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course development. Training development results, presented in Table 9, suggest a
moderate positive effect (d = .52, SD = .06) of in-house training and a small positive effect of
off-the-shelf training (d = .36, SD = .33) and adapted off-the-shelf training (d = .27, SD = .39) for
behavioral and decision-making criteria. Comparatively, adapted off-the-shelf training produced
a small positive effect (d = .31, SD = .11) with respect to attitudinal criteria. Regarding course
objectives, a moderate positive effect of few instructional objectives (d = .65, SD = .13) and a
small positive effect of many objectives (d = .40, SD = .23) was observed for decision-making
and behavioral criteria. No effect of objectives was seen for attitudinal criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trainee characteristics. Results regarding trainee characteristics, displayed in Table 10,
replicate earlier results suggesting training in professional settings shows larger effects than
traditional academic courses. Regarding behavioral and decision-making criteria, professional
trainees demonstrated a large positive effect (d = 1.11, SD = .15) while undergraduate (d = .37,
SD = .07), MBA (d = .29, SD = .21), and combination classes (d = .27, SD = .22) produced small
positive effects. Examining attitudinal criteria reveals small positive effects for MBA (d = .22,
SD = .13) and mixed courses (d = .33, SD = .21). In line with these results, an analysis of trainee
average age across both groups suggests that older trainees gain more (d = .90, SD = .27; d = .40,
SD = .13) than younger trainees (d = .42, SD = .14; d = .19, SD = .11).
Additionally, large positive effects for behavior and decision making were seen for
management (d = 2.29, SD = .53) and sales (d = 1.16, SD = .29) fields. All other fields displayed
moderate to small positive effects. In comparison, small positive effects for attitudes were
observed for accounting (d = .24, SD = .09), communication (d = .20, SD = .13), and banking (d
= .34, SD = .11). Additionally, results across both criterion types suggest larger effects for
training outside of the US (d = 1.08, SD = .25; d = .35, SD = .12) compared to training conducted
within the US (d = .43, SD = .06; d =.14, SD = .04). Lastly, results reveal a large positive effect
for behavior and decision making in predominantly female courses (d = 1.26, SD = .19) and a
small positive effect in mixed gender (d = .44, SD = .12) and predominantly male courses (d =
.47, SD = .16). Attitudinal criteria results reveal small positive effects across all three trainee
groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
When interpreting these results, several limitations should be borne in mind. First,
examining results by criterion group decreased the k size in the moderator analyses. While the k
size for many groups still reach Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation, there are several
falling below. Despite this limitation, examining results by criterion group allowed for a richer
analysis of the current state of business ethics education and training. While we believe this
tradeoff is warranted, the limited k sizes should be considered when interpreting these results.
Second, the present effort is limited to the course descriptions provided by study authors.
In many instances, studies failed to report complete course descriptions bearing on all potential
moderators. Thus, several moderator variables that were initially proposed and coded were not
included in the final analyses due to missing data. Furthermore, coders did not attempt to code
course characteristics not presented or apparent based on the description. These incomplete
descriptions resulted in a large amount of missing data. For instance, although the number of
breaks, goal-setting, socialization activities, and feedback are discussed in the training and
education literatures (e.g., Goldstein & Ford, 2012), information regarding these variables was
not presented in the studies included. Thus, we were unable to examine these variables in the
present effort. Despite the fact that missing data is always a concern with meta-analysis efforts,
researchers may combat this limitation by sampling studies with adequate information from a
wide-range of sources. The literature review and inclusion criteria used in the present effort
followed these suggestions by searching a wide-range and large number of outlets and listing
specific inclusion criteria. Thus, despite limited course information, the present effort still
provides informative results for furthering knowledge in the area.
Third, although a meta-analytic approach provides unique insight by collapsing across
course characteristics to examine, on average, how specific approaches influence business ethics
outcomes, it does not allow for a more complex assessment of how these variables may interact
or vary across unique contexts. Future research using more complex methods such as structural
equation modeling may allow for a richer picture of these relationships (e.g., Watts, Mulhearn,
Medeiros, Steele, Connelly, & Mumford, 2016).
Third, the “file-drawer effect” refers to the problem created when only significant results
are published in peer-reviewed journals and non-significant findings remain unpublished or in
“file-drawers” (Rosenthal, 1979). This issue creates a bias in the literature and therefore, a bias in
meta-analysis results. The present effort took steps to reduce this bias by searching non-
traditional sources such as conference programs and dissertation abstracts. However, additional
studies may have been missed in the literature review.
Implications for Ethics Pedagogy
Despite these limitations, results of the present effort provide several implications
regarding pedagogical and evaluation approaches to business ethics education and training. Due
to findings regarding employed criteria, the forthcoming discussion regarding pedagogical
implications focuses on results regarding decision making and behavior. Findings suggest that
training and course designers should limit the course to approximately four to seven key topics.
Of the topics examined here, general compliance, institutional compliance, decision-making

