Search results

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine if participation in a four-year ethics curriculum strengthened college students’ confidence in their own ethical reasoning ability. A longitudinal cohort of college students was followed over four years from their freshman (n = 779) to senior year (n= 545). Students’ confidence in their own ethical reasoning abilities were assessed before and after completion of the curriculum with results indicating an increase in students’ confidence.

The purpose of this paper is to show that for frequently procuring public clients: the reasoning behind the use of procurement instruments is a process in its own right that requires managerial and scientific attention; modeling this process contributes to making sensible procurement choices; and managing this process is a relevant factor in the client’s development toward strategic procurement.

A model is developed to conceptualize the reasoning behind procurement instruments. Using this model in a case study, the reasoning behind the evolution of a particular procurement instrument as applied by a public infrastructure management organization is reconstructed.

The case study results show that an initially explicitly formulated set of main reasons for operating a qualification system can implicitly evolve over time into a different set of reasons. From a managerial point of view, explication of implicit reasons is important to both avoid the risk that the real value of the procurement instrument remains undetected as well as properly assess its strategic alignment with higher level strategies. The conceptual model proves to be a useful tool to support that.

Bringing the reasoning behind the use of procurement instruments to the fore, this study explores an area of construction procurement research that is positioned between the disciplines of purchasing and supply management, knowledge management and strategic management.

This paper aims to compare two types of prompts, encouraging participants to think about real-world examples or engineering principles to show how these two approaches can result in vastly different design practices.

Two studies (N = 20, N = 40) examine the impact of two different prompts. Non-expert students, from high school and university, completed a hands-on, engineering design task in pairs. Half were prompted to ideate using real-world examples, while the other half were prompted to ideate using engineering principles. The findings are based on human coding and artifact analyses.

In both studies, and across multiple measures, students in the principle-based condition performed better than students in the example-based condition.

A seemingly small difference in how students are prompted or encouraged to approach a problem can have a significant impact on their experience. The findings also suggest that leveraging engineering principles, even when those principles are only loosely formed, can be effective even for non-experts. Finally, the findings motivate identifying student reasoning strategies over time as a potential means for assessment in Makerspaces.

Encouraging makers to think about different ways for approaching problems can be an important way to help them succeed. It may also be a useful way to chronicle their learning pathway.

To the author's knowledge, explicitly looking at ideation strategies has not been widely discussed within the Maker community as a way to support learners, or as a way to evaluate learning.

Complex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their impacts on people and on the society, it is important for the authors to understand how people reason online such as when they need to justify themselves or convince others with their perspectives. Reasoning in online discussions is expectedly to be different from doing so offline, as one often communicates with others anonymously and asynchronously in such contexts (e.g. Reddit discussions). The purpose of this paper is to investigate people's reasoning behavior in online environments focusing on how they justify their perspectives.

In this study, the authors examined how a subreddit Change My View (CMV) users offer their opinions and justify them through the lens of argumentation and reasoning. The authors annotated, 330 Reddit discussion original posts (OPs) to identify claims, rationales and supports for reasoning, i.e. personal experiences, definitions, domain expertise and external sources. The authors investigated the correlations among the occurrences of these supporting statements and whether they are related to the topics of the posts.

The findings suggest that if people mention their domain expertise, they tend to provide related personal experiences as well. Additionally, if the participants talk about the topic of domestic politics, they tend to utilize their personal experiences.

Further research may be conducted to help system designers. System designers (e.g. online debate systems, collective decision-making systems, etc.) may benefit from the findings to design systems by considering commonly used supporting statements, which may enhance people's reasoning and argumentation processes. The sample size is a small sample. The authors acknowledge that the small sample size of the study may limit the generalizability of the findings; however, it is still acceptable compared to the existing literature. One future study could be annotating a larger dataset to further probe the use of supporting statements in online reasoning.

The authors' findings might be useful to understand how Reddit users are justifying their opinions as the reflection of their reasoning processes. In order to contribute further research in argumentation and reasoning in online platforms, the authors make the annotated dataset publicly available.

To best of the authors' knowledge, this study was one of a few studies whose purpose is to understand Reddit CMV users' reasoning processes. To understand how online users offer their reasons while providing their ideas is important to have effective communication processes and to improve online discussion experiences which are very common in today's digital era.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0330

The purpose of this paper is to test whether significant differences in ethical reasoning exist between Chinese accountants and managers when facing an ethical dilemma. Further tests are conducted to identify what professional contextual factors and personal value preferences can be introduced to explain the ethical reasoning differences observed.

Three research questions are raised and related hypotheses are developed and tested by the use of a defined issue test (DIT) instrument containing four hypothetical scenarios of different dilemmatic issues, and a Rokeach values survey questionnaire adapted to suit the Chinese business culture.

