Creating Developmentally and Culturally Responsive Lessons

1
Session Goals
Review key aspects of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories
Discuss how beliefs and biases inform instructional practices
Describe Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) and discuss
research findings related to CRT
Discuss the process of becoming culturally responsive
Discuss culturally responsive instructional strategies

Teacher performance assessment systems such as the Danielson
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2013) highlight the need
for teachers to demonstrate deep and comprehensive knowledge
of their students.
Such an understanding on the part of teachers has been
demonstrated to have a positive impact on student learning and
behavior (Durlak, 2011).
a 2010 report published by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) notes that
“children learn best when educators are skilled in applying
developmental principles effectively to maximize student
academic, social, and emotional development.” (p. 15).
The report further notes that “teacher knowledge of the social,
emotional, and cognitive domains, coupled with the ability to
effectively apply strategies based on developmental principles,
translates to increased student engagement and improved

learning outcomes” (NCATE, 2010, p. 2).
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(2007) identified key principles that they view as collectively
serving to improve teaching practice by broadening teachers’
understanding of children. Among them are 1) teaching
requires not only a knowledge of content, but an understanding
of children (individually, culturally, and developmentally), 2)
teachers must understand how children are influenced by
environments outside of school, and 3) teachers must
understand how socioemotional development influences
learning.
2
Constructivist Theory
Cognitive Constructivism (Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental
Theory )
Social Constructivism (Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory)

3
Cognitive Constructivism-
Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Theory (1896-1980)
There are two major aspects to his theory: the process of
coming to know and the stages we move through as we
gradually acquire this ability.

4
The Process of Coming to Know- Adaptation
Adaptation (which consists of assimilation, accommodation and
equilibration) is driven by a biological drive to obtain balance
between schemes and the environment (equilibration).
Adaptation, cognitive growth, and discovery
5

Stages Of Development
Sensorimotor stage (birth – 2)
Preoperational stage (2 – 7)
Concrete operational stage (7 – 11)
Formal Operations (11-15 to death)
6
Piaget’s Theory: Implications for Teachers (Slavin, 2005)
A focus on the process of children’s thinking, not just its
products
Recognition of the crucial role of children’s self-initiated,
active involvement in learning activities
A de-emphasis on practices aimed at making children adult-like
in their thinking
Acceptance of individual differences in developmental progress

7
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1896-1934)
Cognitive development is a function of our interactions with
more skilled and more sophisticated partners.
Interpsychological vs. Intrapsychological
Zone of Proximal Development
Scaffolding
8
The Zone of Proximal Development
Difference between the developmental level a child has reached

and the level she is potentially capable of reaching with the
guidance or collaboration of a more skilled adult or peer.
Scaffolding is an instructional process in which the teacher
adjusts to the child’s level of development the amount and type
of support he or she provides to the child.
9
The Importance of a
Developmental Perspective
Teacher knowledge of the social, emotional, and cognitive
domains, coupled with the ability to effectively apply strategies
based on developmental principles, results in increased student
engagement and improved learning outcomes.

Teacher performance assessment systems such as the Danielson
Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2013) highlight the need
for teachers to demonstrate deep and comprehensive knowledge
of their students.
Such an understanding on the part of teachers has been
demonstrated to have a positive impact on student learning and
behavior (Durlak, 2011).

a 2010 report published by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) notes that
“children learn best when educators are skilled in applying
developmental principles effectively to maximize student
academic, social, and emotional development.” (p. 15).
The report further notes that “teacher knowledge of the social,
emotional, and cognitive domains, coupled with the ability to
effectively apply strategies based on developmental principles,
translates to increased student engagement and improved
learning outcomes” (NCATE, 2010, p. 2).
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(2007) identified key principles that they view as collectively
serving to improve teaching practice by broadening teachers’
understanding of children. Among them are 1) teaching
requires not only a knowledge of content, but an understanding
of children (individually, culturally, and developmentally), 2)
teachers must understand how children are influenced by
environments outside of school, and 3) teachers must
understand how socioemotional development influences
learning.
10
Supporting Developmental Needs Through Culturally
Responsive Teaching