strategies, stakeholders, and ethical dilemma characteristics (i.e., complexity) appear to be
particularly important to influencing ethical behavior and decision making. Furthermore, it
appears that these topics should be presented in a broad or field specific manner. Attempting to
simultaneously present topics both broadly and specifically appears to minimally influence
behavior and decision making. Similarly, results suggest that ethics courses should limit their
focus to either general or field-specific information. Together, these findings suggest that ethics
efforts, both broad and specific, can be effective. Thus, despite findings that professional
trainings tend to exhibit larger effects, results regarding the breadth of focus suggest that broader
academic ethics education efforts may also be effective. However, these findings should be
interpreted in conjunction with those regarding the number of objectives. These results suggest
that courses should narrow their focus and choose one to three objectives. Although more
general ethics courses may be effective, they should limit their focus, content, and objectives to
maximize effectiveness.
Although these findings suggest that specific content may prove more or less effective, it
is important to bear in mind the importance of understanding the specific needs of an
organization or field. Professional training efforts should begin with an organizational
assessment to determine risk areas (e.g., Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2014; Goldstein & Ford,
2002). Similarly, in an academic setting, student needs and their future work environments
should be used to inform content development (Felton & Sims, 2005).
Additionally, business ethics courses and trainings may benefit from including many
processes. The most promising processes include an analysis of motives, decision strategies,
cognitive processes, relevant stakeholders, values, and meta-ethical principles. Trainees may also
benefit from forecasting potential outcomes of their decisions. Thus, training and course
designers should not just consider the topics they will cover but also the relevant processes. In
addition to discussing these processes, students should be given the opportunity to practice their
application through practice activities.
Delivery and practice opportunities should encourage trainee active participation, as
courses with high trainee active participation displayed the largest effects. Indeed, the
importance of active participation has been highlighted previously with regard to ethics
education in business schools (e.g., Felton & Sims, 2005). This aligns with results from Weber’s
(2015) survey which found that ethics educators within organizations believed that involving
trainees was a critical component of effective training. Ways to increase participation include
problem-based learning and debates –– two activities displaying large effects. Additionally, a
more detailed analysis of lecture and case use suggests that training should place a heavy
emphasis on case-based learning rather than lecture. This further engages students and allows
them to actively participate and to apply knowledge gained during the course and training.
These practice activities should be short but frequent, and occur in both individual and group-
based settings.
It is also important to consider general training parameters such as course length, delivery
format, and type of instructional format. Results from the present effort suggest stand-alone,
workshop-based training lasting approximately one day proved more effective than integrated
and semester-long training. This finding, in tandem with results regarding a limited focus,
suggest that more isn’t always better when it comes to ethics education. Providing a short,
focused training may be the most beneficial approach. However, little research has explored
which approach provides lasting effects. Perhaps shorter training efforts provide stronger
immediate effects and longer, more traditionally academic education efforts provide weaker, but
sustained effects. Unfortunately, a comparison of immediate versus sustained effects across short
and long-term efforts is not possible due to the lack of available data measuring long-term
effects.
An additional noteworthy finding of the present effort is the comparison of face-to-face
and online education and training efforts. Results suggest that face-to-face courses are a much
more promising approach to ethics education than online courses. Online activities may be used
to supplement face-to-face time, but an online only approach will likely prove less effective. As
online courses become increasingly popular, organizations and universities choosing to employ
online only training may want to pay specific attention to increasing the amount of participation
and case-based activities, emphasizing learning processes as well as content. For instance,
perhaps the effectiveness of online courses could be improved through cases which allow
students to engage the processes mentioned previously and to allow students to do so in
individual assignments as well as group discussion boards or assignments. However, it is
important to note the limited availability of studies evaluating the effectiveness of online courses.
Thus, given the prevalence of this approach, it is important to assess its effectiveness so
educators and researchers may better understand how to best implement this approach when
necessary and appropriate.
Lastly, ethics education and training has been incorporated with undergraduates, MBAs,
and working professionals. However, results suggest that working professionals benefit more,
considerably more, than MBA and undergraduate students. Additionally, it appears that courses
with a primarily female audience show larger results than those with mixed gender and primarily
male audiences. This finding, however, may be due to female’s increased sensitivity to ethical
issues compared to males (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).

Although the present effort provides insight into more and less effective approaches to
improving ethics across multiple criteria, these findings do not suggest, and the authors do not
recommend, abandoning the other training populations. Indeed, many scholars have noted the
nuances associated with training and educational intervention design and the need to carefully
consider the purpose and audience (e.g., Felton & Sims, 2005; Furman, 1990). Rather than
present a one-size-fits all approach to ethics instruction, the present effort suggests themes that
should be incorporated into ethics interventions to improve their effectiveness. Further, we call
for continued investigations empirically assessing the effectiveness of these efforts so that
researchers and practitioners may be better informed as to which approaches work best for which
populations.
Implications for Education Evaluation
Moving to evaluation, it appears that business ethics interventions are beneficial for
improving ethical decision making, ethical behavior, and moral reasoning. On the other hand,
courses targeting attitudinal outcomes such as, self-perceptions, general ethical attitudes,
awareness, and judgment, showed little to no effect. Furthermore, subsequent moderator analyses
accounting for criterion type revealed different patterns of results depending on the category.
Thus, it becomes important to ask the question “What are we interested in influencing with
business ethics education?” If these efforts truly aim to reduce occurrences of ethics crises, then
understanding which approaches influence behavior, decision making, and moral reasoning is
critical. Although ethical awareness and attitudes may influence behavior, this relationship varies
based on certain conditions (e.g., Glasman & Albarracin, 2006). Comparatively, decision
making, moral reasoning, and behavioral measures attempt to directly assess these processes.
Well-constructed measures of ethical decision making and moral reasoning may be more
accurate measures of future behavior. Furthermore, employing these more limited criterion
measures masks and distorts the true effect of business ethics interventions and thereby limits the
field’s ability to identify the most effective approaches.
The present effort aimed to identify changes in business ethics instruction effectiveness
over time by comparing studies published prior to 2007 and those published between 2007 and
2015. There is a striking similarity between overall results from the present effort (d = .30, SD =
.03) and Waples et al.’s (2009) overall results (d = .29, SD = .42). Answering this primary
question based on this comparison alone, suggests that no improvements have been made over
the past ten years. Furthermore, results from the present effort comparing studies published
before and after 2007 by different types of criteria reveals an even more dissatisfying answer.
Studies examining attitudes suggests no effect of business ethics instruction during either time
period. More concerning, studies examining behavioral and decision-making outcomes suggest a
decline in effectiveness when comparing studies published prior to 2007 and those published
after 2007. The small effect size of studies published after 2007, however, is still larger than the
overall effect and the effect reported by Waples et al. (2009). Although the root cause of these
results is not traceable in the present effort, the decline raises some concern for the state of
business ethics education.
Relatedly, results from a similar effort conducted by Watts, Medeiros, Mulhearn, Steele,
Connelly, and Mumford (2016) investigating the effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of
Research training in the sciences suggests a much brighter picture. There, effectiveness rose
from minimal to moderate effects when comparing studies published prior to 2007 and those
published between 2007 and 2015. The Office of Research Integrity, however, has provided
specific guidelines as to what should be included in these training efforts (Steneck, 2007).
Perhaps business ethics education could benefit from a similar framework and resources.
It is also important to bear in mind how well, or poorly, results hold over time. The small
decline observed here suggests that although training has an immediate effect on trainee decision
making and reasoning, some of this gain is lost. However, only two effects were included in this
calculation and thus, the interpretation is limited. Future research should include longitudinal
measures in order to better assess the long-term effectiveness of business ethics education.
Furthermore, including longitudinal measures will help to identify which course characteristics
offer the most promising, long-term effects.
Future Research Directions
In addition to providing important insights, the present effort reveals several areas ripe
for improvement. First, future research efforts should carefully consider the criteria employed.
Practical limitations exist in all settings but these should be carefully weighed against the cost of
less informative criteria. Additionally, courses in certain fields appeared especially effective in
comparison to other fields. Future research could investigate these courses to identify unique
characteristics of these programs that may prove effective in other fields. The importance of
guided training suggests opportunities for research examining characteristics of effective
trainers. Further, the present effort did not examine organizational-level moderators such as
culture, leadership, support, and additional ethics interventions. Future research should
investigate the effect of training in varying organizational and university contexts. Lastly, many
ethics training interventions identified in the literature could not be included in the present effort
due to a lack of evaluation data. It is important that researchers continue to empirically evaluate
ethics courses which may, in turn, inform future research and course development. Indeed, the
call for careful evaluation has been called for previously (e.g., Kohls et al., 1989; Mumford,
Steele, & Watts, 2015). Furthermore, very few studies examined the long-term effects of ethics
interventions. Thus, future research should evaluate these efforts and when possible, evaluate the
transfer effects. For instance, one could explore how business ethics education efforts transfer to
the workplace, and interact with professional ethics training in the workplace. Although much
work remains, we hope the present effort offers insight into which approaches work, which do
not, and fuel new research exploring what we still need to know with regard to ethics education
in business schools and professional ethics trainings.

