The impact of different methods of increasing the intensity of compassion in engineering ethics cases

Figures & data

Table 1. The research design.

Research Design
Groups
	Control	Experimental-1	Experimental-2	Experimental-3
The cases used	Latent Emotionality	Implicit Induction	Explicit Expression	Description of Severe Consequences

Table 2. The different ways of integration of compassion into the ESIT's cases.

Compassion Integration into Case 1
Control: Latent Emotionality	Engineer Jameson owns stock in RJ Industries, which is a vendor for Jameson's employer, Modernity, Inc., a large manufacturing company. Jameson has a lot of interaction with the main sales representative for Modernity's products in both RJ Industries and Pandora Products [emotional target]. Jameson's division has been requested by management to cut one vendor: either RJ Industries or Pandora Products, Inc. Pandora Products makes a component that is slightly higher in quality and slightly more expensive than that made by RJ Industries. Management and the other engineers in her division do not know that Jameson has a financial interest in one of the two vendors.
Experiment-1: Implicit Induction	Engineer Jameson owns stock in RJ Industries, which is a vendor for Jameson's employer, Modernity, Inc., a large manufacturing company. Jameson has a lot of interaction with the main sales representative for Modernity's products in both RJ Industries and Pandora Products [emotional target], both of whom are a similar age to Jameson and all three also graduated from the same university [similarity]. Jameson's division has been requested by management to cut one vendor: either RJ Industries or Pandora Products, Inc. Pandora Products makes a component that is slightly higher in quality and slightly more expensive than that made by RJ Industries. Jameson knows that this decision could have a negative impact on the career of the sales representative affected [evidence of distress]. Management and the other engineers in her division do not know that Jameson has a financial interest in one of the two vendors.
Experiment-2: Explicit Expression	Engineer Jameson owns stock in RJ Industries, which is a vendor for Jameson's employer, Modernity, Inc., a large manufacturing company. Jameson has a lot of interaction with the main sales representative for Modernity's products in both RJ Industries and Pandora Products, both of whom are a similar age to Jameson and all three also graduated from the same university. Jameson's division has been requested by management to cut one vendor: either RJ Industries or Pandora Products, Inc. Pandora Products makes a component that is slightly higher in quality and slightly more expensive than that made by RJ Industries. Jameson knows that this decision could have a negative impact on the career of the sales representative affected, and feels a lot of sympathy [explicitly] for her colleagues. Management and the other engineers in her division do not know that Jameson has a financial interest in one of the two vendors.
Experiment-3: Description of Severe Consequences	Engineer Jameson owns stock in RJ Industries, which is a vendor for Jameson's employer, Modernity, Inc., a large manufacturing company. Jameson has a lot of interaction with the main sales representative for Modernity's products in both RJ Industries and Pandora Products, both of whom are a similar age to Jameson and all three also graduated from the same university. Jameson's division has been requested by management to cut one vendor: either RJ Industries or Pandora Products, Inc. Pandora Products makes a component that is slightly higher in quality and slightly more expensive than that made by RJ Industries. Jameson knows that this decision could have a negative impact on the career of the sales representative affected, and has recently attended a workshop which explained that the kind of workplace stress that this could generate for them is linked to health problems such as [severe consequences] cardiovascular disease, anxiety, and depression. Management and the other engineers in her division do not know that Jameson has a financial interest in one of the two vendors.

Table 3. The participants’ demographics.