Culturally responsive teaching involves the process of coming
to understand our students in terms of their strengths, their

needs, their goals, their expectations, and their identities.
It involves an understanding of and appreciation for our
students as cultural beings whose cultural identities (such as
those associated with their gender, race, religion, sexual
orientation, or socioeconomic status) coupled with their lived
experiences outside of school influence their performance
within school.
The goal of culturally responsive teaching is to address the
developmental needs of students by drawing on their cultural
knowledge, prior experiences, and diverse performance styles to
make learning more appropriate and effective for them.
11
School Performance
Developmental Needs
Lived Experiences Outside of School
Expectations
Cultural Identities
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Gay (2000) defines culturally responsive teaching as using the
cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles
of diverse students to make learning more appropriate and
effective for them (p 29).

12
Becoming A Culturally Responsive Teacher

13
Awareness
Knowledge
Skill
What are my beliefs about my students?
What informs those beliefs?
Being culturally responsive begins with an understanding of
ourselves.
14
What Makes Teachers Developmentally and Culturally
Responsive?:
How they plan lessons
How they create a classroom environment

How they deliver instruction and assess learning

15
In Summary- Characteristics of Culturally Responsive Teachers
(Gay, 2000)
They establish home-school connections within the classroom,
They develop a sense of community within the classroom,
They create and foster engaging classroom environments, and
They demonstrate that they care for their students in authentic
ways

16
W3 Discussion Making Decisions
How would you handle a situation that teetered on the edge of
unethical but was not against company policy?
For example, there is no clear rule in your employee handbook
forbidding romantic relationships. However, the receptionist,
Alyssa, has begun dating a salesperson, Connor. The
receptionist will occasionally receive cold calls from potential
clients. There is an assumption on the sales team that Connor
may be getting routed these cold calls due to his relationship
with Alyssa.
This week’s reading had me interested and opened my eyes to
learning even more regarding ethics. The discussion this week

brings about great questions in the situation about ethical
decision-making. There is nothing like being clear and concise
to employees in an organization. An organization must be clear
if it matters when there is a possibility that employees could
become romantically involved. Myself coming from the military
side, there are rules in place for certain ranks regarding
relationships. It is against the rules for a lower enlisted to date
an officer or supervisor. A married couple can not have a
spouse as a supervisor or be in their evaluation chain. It is not
clear if not having a written policy affects how employees work
and relate to each other. However, having a policy in place sets
boundaries and rules for employees.
If there is not any specific information in the employee
handbook which states that dating co-workers are not allowed,
then I would not investigate that part of the relationship aspect.
However, when it comes to the receptionist using her position to
promote or give advantage to her boyfriend just because they
are dating, then I believe that is wrong. Speaking with the
couple first, rather than going to any other higher office, such
as the Human Resources Offices or manager, would be my first
decision. There are only rumors and no proven fact given that
she is routing the cold calls to him. It would be a huge mistake
to assume that it is happening and reporting it, causing more
trouble in the office and the individuals involved.
I have friends that work as a car salesperson, and I have been
told that their business has a plan in place as to how the cold
calls are routed. There is a list posted, and when a call comes in
it is routed to the next salesperson in line for the call. The call
is documented next to the salesperson's name for verification.
With this being said, we know that every business or
organization runs differently. The little blurb for or discussion
does not go that deep into detail to know. In the end, there is a
thought of caution I would have to have when it comes to
fighting unethical situations that could have no positive change.
We have to pick and choose our ethical battles.

Group Ethical Decision Making Process in Chinese
Business: Analysis From Social Decision Scheme and
Cultural Perspectives
Jianfeng Yang
Research Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
Hao Ji
School of Management
Zhejiang University
Conor O’Leary
Griffith Business School
Griffith University
Literature concerning group ethical decision making in a
business setting has traditionally focused on
directly comparing group versus individual decisions and then
investigating differences. Analysis of
the interactive process of group ethical decision making appears
sparse. This study addresses the gap
by investigating group decision making from a social decision
scheme (SDS) perspective in a
Chinese cultural setting. A cohort of Chinese accountancy
students evaluated ethical business
scenarios individually and then in a group context. Group
responses could be explained in terms
of both the SDS and the Chinese cultural perspective
(zhongyong). Specifically, groups did not select