References
Note. References marked with an asterisk (*) denote studies included in the meta-analysis.
AACSB (2013). 2013 Business Accreditation Standards. Accessed on January 10, 2016.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards/2013-business.
*Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Reeves, M. F. (2000). Effects of education and intervention on

business students’ ethical cognition: A cross sectional and longitudinal study. Teaching
Business Ethics, 4, 269-284.
Allen, W. R., Bacdayan, P., Kowalski, B., & Roy, M. H. (2005). Examining the impact of ethics
training on business student values. Education & Training, 47, 170-182.
AMBA (2016). MBA accreditation criteria. Accessed on February 1, 2017

https://www.mbaworld.com/accreditation/become-an-accredited-business-school.
APA (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What
might they be? The American Psychologist, 63, 839-851.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., & Huffcutt, A. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. United
Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Baker, S. D., & Comer, D. R. (2012). “Business ethics everywhere”: An experiential exercise to
develop students’ ability to identify and respond to ethical issues in business. Journal of
Management Education, 36, 95-125.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and direction for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
*Beggs, J. M. (2011). Seamless integration of ethics. Marketing Education Review, 21, 49-55.
Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management
Review, 6, 205-222.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., & Rothstein, H. (2007). Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. random
effects. Retreived from: https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/M-
a_f_e_v_r_e_sv.pdf.
*Bosco, S. M., Mechar, D. E., Beauvais, L. L., & Desplaces, D. E. (2010). Teaching business
ethics: The effectiveness of common pedagogical practices in developing students’ moral
judgment competence. Ethics and Education, 5, 263-280.
*Burns, D. J. (2012). Exploring the effects of using consumer culture as a unifying pedagogical
framework on the ethical perceptions of MBA students. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 21, 1-15.
*Cagle, J. A. B., & Baucus, M. S. (2006). Case studies of ethical scandals: Effects on ethical
perceptions of finance students. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 213-229.
*Canarutto, G., Smith, K. T., & Murphy Smith, L. (2010). Impact of an ethics presentation used
in the USA and adapted for Italy. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 19,
309-322.
*Canary, H. E. (2007). Teaching ethics in communication courses: An investigation of

instructional methods, course foci, and student outcomes. Communication Education, 56,
193-208.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, e., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (1995). Toward
theoretically based principles of training effectiveness: A model and initial empirical
investigation. Military Psychology, 7, 141 – 164.
Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., & Carrier, J. (2007). Ethics, CSR,
and sustainability education in the “Financial times” top 50 global business schools:
Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 347-368.
*Cloninger, P. A., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2010). Can ethics education improve ethical judgment?
An empirical study. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75, 4-12.
Cohen J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
*Cohen, E., & Cornwell, L. (1989). A question of ethics: Developing information system ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 431-437.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward and integrative theory of training
motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 678-707.
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3). [Computer Software]. (2016). Englewood, NJ:

Biostat. Available from https://www.meta-analysis.com.
Conn, V. S., Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H. M., & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Grey literature in meta-
analysis. Nursing Research, 52, 256-261.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis
and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011.

*Delaney, J., & Coe, M. J. (2008). Does ethics instruction make a difference? Advances in
Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations, 9, 233-250.
*Dellaportes, S. (2006). Making a difference with a discrete course on accounting ethics. Journal
of Business Ethics, 65, 391-404.
*Dzuranin, A. C., Shortridge, R. T., & Smith, P. A. (2013). Building ethical leaders: A way to
integrate and assess ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 101-114.
EFMD (2013). EFMD introduces broader coverage of ethics, responsibility and sustainability to
EQUIS. Accessed on February 1, 2017. http://www.efmd.org/blog/view/278-efmd-
introduces-broader-coverage-of-ethics-responsibility-and-sustainability-to-equis.
Felton, E. L., & Sims, R. R. (2005). Teaching business ethics: Targeted outputs. Journal of
Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2014). Business ethics: Ethical decision making &
cases (10th ed.). Cengage Learning: Independency, KY.
*Fischbach, S. (2013). Determining the effects of graphic novels in ethics training: An analysis
of effectiveness through empathy, interpersonal mentalizing and ethical efficacy.
Unpublished dissertation, New Mexico State University.
*Fraedrich, J., Cherry, J., King, K., & Guo, C. (2005). An empirical investigation of the effects
of business training. Marketing Education Review, 15, 27-35.
Furman, F. K. (1990). Teaching business ethics: Questioning the assumptions, seeking new
directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 31-38.
Gioia, D. A. (2002). Business education’s role in the crisis of corporate confidence. The
Academy of Management Executive, 16, 142-144.
Glasman, L., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-
analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778-822.
Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment,

development, and evaluation. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
*Grant, T. A. (2012). Comparing the principle-based SBH maieutic method to traditional case
study methods of teaching media ethics. Unpublished dissertation, University of Idaho.
*Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2005). Everybody else is doing it, so
why can’t we? Pluralistic ignorance and business ethics education. Journal of Business
Ethics, 56, 385-398.
Hartman, L. P., & Hartman, E. M. (2004). How to teach ethics. Journal of Business Ethics
Education, 1, 165-212.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic
Press.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
*Izzo, G. M., Langford, B. E., & Vitell, S. (2006). Investigating the efficacy of interactive ethics
education: A difference in pedagogical emphasis. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 14, 239-248.
*Jones, G. E., & Ottaway, R. N. (2001). The effectiveness of corporate ethics on-site visits for
teaching business ethics. Teaching Business Ethics, 5, 141-156.
*Jones, D. A. (2009). A novel approach to business ethics training: Improving moral reasoning
in just a few weeks. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 367-379.
*Kavathatzopoulos, I. (1994). Training professional managers in decision-making about real life

business ethics problems: The acquisition of the autonomous problem-solving skill.
*Kennedy, J. P. (2010). Examining the impact of ethics education on business students’

perceptions of white-collar crime. Unpublished dissertation, Wayne State University.
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in
the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the Meta-
analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 123-143.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training. Training & Development Journal,
33, 78-92.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New York:
Rinehart & Winston.
Kohls, J., Chapman, C., & Mathieu, C. (1989). Ethics training programs in the Fortune 500.
Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 8, 55-72.
Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review,

