Ethical sensitivity increases as progressively more information about the developing dilemma is disclosed across scenario phases¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Overall agreement means decreased from Phase 1 (5.09) to Phase 4 (3.75), indicating an increase in ethical sensitivity as the scenario unfolded (p < 0.001). → Mary Jo Billiot 2012
Evidence¶
Mary Jo Billiot 2012¶
Mary Jo Billiot, David Daniel, Sid Glandon, TerryAnn Glandon. (2012). Educational Context: Preparing Accounting Students To Identify Ethical Dilemmas. American Journal Of Business Education – May/June 2012 Volume 5, Number 3. https://clutejournals.com/index.php/AJBE
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Repeated measures ANOVA across the four phases of the multi-phase scenario (overall means 5.09, 4.52, 4.00, 3.75; phase effect p < 0.001) in the same 172-participant sample.
"As the participants were exposed to each phase, the means decreased, indicating an increase in ethical sensitivity."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.