the most ethical choice but rather the most moderate of all
choices advocated by the majority
(zhongyong). These results show the application of SDS theory
in a culturally specific (Chinese)
environment and note the impact of culturally specific factors
(zhongyong) on business decision
making. The implications are significant for business. If ethical
decisions are entrusted to groups, the
impact of culturally specific factors must be fully appreciated in
evaluating the final decision.
Keywords: group ethical decision making, social decision
scheme, culture, zhongyong
INTRODUCTION
Because of the complex nature of business decisions, groups are
often perceived as a better way
with which to arrive at the optimum decision, rather than
entrusting the decision to an individual
Correspondence should be addressed to Jianfeng Yang,
Research Center of Cluster and Enterprise Development,
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nachang
Province, Jiangxi, China. E-mail: [email protected]
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 27(3), 201–220
Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1157690
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-7523
mailto:[email protected]

(Nichols & Day, 1982). Therefore, business decisions are
usually made by groups rather than
individuals in organizations (Abdolmohammadi, Gabhart, &
Reeves, 1997; Sarker, Sarker,
Chatterjee, & Valacich, 2010). Business decisions often involve
moral components and as
such can be seen as ethical decisions (Jones, 1991). Hence the
process of group ethical business
decision making appears critical and in need of significant
research (Treviño, Nieuwenboer, &
Kish-Gephart, 2014).
Business ethics has been examined intensively on an individual
level (e.g., DeGrassi,
Morgan, Walker, Wang, & Sabat, 2012; Pearsall & Ellis, 2011;
Stenmark, 2013). However,
there are only a few empirical studies that have examined the
outcomes and antecedents of group
ethical decision making (GEDM; e.g., Abdolmohammadi &
Reeves, 2003; O’Leary &
Pangemanan, 2007; Sarker et al., 2010). Studies such as
O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007)
found that a group ethical decision is not significant stricter
than the average of individuals’
ethical decisions. Conversely, other studies showed that group
ethical decisions are stricter than
the average of individuals’ ethical decisions (Abdolmohammadi
et al., 1997; Abdolmohammadi
& Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982). They were still found to
be less ethical than the decision
of the most ethical group member (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves,
2003; Nichols & Day, 1982).
Some other studies showed that factors such as group diversity
(DeGrassi et al., 2012), leader-
ship (Schminke, Wells, Peyrefitte, & Sebora, 2002), and moral

microcosms (Brief, Buttram, &
Dukerich, 2001) can impact GEDM significantly.
Although those studies have supplied much important
knowledge on the outcomes and
antecedents of GEDM, they have two imperative shortcomings.
The first is that they cannot
help us understand the exact process of GEDM (Treviño et al.,
2014). This could help us
understand both why a consistent positive group effect on
ethical decisions has not been noted
and how those antecedents impact on the outcomes of GEDM.
Second, previous studies are
implemented in America, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
No empirical study on GEDM has
been conducted in China, where the culture is much different
from those three countries
(Hofstede, 2003). Previous studies have demonstrated that
nationality/cultural backgrounds
have important impacts on factors such as ethical reasoning
(Flaming, Agacer, & Uddin,
2010; Koning, Van, Van, & Steinel, 2010; Zheng, Gray, Zhu, &
Jiang, 2014), the selection of
a decision model, and decision preference (Weber & Hsee,
2000). Therefore, it is unclear
whether the results of previous studies would be valid in China,
a country that is becoming
increasingly important in the global business environment.
China is now a country of huge global economic importance and
unfortunately, the occa-
sional business scandal. China is the world’s second largest
economy with a gross domestic
product of US$9–10 trillion (Bergmann & Yellin, 2013).
Countries from all over the world,
including the European Union, the United States, and Japan, are