6, 3-34.
*LaPanne, S. E. (2007). Ethics training for introductory accounting students: An analysis of

effectiveness at a community college. Unpublished dissertation, Capella University.
*Lau, C. L. L. (2010). A step forward: Ethics education matters! Journal of Business Ethics, 92,
565-584.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852.
Leclair, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (2000). Innovation in experiential business ethics training. Journal of
*Litzky, B. E., & Oz, E. (2008). Ethical issues in information technology: Does education make
a difference? International Journal of information and Communication Technology
Education, 4, 67-83.
*Loe, T. W., & Weeks, W. A. (2000). An experimental investigation of efforts to improve sales
students’ moral reasoning. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20, 243-
251.
Low, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical
decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185-204.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training.
The Journal of General Psychology, 128, 206-216.
Mathieu, J. S., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 828-847.
*Maury, M. D. (2005). The development of a business ethics curriculum module emphasizing

values and storytelling for sophomore business students. Unpublished dissertation, St.
John’s University.
*May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer, C. E. (2014). The influence of business ethics education
on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi-experimental
study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 67-80.
*Mayhew, B. W., & Murphy, P. R. (2009). The impact of ethics education on reporting behavior.
McDonald, G. M. (2004). A case example: Integrating ethics into the academic business
curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 371-384.
*Money, E. T. (2013). Design and evaluation of a decision aid to help accounting students at
Mid-Atlantic College make ethical decisions. Unpublished dissertation, Wilmington
University.
Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D.
(2016). Review of instructional approaches in ethics education. Science and Engineering
Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9803-0
Mulhearn, T. J., Watts, L. L., Torrence, B. S., Todd, E. M., Turner, M. R., Connelly, S.,
Mumford, M. D. (2016). Cross-field comparison of ethics education: Golden rules and
particulars. Accountability in Research. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1274974
Mumford, M. D., Steele, L., & Watts, L. L. (2015). Evaluating ethics education programs: A
multilevel approach. Ethics & Behavior, 25, 37-60.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training

effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736-749.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making
literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413.
*O’Leary, C. (2009). An empirical analysis of the positive impact of ethics teaching on

accounting students. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 18, 505-520.
*O’Leary, C., & Stewart, J. (2013). The interaction of learning styles and teaching
methodologies in accounting ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 225-241.
*Penn, W. Y. (1990). Teaching ethics – a direct approach. Journal of Moral Education, 19, 124-
143.
Rest, J. R. (1975). Longitudinal study of the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment: A strategy
for analyzing developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 11, 738-748.
*Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making
process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 153-164.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The filed drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 639-641.
Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Wymer, W. (2010). Stand-alone ethics, social responsibility, and
sustainability course requirements: A snapshot from Australia and New Zealand. Journal
of Marketing Education, 32, 5-12.
*Sanford, J. T. (2002). Teaching ethics in business in the community college: A comparative

study. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
*Schmidt, C. D., McAdams, C. R., & Foster, V. (2009). Promoting the moral reasoning of
undergraduate business students through a deliberate psychological education-based
classroom intervention. Journal of Moral Education, 38, 315-334.
Scott, D. A. (2004). A character education program: Moral development, self-esteem and at-risk
youth. Unpublished dissertation, North Carolina State University.
Sekerka, L. E. (2009). Organizational ethics education and training: A review of best practices
and their application. International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 77-95.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Business ethics curriculum design: Suggestions and
illustrations. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 69-86.
*Sorensen, D. P., Miller, S. E., & Cabe, K. L. (2015). Developing and measuring the impact of
an accounting ethics course that is based on moral philosophy of Adam Smith. Journal of
*Stead, B. A., & Miller, J. J. (1988). Can social awareness be increased through business school
curricula? Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 553-560.
Steele, L., Johnson, J. F., Watts, L. L., MacDougall, A. E., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., &
Williams, T. H. L. (2015). A comparison of the effects of ethics training on international
and US students. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5
Steele, L. M., Mulhearn, T., Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D.
(2016). How do we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in
ethics training evaluation. Accountability in Research, 23, 319-350.
Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Government

Printing Office.
*Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,
Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of
*Taylor, A. (2013). Ethics training for accountants: Does it add up? Meditari Accounting
Research, 21, 161-177.
Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., &
Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning
and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 265-
286.
Todd, E. M., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Torrence, B. S., Turner, M. T., Connelly, S., &
Mumford, M. D. (2017). A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery
in ethics instruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science and Engineering Ethics.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9869-3
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. (2008). It’s lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels,
identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 233-
252.
USSC (2016). An overview of the organizational guidelines. Accessed on January 10, 2016.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/organizational-
guidelines/ORGOVERVIEW.pdf
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2004). Ethics training and businesspersons’ perceptions of
organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 381-390.
*Vartiainen, T., Siponen, M., & Myyry, L. (2011). The effects of teaching the university thesis
on students’ integrative complexity of thought. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 22, 261-270.
Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-
analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133-
151.
*Warren, D. E., Gaspar, J. P., Laufer, W. S. (2014). Is formal ethics training merely cosmetic? A
study of ethics training and ethical organizational culture. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24,
85-117.
Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D.
(2016). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and
present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior. doi:
10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025
Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D.
(2016). Modeling the instructional effectiveness of responsible conduct of research
education: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Ethics and Behavior. doi:
10.1080/10508422.2016.1247354
Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 70, 61-85.
Weber, J. (2015). Investigating and assessing the quality of employee ethics training programs
among US-based global organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 27-42.
*Welton, R. E., & Guffey, D. M. (2009). Transitory or persistent? The effects of classroom
ethics interventions: A longitudinal study. Accounting Education: An International
Journal, 18, 273-289.
West, J. P., & Berman, E. M. (2004). Ethics training is U.S. cities: Content, pedagogy, and
impact. Public Integrity, 6, 189-206.
Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about
learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education 31, 339-357.
*Wilhelm, W. J. (2010). Ethical reasoning instruction in non-ethics business courses: A non-

intrusive approach. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50, 152-167.
Williams, S. D., & Dewett. T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics: A review and research
agenda. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 109-120.
*Workman, M., & Gathegi, J. (2007). Punishment and ethics deterrents: A study of insider
security contravention. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 58, 212-222.
*Wynd, W. R., & Mager, J. (1989). The business and society course: Does it change student
attitudes? Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 487-491.
*Zwanziger Elsinger, S. E. (2009). The impact of business ethics courses on student moral
development: A mixed methods study at three Iowa Christian colleges. Unpublished
dissertation, Capella University.
Table 1. Overall Meta-Analysis and Criterion Type

