A Sequential Explanatory Analysis of the Ethical Decision-Making of the Military Cadets in the Philippines: The Case of the Philippine Military Academy

Maria Victoria  B. Dariano,

A Sequential Explanatory Analysis of the Ethical Decision-Making of the Military Cadets in the Philippines: The Case of the Philippine Military Academy

Abstract:

Ethical decision-making emerges from the interplay between individual cognitive structures and the dynamics of social interaction. This study explored the ethical decision-making of military cadets of the Philippine Military Academy using a sequential explanatory mixed method aimed at capturing the presence of risky-shift in the Cadet Corps, determining the factors affecting the individual and group ethical decision-making of the military cadets, and exploring the organizational implications of group polarization among the cadets. The method of Isenberg (1986) with modification of his Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire was utilized to examine the social cognitive processes involved in one’s exercise of choice. Based on the survey, results revealed that risky-shift is present in the Cadet Corps. The qualitative approach revealed that individual ethical decision-making involves 1) need to prudently discern, 2) strictly perform, 3) objectively decide, and 4) effectively communicate. On the other hand, group ethical decision-making involves the nature of disciplinary issues, offender, victim, and PMA context. Moreover, organizational implications are the need for data-driven decision-making and the aftermath of deliberation that affects the cadet’s life. Hence, this study suggests that group pressure can lead cadets to prioritize group norms over ethical principles. Recommendations focused on environment scanning, documentation of best practices, and exploration of ethical organizational culture.

References:

Arvan, M. (2019). The dark side of morality: Group polarization and moral epistemology. In the Philosophical Forum (Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 87-115).
Baliga, S., & Sin, N. (2023). The persistence of social identity in group decision-making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 142-162. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0048393119881098
Brock, A. R., & Carsten, J. (2023). Perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(3), 323-349. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-16770-012
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Doucet, L., & Pratt, M. G. (2023). Fairness and procedural justice in disciplinary processes: A review and future directions. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 22(1), 1-22.
Enriquez, V. G. (1992). From Externalization of Oneself to the Development of a Filipino Psychology. In U. P. Pingsdy (Ed.), Filipino Psychology: Looking Back, Moving Forward. Philippine Psychology Research and Development Foundation, Inc., 13-31.
Enriquez, V. G. (1994). Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social psychology. Philippine Social Sciences Review, 28(1-4), 3-40.
Enriquez, V. G. (1994). Pagbabangong-dangal: Indigenous psychology and cultural empowerment. Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino, 1-91.
Fraser, C. (1971). Group risk‐taking and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(4), 493-510.
Gross, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2019). The rise and fall of cooperation through reputation and group polarization. Nature communications, 10(1), 1-10.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141.
Jena, A., & Kar, S. (2023). Human and Nature: Developing Virtues for Environmental Responsive Behaviour. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 18(1), 177-182.
Niemeyer, S., Veri, F., Dryzek, J. S., & Bächtiger, A. (2024). How deliberation happens: enabling deliberative reason. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 345-362.
Ofem, O. E., & Wang, Y. (2023). Decision Making. In Organizational Behavior: An evidence-based guide for MBA students (pp. 131-156). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2023). The lived experience of organizational policies: A critical narrative inquiry. Organization Studies, 44(2), 221-243. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/cpos20
Proietti, C. (2017, September). The dynamics of group polarization. In International Workshop on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (pp. 195-208). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Rensheng, S. Q. H. (2011). Effects of the Group Polarization, the Asymmetric dominance effect, and the Risky Probabilities on Risk Preferences. Science of Social Psychology, Z2.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1992). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23-46.
Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S., & Grönlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41-57.
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11. 289-338). Academic Press.
Van den Bos, K. (2023). The Fair Process Effect: Overcoming Distrust, Polarization, and Conspiracy Thinking. Cambridge University Press.
Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: the Basics. New York: Routledge, 1-280.
Weiten, W., Dunn, D., & Hammer, E. Y. (2003). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 21st century. London: Wadsworth, 672.
West, E. (2023). Who’s Laughing Now? Satire’s Effect on Negative Partisanship, 1-19.