investing in China (Bloomberg,
2013). Similarly, the International Institute for Sustainable
Development (2013) noted how
Chinese business entities are expanding their investments
overseas, especially in Africa and
Latin America. It follows therefore that business interactions
between and within multinational
companies, international governments, and their Chinese
equivalents are already at a significant
level and are predicted to increase. These business interactions
will invariably involve ethical
decision making. Furthermore, like many other countries China
has recently experienced
incidences of unethical business practices leading to negative
reactions. To avoid any further
accounting scandals, Interactive Brokers Group Inc. forbade its
customers from investing in
more than 130 Chinese public companies (Spicer & Giannone,
2011). Similarly, after some false
202 YANG, JI, O’LEARY
accounting was noted in some of its Chinese clients, Deloitte &
Touche was investigated by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Deloitte & Touche
subsequently announced it would
strengthen audit procedures for new clients in the Chinese
region (Sanchanta & Mavin, 2013).
These events highlight issues with business ethics in China.
This study attempts to address these two shortcomings of
previous research, just noted, by
pursuing two objectives. First, the main objective is to develop
a new social decision scheme

(SDS; zhongyong scheme), based upon extant SDS theory, but
incorporating an important
Chinese cultural feature (zhongyong). Current SDS theory is
now a key concept in current
group decision making research (Laughlin, 2011). It is hoped
the new scheme will help to better
explain the GEDM process in a Chinese business context.
Second, the results of GEDM in a
Chinese business context will be compared to those obtained
from Western countries, as noted in
the earlier studies. Specifically, the following four questions are
evaluated in a Chinese context:
1. Are group ethical decisions stricter than individual ethical
decisions?
2. Is the ethical decision of the most ethical group member
stricter than group ethical
decisions?
3. Do all-female groups make stricter ethical decisions than all -
male groups?
4. Would diversity enhance GEDM?
LITERATURE REVIEW
When we consider group decision making in a Chinese business
ethics environment, there are
three topics to discuss:
1. Whether groups perform better than individuals in ethical
decision making.
2. Effects of gender and diversity on GEDM.
3. The process that groups apply in order to make ethical
decisions.
The first two topics have received some examination in the past

30 years; however, few studies
have explored the process of GEDM in detail. Therefore, this
study tests whether the results of
the first two topics are as valid in a Chinese context as in other
countries. Critically, the study
also extends research into the third topic, the process of GEDM.
Let us now examine the extant
literature in each of the three topic areas.
GEDM versus Individual Ethical Decision Making
Since group judgment is usually more accurate than individual
judgment (Sniezek & Henry,
1990), group ethical reasoning is considered to be at a higher
level than individual ethical
reasoning (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day,
1982). These researchers argued
that group members might be highly influenced and persuaded
by individuals whose ethical
reasoning is at a high level and might become more sensitive to
morality via group interaction
and discussion (Nichols & Day, 1982). This should then lead to
a group decision that would be
stricter than an individual’s in ethical judgment. Some empirical
studies support this view; for
example, Nichols and Day (1982) and Abdolmohammadi and
Reeves (2003) found that groups
got a significantly higher score than individuals in Defining
Issues Tests, a widely used
GROUP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS 203
instrument to assess moral reasoning and moral development
(see, e.g., Rest, Bebeau, & Volker,

1986). However, O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007) did not get a
similar result in Australia.
Furthermore, Abdolmohammadi et al. (1997) found that groups
improved male students’
P-scores (an index of ethical cognition, which can be calculated
from the scores of Defining
Issues Tests) significantly but decreased female students’
scores. They also noted the difference
between group ethical decisions to be marginally but not
significantly stricter than average
member ethical decisions. Regarding whether groups
outperform the best members, groups
usually fall short of their best member (Kerr & Tindale, 2004;
Steiner, 1972). Furthermore,
previous business ethics studies consistently found groups being
outperformed by their best
group member on ethical tasks (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves,
2003; Nichols & Day, 1982).
Effects of Gender and Diversity on GEDM
For the antecedents of GEDM, some factors have been
examined. Among those factors, gender
and diversity have been studied most extensively. First,
regarding gender, women are usually
found to be stricter than men on ethical decision making (You,
Maeda, & Bebeau, 2011).
Women are concerned with caring, and men place more
emphasis on justice (Gilligan, 1982).
Furthermore, according to social role theory (Eagly, Wood, &
Diekman, 2000), men have more
“agentic” characteristics, and their typical role is as a provider.
Therefore, men are more
assertive, aggressive, and competitive than women. On the other
hand, women have more
“communal” characteristics, and the domestic role is their more