Var. (%)
Weighted due to 95% CI
Criterion sampling
Group k N Md SD Lower Upper
error
Instruction Effectiveness
Overall 83 7677 .30 .03 23 .24 .37
General Criterion Type
Moral Reasoning 34 2770 .37 .05 34 .27 .47
Attitudes 14 1814 .15 .05 36 .06 .25
Ethical Awareness 6 251 .21 .12 42 -.03 .45
Ethical Decision Making 4 791 1.16 .45 6 .27 2.05
Perceptions of Self 9 878 .17 .10 18 -.02 .36
Moral Judgment 10 781 .18 .05 79 .08 .28
Ethical Behavior 6 392 .58 .17 13 .25 .91
Combined
1. EDM, Beh, Moral Reas 1 44 3953 .46 .05 20 .35 .57
2. Att, Aware, Percep, Judg 2 39 3724 .16 .03 35 .10 .23
Note. k = number of effect sizes; N = total sample size; M d = Inverse variance-weighted (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), uncorrected
mean effect size (d); SD = Standard deviation of mean effect size; Variance (%) due to sampling error = 1 - I 2; CI = Confidence
interval. Criterion Group 1 = results for behavioral /decision-making criteria. Criterion Group 2 = results for attitudinal criteria.
Table 2. Characteristics of Criteria

Weighted Var. (%) due to 95% CI
Criterion sampling error
k N Md SD Lower Upper
Group
Reported Reliability
No 1 37 3156 .52 .06 17 .39 .64
Yes 1 7 797 .21 .13 69 -.06 .47
No 2 19 2115 .25 .04 28 .16 .33
Yes 2 20 1128 .06 .05 64 -.04 .16
Measure Development
Off-the-shelf 1 33 2889 .41 .07 24 .28 .54
In-house 1 8 672 .68 .14 10 .41 .96
Off-the-shelf 2 21 1294 .13 .05 79 .03 .22
In-house 2 6 1081 .17 .08 21 .01 .33
Field-specificity of
Measure
Field-specific 1 6 79 .48 .12 12 .25 .71
Combination 1 1 95 .94 .37 100 .22 1.66
General 1 35 3627 .37 .13 36 .27 .48
Field-specific 2 6 536 .07 .09 22 -.10 .24
Combination 2 2 175 .32 .14 100 .05 .59
General 2 24 2348 .21 .05 34 .12 .30
Table 3. Study Design Characteristics

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Design Type
Pre-Post w/ Control 1 21 1566 .56 .08 20 .41 .72
Pre-Post 1 16 1526 .38 .08 22 .21 .54
Post w/ Control 1 7 861 .35 .13 48 .09 .61
Skill Decay (Post 1 - Post 2) 1 2 16 -.37 .16 100 -.68 -.06
Pre-Post w/ Control 2 16 905 .08 .07 56 -.05 .22
Pre-Post 2 21 2644 .19 .04 26 .11 .27
Post w/ Control 2 2 175 .22 .17 100 -.11 .56
Skill Decay (Post 1 - Post 2) 2 2 160 -.07 .16 100 -.38 .24
Sample Size
Less than 100 1 18 1056 .46 .09 18 .28 .64
100-200 1 11 1848 .63 .11 13 .42 .85
More than 200 1 10 974 .36 .12 60 .13 .60
Less than 100 2 15 861 .16 .05 73 .06 .27
100-200 2 15 1702 .22 .06 27 .11 .33
More than 200 2 6 405 .12 .09 37 -.06 .29
Study Funded
No 1 21 1096 .48 .09 29 .31 .65
Yes 1 4 695 .33 .17 100 -.01 .67
No 2 28 2181 .10 .04 66 .03 .17
Yes 2 4 510 .30 .07 14 .16 .44
Table 3. Study Design Characteristics Continued

Weighted Var (%)
due to
Criterion k N Md SD sampling Lower Upper
Group error
Peer Review
Yes 1 22 1861 .59 .08 14 .44 .74
No 1 6 243 .47 .18 100 .12 .81
Yes 2 20 2326 .18 .05 25 .08 .27
No 2 8 237 .11 .11 100 -.10 .32
Time of Publication
Before 2007 1 13 1492 .62 .11 10 .41 .83
2007 - 2015 1 31 2461 .40 .07 32 .26 .53
Before 2007 2 14 912 .13 .07 45 .00 .26
2007 - 2015 2 25 2812 .18 .04 32 .10 .26
Table 4. Quality Ratings

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Quality Rating - Instruction
Below Average 1 12 1500 .32 .10 25 .11 .52
Average 1 24 2054 .54 .08 15 .39 .69
Above Average 1 8 339 .46 .13 100 .20 .73
Below Average 2 19 1840 .12 .04 100 .03 .20
Average 2 17 1670 .24 .05 26 .14 .33
Above Average 2 3 214 .02 .15 47 -.28 .32
Quality Rating - Design
Below Average 1 7 1764 .25 .13 25 -.01 .51
Average 1 23 665 .47 .08 27 .31 .62
Above Average 1 14 1524 .58 .10 15 .38 .78
Below Average 2 12 1871 .22 .05 39 .12 .32
Average 2 17 1133 .08 .05 61 -.02 .18
Above Average 2 10 720 .22 .08 26 .07 .37
Quality Rating - Criterion
Below Average 1 4 95 .67 .19 7 .31 1.03
Average 1 38 3858 .45 .06 22 .32 .57
Above Average 1 1 NA .36 .37 100 -.36 1.09
Below Average 2 18 1877 .113 .05 55 .09 29
Average 2 16 1847 .19 .05 24 .03 .23
Above Average 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Table 5. General Instructional Parameters