The findings and conclusions include: Chinese managers and accountants are not significantly differentiated in terms of ethical reasoning levels measured by the overall DIT instrument, however, the break‐down results of the DIT individual dilemmatic scenarios shows that significant differences exist between the two professional types in three out of four scenarios. Second, gender and frequency of making compromises are two significant contextual determinant of ethical reasoning levels of managers but not those of accountants, and for the accountants, no significant contextual factors are observed in the current study. Third, in determining the impacts of value preferences on ethical reasoning levels, the four‐factor classification approach produces a more contrasting result than the seven‐factor classification approach.

The selection of the four scenarios in the DIT instrument is subjective according to the designation of the test, and Chinese business profession's ethical ideologies might differ among different regions. However, these research limitations might inspire further ethics research on cross‐regional comparisons in China and other emerging economies.

In Chinese surging markets, appropriate socio‐economic order can only be maintained by highly ethical reasoning and conduct on the part of business managers and accountants. The current results and findings would help to identify what factors and value preferences weigh more, in order to improve the professional ethicality.

This paper contributes to the research literature of business ethics by adding a managers‐accountants comparative study on ethical reasoning differences, especially the ethicality of two different professions in emerging economies; further, it includes contextual factors and value preferences in identifying those determinants of ethical reasoning differences.

The purpose of this paper is to examine cognitive differences between frequent and infrequent Internet users. Theoretically, culturally‐valued use of the Internet is related to cognitive (i.e. intellectual) ability.

A total of 406 college students completed measures of verbal reasoning, visual reasoning, and patterns of Internet use.

Significant group differences in visual reasoning consistently favored frequent Internet users (e.g. in terms of use of search engines and playing games online). With respect to visiting chat rooms and downloading music, however, infrequent users demonstrated better verbal reasoning than frequent users. Findings support the conclusion that extensive and appropriate use of the Internet is associated with increased human capacity to reason.

Generalization of findings is limited because college students may not necessarily reflect the general population. Results require confirmation with other measures of cognitive ability.

Internet use is not simply the ability to manipulate a set of physical tools (i.e. devices and applications); it is the ability to execute a set of cognitive tools (e.g. verbal and visual reasoning). Apprehension regarding the potential hazards of Internet use may legitimately be narrowed to individuals with limitations, relative to peers, in cognitive ability.

This is the first empirical investigation that links verbal and visual reasoning with patterns of Internet use.

Marketers and brand managers are subject to reputational crises when their endorsers are involved in scandals. To effectively manage such crises, it is imperative to understand (1) the underlying mechanisms through which consumers process negative information surrounding morally tainted endorsers, and (2) how these mechanisms affect consumer behavior in the context of athlete scandals.

Drawing on attribution theory and the moral reasoning strategy framework, we investigate the impact of attribution on moral reasoning strategies, and the impact of such strategies on consumers' responses to scandalized athletes and endorsements.

Overall, our results demonstrate that the same scandal can be evaluated differently, depending on its information, including the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency of the scandal. The results of Study 1 show that in the context of an on-field scandal, individuals engage in a sequential cognitive process in which they go through attribution, the choice of a moral reasoning strategy, and ultimately a response. The results of Study 2 reveal that in the context of an off-field scandal, attribution directly influences consumers' responses.

We extend the existing literature on the moral reasoning of athlete scandals by suggesting that attribution is a determinant of moral reasoning choice in the context of on-field scandals. We also extend the sports marketing and consumer behavior literature by suggesting that consumers' diverse reactions to athlete scandals depend on their attribution patterns and moral reasoning choices.

This paper aims to consider the problem of determining the equilibriums on oligopoly market in case of Stackelberg leader (leaders) and reflexive behavior of market agents.

This paper includes economic and mathematical modeling, optimization methods and game theory.

This paper explains models of reflexive games on oligopoly market, taking into account the diversity of agents’ reasoning about strategies of environing and equilibrium mechanisms for coincidence or opposition of agents’ reflexive reasoning on the same rank of reflection.

This paper considers the oligopoly market with linear function of demand and costs of agents, the rational behavior of agents and the reflexive reasoning on the same rank of reflection. The set of agents’ reasoning about the environing strategies is considered as a set of market states for which the problem of agent’s optimal action choosing solves with the complete awareness.

Identification of reflexive behavior of environing allows agents to increase their market shares and profit.

Oligopoly markets play a leading role in the world oil trade and reflexive behavior affects the market equilibrium.

In the paper, the mechanisms of equilibrium in reflexive games on the linear duopoly market for arbitrary rank reflection are developed.

The primary objective of this research is to investigate the impact of task‐technology fit on users’ performance when using artificial intelligence systems for auditing tasks. Four artificial intelligence auditing systems, two problem‐solving programs, and four questionnaires were developed. A laboratory experiment was performed with 292 undergraduate auditing students. The results suggested that the effect of task‐technology fit on accuracy in solving problems was marginal for case‐based reasoning with unstructured tasks. No significant effect was found on problem‐solving accuracy for rule‐based reasoning with structured tasks. The task‐technology fit, however, marginally increased users’ certainty of the correctness of their solutions.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.