typical role. Therefore,
women are more caring, friendly, and unselfish than men. In the
context of GEDM, gender
composition could therefore influence a group’s final decision
(LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen,
Colquitt, & Ellis, 2002).
Regarding group diversity, heterogeneous groups have at least
two advantages for ethical
decision making. First, heterogeneous groups have more links to
diverse external stakeholders
and have more channels to get information for decision making
which could lead to a better
understanding of external stakeholders’ needs (Hillman,
Cannella, & Paetzold, 2000). Therefore,
heterogeneous groups could consider the benefit of more
external stakeholders when they make
ethical decisions. On the other hand, homogeneous groups have
common background, char-
acters, and experience, so members can reach conclusions faster
than heterogeneous groups
(DeGrassi et al., 2012). However, those similarities would limit
groups’ moral imagination
(Yang, 2013).
Second, diverse groups can have a wider range of skills,
knowledge, and styles to apply
decision information (Ali, Ng, & Kulik, 2014). For example,
women tend to be more risk averse
and detail oriented; they want to know more about their
decision tasks. Women always try to
consider all the relevant factors in a decision making process
(Stendardi, Graham, & O’Reilly,
2006). On the other hand, men always use heuristic ways to
process information in a more
comprehensive way. This helps men to focus their attention on

the most dominant and available
information (Stendardi et al., 2006). Integrating the advantages
of both men and women, gender
diverse group may better understand external stakeholders and
so arrive at a stricter decision.
Process of GEDM: SDS Theory
Regarding the GEDM process, three studies that mentioned it
have noted two approaches
(Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; DeGrassi et al., 2012;
O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007).
The first approach is to use the four-step individual ethical
decision making model (Rest et al.,
1986) directly to represent GEDM process without supplying
any theoretical supports (DeGrassi
et al., 2012). The second one is to suggest that groups appear
more likely to make a “neutral”
decision in order to compromise, rather than the most stri ctly
ethical decision
(Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; O’Leary & Pangemanan,
2007). Although the second
way has given us a valuable insight into the GEDM process, this
does not answer an important
further question: how groups “compromise.” This is the main
research question, which is
addressed through the perspectives of SDS theory and Chinese
culture in this study.
SDS theory (Davis, 1973) is considered to be one of the most
prominent theories in current
group decision making literature (Laughlin, 2011). This theory

has been applied to explain group
decision on many tasks, such as jury decision making (e.g.,
Davis, 1973; Stasser, 1999),
intellective tasks (e.g., Laughlin & Ellis, 1986), risk judgment
(e.g., Laughlin & Earley,
1982), value judgment (e.g., Green & Taber, 1980), and attitude
judgment (e.g., Kerr, Davis,
Meek, & Rissman, 1975).
SDS theory divides the group decision making process into four
subprocesses. These are
individual preference, group distribution, group interaction
process, and group response (Stasser,
1999). First, when individuals receive a group decision task,
they form a personal preference for
a choice or option before group discussion. Second, the group
distribution reflects the distribu-
tion of group members’ initial preferences. Third, individual
initial choices may shift through
group interaction, and the group would update its distribution
according to individual new
choices. Furthermore, the way individual initial choices shift
would be determined by the
different means (social decision schemes) to reach consensus.
Finally, group response involves
selecting a choice or option from multiple alternatives as a
group decision.
Basing on SDS, group decision making outcomes can be
predicted by analyzing the group
members’ choice distributions and group interactions (the SDS;
Davis, 1973; Stasser, 1999).
After individual and group choices have been arrived, the group
interaction process for a group
decision making task can be identified by statistically
comparing predicted group decisions with