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Training Purpose
Academic 1 36 3274 .35 .06 44 .23 .47
Professional 1 6 679 1.10 .15 4 .81 1.40
Experimental 1 2 NA .41 .29 12 -.16 .99
Academic 2 31 2936 .18 .04 51 .10 .25
Professional 2 2 392 .34 .10 5 .14 .54
Experimental 2 6 396 .03 .08 100 -.11 .18
Total Hours of Instruction
1-3 hours 1 6 666 .22 .16 33 -.09 .54
4-9 hours 1 12 894 .80 .12 10 .57 1.03
10-24 hours 1 5 NA .46 .18 45 .11 .81
25-44 hours 1 3 228 .37 .22 71 -.07 .81
45+ hours 1 15 1383 .32 .10 40 .12 .52
1-3 hours 2 11 1051 .10 .06 100 -.02 .22
4-9 hours 2 5 669 .31 .08 18 .16 .47
10-24 hours 2 10 556 .09 .08 34 -.06 .24
25-44 hours 2 5 123 .13 .09 100 -.06 .31
45+ hours 2 8 1325 .22 .07 31 .08 .36
Table 5. General Instructional Parameters Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Delivery Format
Face-to-face 1 35 3847 .47 .06 18 .34 .60
Hybrid 1 3 46 .53 .23 91 .09 .97
Online 1 1 NA .27 .39 100 -.49 1.04
Face-to-face 2 23 2181 .22 .05 40 .13 .30
Hybrid 2 2 252 .24 .12 100 .01 .48
Online 2 6 396 .03 .08 100 -.12 .19
Average Class Size
Up to 25 1 6 340 .45 .17 22 .13 .77
25 - 40 1 16 643 .44 .10 13 .25 .63
40+ 1 7 121 .62 .15 51 .33 .92
Up to 25 2 8 569 .07 .07 100 -.07 .21
25 - 40 2 7 276 .19 .10 100 .01 .38
40+ 2 14 1492 .16 .06 30 .05 .27
Instruction Mandatory
Voluntary 1 4 252 .42 .20 100 .04 .81
Mandatory 1 6 419 .62 .15 7 .32 .91
Voluntary 2 8 556 .08 .07 36 -.07 .22
Mandatory 2 10 641 .19 .08 100 .04 .34
Table 5. General Instructional Parameters Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Instructional Format
Integrated 1 18 1752 .39 .09 32 .22 .57
Stand-alone 1 26 2201 .51 .07 16 .36 .65
Integrated 2 11 1062 .18 .07 38 .05 .32
Stand-alone 2 28 2662 .16 .04 33 .08 .24
Training Time Span
Less than 1 day 1 11 1266 .67 .12 7 .44 .90
1 day - 3 weeks 1 1 190 .36 .35 100 -.33 1.06
1 - 4 months 1 11 254 .51 .12 68 .27 .75
4+ months 1 20 2164 .35 .08 43 .19 .52
Less than 1 day 2 7 924 .24 .08 17 .08 .40
1 day - 3 weeks 2 3 306 .26 .11 100 .05 .47
1 - 4 months 2 7 350 .12 .10 30 -.08 .32
4+ months 2 15 1748 .18 .06 43 .07 .29
Table 6. Characteristics of Instructional Content

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Focus on Guidelines
Below Average 1 12 1524 .77 .11 10 .56 .97
Average 1 7 228 .29 .15 34 -.01 .59
Above Average 1 3 26 .64 .20 17 .25 1.03
Below Average 2 17 2229 .17 .05 27 .07 .27
Average 2 3 160 .08 .16 8 -.24 .40
Above Average 2 1 NA .24 .21 100 -.17 .64
Breadth of Content Covered
1 - 3 Topics 1 18 725 .40 .08 36 .24 .57
4 - 7 Topics 1 9 470 .81 .11 15 .59 1.03
8+ Topics 1 14 1633 .39 .08 30 .22 .55
1 - 3 Topics 2 17 1252 .09 .05 43 -.01 .20
4 - 7 Topics 2 4 233 .23 .12 100 -.01 .46
8+ Topics 2 12 1703 .26 .05 24 .15 .26
Field-specificity of Content
Field-specific 1 17 1084 .58 .09 15 .39 .76
Balanced 1 12 1073 .36 .11 24 .15 .57
General 1 12 671 .50 .12 35 .27 .73
Field-specific 2 6 426 .24 .09 53 .07 .42
Balanced 2 11 1270 .10 .06 45 -.02 .22
General 2 15 1071 .22 .05 27 .12 .32
Table 6. Characteristics of Instructional Content Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group k N Md SD Lower Upper
error
Codes of Conduct 1 11 1121 .47 .11 20 .25 .69
Common Rule 1 3 655 .54 .20 43 .15 .93
Privacy/Confidentiality 1 6 208 .42 .15 16 .12 .72
Compliance (General) 1 3 26 .89 .19 98 .52 1.27
Institutional Compliance 1 6 418 .62 .15 12 .32 .93
Legality 1 11 919 .44 .11 17 .23 .66
Financial Compliance 1 4 115 .41 .20 29 .02 .80
Sensemaking 1 7 758 .44 .15 59 .15 .73
Personal Integrity 1 6 695 .40 .15 45 .10 .70
Professionalism 1 4 675 .46 .18 100 .11 .82
Decision Making Strategies 1 5 951 1.00 .15 9 .71 1.29
Diversity 1 3 339 .08 .21 42 -.34 .49
Whistleblowing 1 4 608 .55 .18 15 .20 .90
Stakeholders 1 15 1791 .61 .09 14 .43 .79
Conflicts of Interest 1 4 194 .38 .20 72 -.01 .77
Virtues 1 7 766 .38 .14 100 .11 .64
Values 1 8 1142 .44 .13 78 .17 .70
Personal Responsibility 1 4 837 .27 .18 56 -.08 .62
Moral Philosophy 1 31 2119 .52 .07 22 .39 .65
Social Responsibility 1 11 1103 .41 .11 100 .20 .63
Environmental Impacts 1 4 365 .22 .18 34 -.14 .58
Ethical Dilemma Complexity 1 6 486 .68 .14 6 .40 .96
Contemporary Ethical Issues 1 12 778 .42 .11 25 .21 .63
Historical Development 1 8 386 .36 .13 38 .11 .61
Table 6. Characteristics of Instructional Content Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Codes of Conduct 2 9 1327 .26 .06 29 .15 .37
Common Rule 2 1 560 .38 .18 100 .04 .73
Privacy/Confidentiality 2 3 382 .07 .12 11 -.17 .30
Compliance (General) 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Institutional Compliance 2 3 392 .32 .09 10 .14 .50
Legality 2 9 1033 .21 .07 100 .08 .35
Financial Compliance 2 3 252 .22 .12 100 -.01 .45
Sensemaking 2 1 560 .38 .18 100 .04 .73
Personal Integrity 2 3 812 .29 .10 100 .09 .49
Professionalism 2 4 842 .36 .09 44 .17 .54
Decision Making Strategies 2 2 560 .30 .15 78 .01 .60
Diversity 2 1 75 .18 .29 100 -.39 .76
Whistleblowing 2 4 644 .30 .08 14 .15 .45
Stakeholders 2 11 1561 .29 .06 23 .17 .40
Conflicts of Interest 2 2 75 .22 .17 100 -.11 .55
Virtues 2 5 966 .23 .10 43 .04 .42
Values 2 8 1044 .36 .07 25 .23 .49
Personal Responsibility 2 6 924 .26 .09 100 .08 .44
Moral Philosophy 2 14 1493 .22 .07 48 .09 .35
Social Responsibility 2 11 1599 .19 .07 27 .05 .33
Environmental Impacts 2 5 221 .16 .10 100 -.04 .35
Ethical Dilemma Complexity 2 5 336 .34 .09 65 .16 .51
Contemporary Ethical Issues 2 10 1050 .25 .06 25 .14 .37
Historical Development 2 4 430 .29 .10 25 .08 .49
Table 7. Characteristics of Delivery Methods and Activities