Groups			Control		Experiment-1		Experiment-2		Experiment-3		Total (NT = 415)
			Latent Emotionality (NLatent = 103)		Implicit Induction (NImplicit = 104)		Explicit Expression (NExplicit = 104)		Description of Severe Consequences (NSevere = 104)
			N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender^a	Men		63	61.2	55	53.0	61	58.7	65	62.5	244	58.8
	Women		40	38.9	49	47.1	42	40.4	39	37.5	170	41.0
	Another gender		0	0.00	0	0.00	1	0.96	0	0.00	1	0.24
Majors	Engineering		97	94.2	97	93.6	90	86.5	89	85.6	373	89.9
	Other		6	5.80	7	6.70	14	13.5	15	14.4	42	10.1
Educational Level	Bachelor	1st Year	39	37.9	39	37.5	28	26.9	34	32.7	140	33.7
		2nd Year	15	14.6	18	17.3	23	22.1	28	26.9	84	20.2
		3rd Year	19	18.4	23	22.1	17	16.4	15	14.4	74	17.8
	Master		30	29.1	24	23.1	36	34.6	27	26.0	117	28.2

^a In the French language questionnaire, the gender options were Masculin, Féminin, and Autres. We have translated this into English as ‘men’, ‘women’, and ‘another gender’.

Table 4. The aggregate scores (M) and standard deviations (Sd) for each emotion by groups, on a 0 (‘not at all’) to 7 (‘very strong’) scale.

Emotions	Groups
	Control		Experiment-1		Experiment-2		Experiment-3
	Latent Emotionality		Implicit Induction		Explicit Expression		Description of Severe Consequences
	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd
Guilt	3.14	1.36	3.40	1.38	3.48	1.32	3.43	1.38
Shame	2.32	1.27	2.25	1.33	2.35	1.25	2.45	1.23
Embarrassment	3.95	1.62	3.81	1.53	4.11	1.56	4.11	1.61
Pride	0.98	0.75	1.02	0.94	0.70	0.66	0.97	0.95
Anger	2.54	1.10	2.54	1.06	2.77	0.98	2.85	1.02
Contempt	2.18	1.13	2.16	1.20	2.38	1.07	2.42	1.23
Compassion	2.45	1.36	3.74	1.33	4.60	1.25	4.41	1.36
Gratitude	0.32	0.56	0.46	0.66	0.43	0.50	0.50	0.61
Regret	2.19	1.29	2.13	1.45	2.06	1.35	1.99	1.48
Awe	0.33	0.75	0.38	0.58	0.48	0.64	0.42	0.68
Distress	2.94	1.60	3.00	1.72	3.11	1.61	3.37	1.65

Figure 1. Aggregate scores for each emotion by groups. Each emotion was rated using an 8-point scale (from 0 to 7; 0 = not at all to 7 = very strong).

Table 5. Comparison (ANOVA) for moral emotions by groups.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Significance
Guilt	Between Groups	7.06	3	2.35	1.27	.286
	Within Groups	764	411	1.86
	Total	771	414
Shame	Between Groups	2.17	3	.724	.450	.718
	Within Groups	662	411	1.61
	Total	664	414
Embarrassment	Between Groups	6.64	3	2.21	.888	.447
	Within Groups	1024	411	2.49
	Total	1030	414
Pride ^a	Between Groups	6.66	3	2.22	3.20	.023
	Within Groups	285	411	.693
	Total	291	414
Anger	Between Groups	7.93	3	2.64	2.45	.063
	Within Groups	444	411	1.08
	Total	451	414
Contempt	Between Groups	5.77	3	1.92	1.43	.234
	Within Groups	553	411	1.35
	Total	559	414
Compassion ^b	Between Groups	294	3	98.0	55.8	<.001
	Within Groups	722	411	1.76
	Total	1016	414
Gratitude	Between Groups	1.94	3	.647	1.91	.128
	Within Groups	139	411	.340
	Total	142	414
Regret	Between Groups	2.26	3	.752	.386	.763
	Within Groups	800	411	1.95
	Total	803	414
Awe	Between Groups	1.27	3	.425	.963	.410
	Within Groups	181	411	.441
	Total	183	414
Distress	Between Groups	11.4	3	3.81	1.41	.240
	Within Groups	1113	411	2.71
	Total	1125	414

^a Statistically significant difference p <. 05; ^bStatistically significant difference p <. 01.