FIGURE 1 Schematic of the predictive process of social
decision scheme
theory. Note. P1, P2, P3, . . ., Pe = probabilities of
distinguishable group
choices. β1, β2, β3, . . ., βf = probabilities of distinguishable
distributions of
member decisions. [dfe] = decided by social decision schemes.
their corresponding actual group decisions (Stasser, 1999). Then
an explanation can be found as
to how group members reached a consensus for the group
decision. This predictive scheme of
SDS theory is summarized in Figure 1.
Two basic schemes of SDS have been identified: majority-wins
scheme (Hinsz, 1990;
Ohtsubo, Masuchi, & Nakanishi, 2002) and truth-wins scheme
(Ohtsubo et al., 2002; Tindale
& Sheffey, 2002). Under majority-wins scheme, the group
choice will be decided by the
majority of group members (Davis, 1973). For example, if a
five-member group evaluate the
risk of a project on a 5-point Likert scale and three members
support 3, one supports 1, and the
last member supports 4, under the process of majority-wins,
group members will ultimately
select 3 as the group answer because most members support it.
Under truth-wins process, the
most correct option will always be accepted by the group
(Davis, 1973) even though it is
proposed by only one or just a few group members. For

example, if other group members in the
preceding scenario are convinced by the member who supports 4
and ultimately consider 4 is the
correct answer, then they will select 4 as the group answer. This
correct option may actually be
the really true answer (such as the answer to a math problem) or
may just be perceived as the
correct option by all group members.
Why do some groups make decision by truth-wins scheme but
others by majority-wins scheme?
The main reason refers to an important feature of decision
making tasks: demonstrability (Swol, 2008).
Demonstrability is “how easy it is to demonstrate to group
members that an alternative is the correct
response” (Hinsz, 1990). Demonstrability has four dimensions
(Laughlin & Ellis, 1986). First, group
members have a common language to communicate their
judgments with each other. Second, group
members must have sufficient information to determine the
correct answer. Third, uncorrected group
members can recognize and accept the correct answer when it is
presented by other members. Fourth,
the correct members can and will communicate the correct
answer with other members.
Typical high demonstrability tasks are intellective tasks where
the correct answers can be
communicated and recognized easily by group members, such as
logic or mathematic questions;
in contrast, typical low demonstrability tasks are judgmental
tasks that usually have no abso-
lutely correct answer, such as behavioral or aesthetic judgments
(Laughlin & Ellis, 1986).
Generally, groups would apply truth-wins scheme to solve high
demonstrability tasks and use

majority-wins scheme to solve low demonstrability tasks (Swol,
2008).
Moral tasks are judgmental tasks because they are low in most
dimensions of demonstrability.
Group members might be different from each other in many
moral-related field, such as on major,
moral development stages (Kohlberg, 1969), moral attentiveness
(Reynolds, 2008), and mental
models (Werhane, 1999). Those differences make group
members analyze tasks through difference
perspectives, emphasize different elements, and cause difficulty
in persuading others. Furthermore,
a business context is very complex and dynamic, and it will be
difficult, if not impossible, to
determine which answer is the most strictly ethical one.
Therefore, even members who have ethical
answers and are willing and able to tell others their answers
may lack a common language,
information, and possibility for other members to recognize and
accept their answers.
SDS may be used to explain the decision making process.
However the basic SDS may not be
accurate enough to describe the process of group decision
making homogeneously in every environ-
ment. As mentioned previously, cultural factors impact group
decision making, so in reviewing the
ability of SDS to explain group decision making in a culturally
specific (Chinese) setting, a group
behavior mode culturally specific (to China) must be
considered. Let us now consider the doctrine of
zhongyong, which may dominate group decision making
processes in this environment.