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Breadth of Learning Activities
1 - 2 Activities 1 19 2416 .55 .09 12 .38 .71
3 - 4 Activities 1 11 350 .37 .12 38 .15 .60
5+ Activities 1 7 139 .41 .16 66 .10 .71
1 - 2 Activities 2 21 2000 .15 .05 27 .05 .24
3 - 4 Activities 2 7 400 .15 .09 59 -.02 .32
5+ Activities 2 6 319 .29 .09 67 .11 .48
Whole vs. Part-learning
Whole-learning 1 21 1938 .62 .08 20 .46 .78
Mixed 1 4 560 .21 .18 100 -.14 .57
Part-learning 1 11 255 .49 .10 20 .29 .70
Whole-learning 2 14 1367 .18 .07 39 .04 .31
Mixed 2 17 1568 .16 .05 25 .06 .26
Part-learning 2 1 98 .23 .19 100 -.15 .61
Guided vs. Self-directed
Guided 1 32 2426 .50 .07 15 .36 .63
Mixed 1 8 745 .47 .13 100 .21 .72
Self-directed 1 1 NA .39 .34 100 -.27 1.06
Guided 2 12 1170 .26 .05 50 .16 .37
Mixed 2 10 1093 .25 .07 29 .11 .38
Self-directed 2 7 526 -.02 .07 38 -.16 .12
Table 7. Characteristics of Delivery Methods and Activities Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Individual vs. Group-based
Individual-based 1 26 1539 .45 .07 29 .31 .59
Mixed 1 4 365 .82 .18 5 .46 1.17
Group-based 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Individual-based 2 24 2248 .15 .05 39 .06 .25
Mixed 2 1 75 .18 .30 100 -.40 .77
Group-based 2 1 74 .36 .30 100 -.23 .94
Active Participation
Low 1 8 1047 .35 .13 22 .10 .59
Moderate 1 16 1324 .47 .10 33 .28 .66
High 1 12 598 .63 .11 15 .41 .85
Low 2 3 530 .03 .11 12 -.19 .24
Moderate 2 14 1736 .27 .05 34 .17 .37
High 2 15 747 .10 .06 77 -.01 .21
Frequency of Practice
Low 1 2 235 .35 .24 100 -.13 .82
High 1 10 521 .83 .12 15 .60 1.05
Low 2 9 450 .12 .07 63 -.01 .25
High 2 2 146 .20 .17 50 -.13 .53

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Practice Length
Up to 1 Hour 1 6 453 .84 .15 11 .55 1.12
More than 1 Hour 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Up to 1 Hour 2 6 396 .03 .08 100 -.12 .19
More than 1 Hour 2 2 NA .29 .14 100 .02 .55
Realism of Practice
Low 1 5 270 .95 .15 10 .65 1.25
High 1 11 251 .57 .11 45 .35 .78
Low 2 1 154 -.24 .24 100 -.71 .22
High 2 9 421 .11 .07 63 -.02 .24

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Amount of Lecture
Below Average 1 5 359 .78 .17 7 .45 1.11
Average 1 21 943 .46 .09 24 .29 .64
Above Average 1 6 1047 .43 .15 22 .13 .73
Below Average 2 3 135 .18 .15 100 -.10 .47
Average 2 14 1224 .26 .06 24 .15 .37
Above Average 2 4 469 .09 .10 100 -.11 .28
Amount of Case Use
Below Average 1 5 473 .16 .15 35 -.14 .46
Average 1 15 1369 .45 .09 52 .27 .63
Above Average 1 12 754 .68 .11 14 .46 .90
Below Average 2 3 306 .26 .10 100 .07 .45
Average 2 16 1873 .25 .05 32 .16 .35
Above Average 2 13 607 .11 .06 89 -.01 .23

Var (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Activities
Cases 1 32 2596 .48 .07 18 .35 .61
Lecture 1 32 2349 .51 .07 16 .38 .64
Problem-Based 1 3 287 1.64 .19 26 1.27 2.01
Team-Based 1 18 1238 .54 .09 12 .36 .72
Web-Based Discussion 1 7 165 .48 .15 100 .19 .78
Discussions 1 29 1716 .48 .07 17 .34 .61
Debates 1 7 385 .74 .14 8 .47 1.01
Current Events 1 5 93 .27 .16 34 -.05 .59
Self-Reflection 1 11 156 .57 .12 47 .34 .80
Essays 1 15 822 .50 .10 93 .32 .69
Cases 2 32 2786 .20 .04 42 .13 .27
Lecture 2 21 1828 .22 .05 29 .12 .31
Problem-Based 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Team-Based 2 13 706 .23 .07 73 .10 .36
Web-Based Discussion 2 8 648 .09 .07 69 -.04 .23
Discussions 2 19 1238 .22 .05 27 .12 .32
Debates 2 1 NA .10 .28 100 -.44 .65
Current Events 2 1 NA .24 .21 100 -.17 .64
Self-Reflection 2 5 221 .20 .12 28 -.03 .44
Essays 2 14 892 .21 .06 67 .10 .33
Table 8. Processes
Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Breadth of Processes
1-2 Processes 1 10 649 .42 .12 38 .18 .66
3-5 Processes 1 6 234 .43 .16 26 .11 .75
6+ Processes 1 13 1648 .63 .10 12 .42 .83
1-2 Processes 1 4 383 .17 .10 69 -.02 .37
3-5 Processes 1 13 833 .07 .06 100 -.04 .18
6+ Processes 1 9 1289 .30 .06 32 .18 .42
Process
Ethical Awareness 1 22 1827 .52 .08 16 .36 .68
Consequence Analysis 1 15 1454 .35 .10 45 .16 .54
Constraint Analysis 1 8 754 .33 .13 34 .08 .58
Forecasting 1 15 1332 .59 .09 20 .41 .77
Motive Analysis 1 5 287 1.01 .16 5 .70 1.33
Strategy Analysis 1 13 1007 .69 .11 12 .48 .91
Emotion Analysis 1 2 190 .45 .25 100 -.03 .94
Cognitive Analysis 1 8 1220 .61 .14 23 .34 .88
Error Analysis 1 4 566 .40 .19 50 .03 .78
Stakeholder Analysis 1 14 1718 .59 .10 11 .40 .78
Virtue Analysis 1 3 168 .19 .23 100 -.26 .64
Value Analysis 1 6 648 .59 .16 28 .28 .90
Meta Ethical Analysis 1 16 1369 .61 .09 20 .44 .78
Table 8. Processes Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Ethical Awareness 2 21 1962 .17 .04 32 .08 .26
Consequence Analysis 2 10 1635 .27 .06 33 .16 .39
Constraint Analysis 2 11 1176 .14 .07 52 .01 .27
Forecasting 2 5 991 .23 .09 37 .05 .41
Motive Analysis 2 2 60 .24 .22 100 -.18 .66
Strategy Analysis 2 11 852 .24 .06 34 .12 .36
Emotion Analysis 2 1 154 -.24 .24 100 -.71 .23
Cognitive Analysis 2 17 1845 .20 .05 30 .10 .30
Error Analysis 2 13 1071 .14 .06 24 .03 .26
Stakeholder Analysis 2 12 1387 .25 .05 37 .15 .36
Virtue Analysis 2 3 60 .24 .15 100 -.05 .53
Value Analysis 2 5 662 .29 .12 100 .04 .53
Meta Ethical Analysis 2 3 214 .03 .16 47 -.29 .34
Table 9. Characteristics of Training Development