Zhongyong
Zhongyong is the ancient Confucian doctrine of mean (Cheung
et al., 2006). It heavily
influences Chinese thinking, judgment, and behavior in
everyday life (Wang, Tang, Kao, & Sun,
2013; Yao, Yang, Dong, & Wang, 2010), such as Chinese
students are more likely than Canada
and American students to choose midpoint regarding the use
habit of rating scales (Chen, Lee, &
Stevenson, 1995). About 850 years ago, Chu Hsi, a Chinese
philosopher, explained “Zhong” as
“avoiding extremes,” because “to go beyond is as wrong as to
fall short.” “Yong” is explained as
mediocre or ordinary (Hsi, 1985).
Originally, ancient zhongyong is a kind of Confucian
philosophy, which includes moral
components (Xu, 1998). However, modern zhongyong implies a
mode of action suggesting
that people need to think things thoughtfully from different
perspectives, seek an appropriate
point (i.e., the middle) rather than extremes, and maintain
interpersonal harmony in the interac-
tion system (Cheung et al., 2003; Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010; Yang,
2010). Zhongyong, as a mode of
action, does not have an intrinsic relationship with the
substantive moral principles of
Confucianism (Cheung et al., 2003). This mode of action even
can be distinguished and isolated
from the substantive values of Confucianism (Cheung et al.,
2003). Therefore, this study treats
zhongyong as the mode of action rather than a kind of

Confucius philosophy.
Zhongyong therefore encourages people to make holistic
consideration (Ji et al., 2010; Yang,
2010; Yao et al., 2010). Many researchers have found that
Chinese regularly behave and make
decisions in the way of zhongyong. For example, Chinese are
more likely than other cultures to
make moderate responses (Chen et al., 1995; Hamamura, Heine,
& Paulhus, 2008), take a holistic
approach to cognition situations (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000),
engage in dialectical thinking rather
than take extreme views (Lee, 2000), and reach a compromised
solution that can be accepted by
most people if contradictory alternatives exist (Cheung et al.,
2003). Therefore, the main effect of
zhongyong in a group context is to develop or keep harmony,
which can result in the majority or
median decision being selected. From the perspective of SDS
theory, zhongyong is similar to the
majority-wins scheme; however, they operate differently when
more than one option is advocated
by a similar number of group members. Under zhongyong, the
group will tend to take the median
choice, whereas all options that gain same number of supporters
have an equal chance of being
selected under the majority-wins scheme. For example,
considering the scenario raised previously,
when two members support 2, two support 5, and one supports
3, under the “majority-wins”
scheme, the group has a 50% probability of selecting 2 or 5 as
the group answer. But under the
zhongyong scheme, the group has a 100% probability of
choosing 3 as the group answer, because
the 3 is the median of options 2 and 5.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
Two hundred domestic undergraduate students majoring in
accounting at a Chinese University
participated in this study. There were 68 (34%) male subjects
and 132 (66%) female subjects.
The mean age was 18.8 years. They all had completed similar
courses relating to business and
economics up to this point in their degree program. Therefore it
could be anticipated that they all
had a similar knowledge of business and ethical decision
making at tertiary level.
Sixty-one groups (10 all-male, 20 all-female, and 31 mixed-
gender) took part in this study.
Mixed-gender groups were composed of three to five members,
and all-female and all-male
groups were composed of three to four members, except for four
groups, which had only two
participants. These four groups were formed simply to use all
participants, as they had been left
out when dividing up the cohorts. They were removed from the
subsequent analysis. Therefore,
there are valid data for 57 groups (nine all-male, 20 all-female,
and 28 mixed-gender). In this
university, classmates of each class live in the same hostel (four
classmates share a living room);
these participants had spent at least 1 year together to get to this
point in their degree program.

Therefore, all group members within each group knew each
other well, so these groups are
considered good proxies for real work groups.
Measures
Ethical Decisions
Five ethical accounting scenarios adopted from O’Leary and
Pangemanan (2007) were used
to assess ethical decisions. In each scenario, subjects were
given a business dilemma followed by
five options, from which they had to choose one only. A sample
scenario is shown in Appendix.
Following Jones’s (1991) definition of ethicality, the ethicality
of each option is determined
by the extent to which it is both legally and morally acceptable
to the larger community. For
example, the first option in all scenarios was the most unethical
option (illegal and morally
unacceptable by society), the third option is neutral (legal but
morally unaccepted by society),
and the fifth option was the most strictly ethical option (legal
and morally acceptable by society).
The five options were scored on a 5-point Likert scale with the
first option scored as 1 and the
fifth option scored as 5. The sum of scores of all five scenarios
represented a total score for
ethical decision making. Whereas the scoring may not be a
perfect measure of the range of
ethical behavior, the justification for its use lies in the fact it
has been used in similar studies,
such as Jones (1991), mentioned previously; Haines and
Leonard (2007); and White and Lean
(2008). Also, as we employed SDS theory to explore the process