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Development
Mostly Off-the-shelf 1 1 NA .36 .33 100 -.29 1.00
Mixed 1 1 NA .27 .39 100 -.50 1.04
Mostly In-house 1 37 2909 .52 .06 17 .40 .65
Mostly Off-the-shelf 2 1 346 .09 .18 100 -.26 .44
Mixed 2 4 282 .31 .11 45 .10 .53
Mostly In-house 2 30 2772 .14 .04 31 .06 .22
Number of Instruct.
Objectives
3 or Less 1 9 777 .65 .13 34 .40 .89
More than 3 1 3 93 .40 .23 100 -.05 .84
3 or Less 2 4 865 .13 .12 13 -.10 .36
More than 3 2 4 97 .18 .17 100 -.15 .51
Table 10. Trainee Characteristics

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Career Stage
Undergraduate Students 1 32 2803 .37 .07 66 .24 .51
MBAs 1 3 128 .29 .21 19 -.13 .70
Professionals 1 6 679 1.11 .15 4 .81 1.41
Mixed (Undergrad & 1 3 343 .27 .22 20 -.16 .70
MBA)
Undergraduate Students 2 25 2355 .17 .05 45 .07 .26
MBAs 2 4 235 .22 .13 100 -.03 .46
Professionals 2 8 788 .13 .07 15 -.01 .27
Mixed (Undergrad & 2 1 NA .33 .21 100 -.07 .73
MBA)
Gender
More than 60% Males 1 4 799 .47 .16 15 .16 .77
Mixed Gender 1 8 252 .44 .13 65 .20 .69
More than 60% Females 1 3 296 1.26 .19 12 .89 1.62
More than 60% Males 2 5 220 .31 .12 100 .08 .53
Mixed Gender 2 3 175 .23 .13 100 -.03 .49
More than 60% Females 2 2 148 .43 .15 20 .14 .72
Average Age
18 - 22 1 6 139 .42 .14 50 .13 .70
23+ 1 2 NA .90 .27 100 .38 1.43
18 - 22 2 4 175 .19 .11 100 -.01 .40
23+ 2 4 265 .40 .13 57 .14 .66
Table 10. Trainee Characteristics Continued

Var. (%)
Criterion sampling
Group error
Field
General Business 1 24 2582 .34 .07 60 .21 .47
Accounting 1 7 26 .48 .13 55 .21 .74
Communication 1 3 139 .49 .23 100 .03 .94
Management 1 1 17 2.29 .53 100 1.25 3.33
Sales 1 3 359 1.16 .20 8 .77 1.55
Information Technology 1 4 95 .65 .16 7 .34 .97
Banking 1 1 392 .26 .27 100 -.27 .78
General Business 2 2 2317 .10 .04 54 .01 .19
Accounting 2 6 665 .24 .09 40 .07 .41
Communication 2 2 175 .20 .13 68 -.06 .45
Management 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sales 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Information Technology 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Banking 2 2 392 .34 .11 100 .12 .56
Location of Instruction
Domestic (U.S.) 1 39 3702 .43 .06 20 .32 .55
International 1 3 138 1.08 .25 19 .60 1.56
Domestic (U.S.) 2 32 2921 .14 .04 33 .06 .22
International 2 3 282 .35 .12 33 .12 .58
View publication stats

Jurnal Internasional

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Internasional

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

What is Working, What is Not, and What We Need to Know: a Meta-Analytic

Article in Journal of Academic Ethics · September 2017

Kelsey E Medeiros Logan L. Watts

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tyler Mulhearn Logan Steele

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cues to Credibility View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

What is working, what is not, and what we need to know:

A meta-analytic review of business ethics instruction

analytic procedures to examine the effectiveness of current approaches across organizational

What is working, what is not, and what we need to know:

A meta-analytic review of business ethics instruction

requirements by governing organizations, however, leave how to implement these educational

a variety of approaches for including ethics in business student education.

wide range of approaches to ethics training in organizations. As a whole, variations in

Variations in approaches within business school education and within professional

subject in a more traditional academic manner.

they examined several course characteristics including quality of instruction, instructional

content, general program characteristics, instructional methods, and participant characteristics.

compared to other approaches.

could not previously be examined due to a lack of available data.

Moderators of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness

practice opportunities, delivery methods, and appropriate evaluation procedures. Similarly,

ultimately influence results.

and therefore, should be examined.

constraints exist and result in a variation of experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-

conducted between 2007 and 2015.

General instructional parameters. Variation in program execution is further seen in the

online courses offer more convenience and use fewer resources.

prove more effective than social-interactional approaches. Additionally, courses emphasizing

using a meta-analytic approach.

with training effectiveness.

Course development. Courses may be developed in-house, use an extant or off-the-shelf

training, or may be a modification of an off-the-shelf training to meet customized needs. In-

necessary to produce significant change.

Student characteristics. Researchers have conducted several reviews regarding

thereby, produce more effective methods (Steele et al., 2015).

Research Question 1: What course characteristics moderate the effectiveness of business

ethics education and training?

effectiveness since 2007?

A five-pronged literature search was conducted to identify studies relevant to business

meta-analytic and narrative review reference lists to identify relevant studies.

Second, 32 databases were searched including, ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic

Synergy, Business Source Premier, Chronicle of Higher Education, CINAHL Plus,

Communication and Mass Media Complete, Communication Abstracts, CompendexWeb,

IEEE Xplore, INSPEC, JSTOR, LexisNexis Academic, MasterFILE Premier, MEDLINE,

Military and Government Collection, Natural Sciences Collection, Philosopher’s Index,

Professional Development Collection, PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO, PubMed, and SocINDEX.

including Accountability in Research, Ethics and Behavior, Journal of Moral Education,

Education, Teaching of Psychology, and Journal of Empirical Research in Human Ethics.

education,” “ethics instruction,” “professional ethics training,” and “moral development

population,” and “peer-reviewed.”

Fourth, researchers identified a list of doctoral-degree granting institutions and

the Dissertation Abstracts database to identify unpublished dissertation relevant to business

investigation of business ethics education or professional ethics training. Business ethics

education was defined as formal teaching efforts communicating ethics-related content to

studies contributing 83 effect sizes.

remaining 40 studies were conducted in academia with undergraduates or MBA students.

Remaining studies were content coded by three industrial-organizational psychology

the reviewers’ suggestions. Coders then completed approximately 30 hours of frame-of-reference

represented an extensive amount or presence. For instance, a training program using an

(LeBreton & Senter, 2008).