of GEDM, scores were needed
to compare individual group members’ preferences to group
decisions, to enable identification of
any social decision schemes in operation.
As the ethical scenarios and scoring section were translated
from English to Chinese,
translation equivalence (Mullen, 1995) was established. First
the scenarios were translated into
Chinese by one author, then back into English by a PhD
candidate who is familiar with business
ethics but was independent of the study. The researchers then
performed a final revision to
ensure there were no misunderstandings. The Cronbach’s alpha
score for responses to the five
scenarios was 0.61, which is considered acceptable for this type
of experimental study (Caldwell
& Moberg, 2007).
Gender and Diversity
The participants were randomly divided into three types of
groups: all-female groups, all-
male groups, and mixed-gender groups. In the subsequent
analysis section, differences between
all-female groups and all-male groups were used to reflect
gender effect on GEDM, and
distinction between same-gender groups, including all-female
groups and all-male groups, and
mixed-gender groups to represent the impact of (gender)
diversity on GEDM.

Procedure
For the purpose of reducing self-selection bias, participants
were not informed of the real
research aim and were simply invited to attend an experiment
about business decision making
during free class time. Furthermore, to avoid possible framing
effects, the words “moral” and
“ethics” were not mentioned to participants until they finished
the whole experiment. Before the
experiment research, assistants read the instructions aloud to all
participants, answered partici-
pants’ questions, and told participants that they could leave at
any time if they felt uncomfortable
with the experiment. No one dropped out during the experiment
procedures.
Procedures involved two steps. First, all participants completed
a survey instrument in which
they make decisions for the five ethical scenarios by themselves
as individuals and provided the
basic demographic details of gender and age. Any
communication among participants was
forbidden at this step. Second, they were subsequently randomly
divided into groups and were
informed to complete a further copy of the same survey
instrument as groups. Each group was
composed of three to five group members rather than by a fixed
number of group members.
Only at this step were group members allowed to communicate
with each other and reach a
consensus on each scenario. However, intergroup
communication was forbidden. Ample time
was given at both the individual and the group steps. When
participants finished all experimental

tasks, they were given a small gift as compensation for their
time.
RESULTS
Individual versus GEDM Results
Figure 2 shows the range of responses for the combined five
scenarios, both for individuals and
groups. The proportions of individual responses across the
choice of options from 1 (most
unethical) to 5 (most ethical) were, respectively, 13%, 13%,
27%, 38%, and 8%. The compara-
tive group responses were 9%, 14%, 29%, 46%, and 2%. There
was no significant difference
between those two distributions (χ2 = 0.29, p > .05). Consistent
with those results, Table 1 shows
no statistically significant difference between individual and
group ethical decision.
At the same time, the difference between groups and each
group’s strictest member in ethical
decision were compared (n = 57). The group member who had
the highest total score on individual
ethical decision making was chosen as the strictest group
member. If a group had more than one
strictest member (i.e., two or more group members had the same
highest total score), the mean score
on each scenario of those strictest members was taken. The
score reveals that the strictest group
member was significantly stricter than his or her corresponding
group in four of the five scenarios
and for the combined response. The strictest member also
outperformed his or her group in the
remaining scenario (Scenario 2) just not to a statistically
significant level.

Gender and Diversity Effects on GEDM Results
Table 2 highlights significant differences between female and
male students as regards ethical
decision making on both individual and group levels. Individual
female responses are signifi-
cantly stricter than their male counterparts (t = –2.85, p < .01).
Similarly, multiple comparison
showed that all-female groups significantly outperformed both
diverse gender and all-male
groups in ethical decision making; however, there is no
significant difference between mixed-
gender and all-male groups. In total, mixed gender groups
perform similarly to homogeneous
groups (t = 0.21, p > .05).
GEDM Process
All groups are included in the following analysis to explore
GEDM process in a Chinese
business context. Three social decision schemes are described in
Table 3. In Table 3, a four-
person group is given five options and examples of two
different distributions are supplied in the
upper two matrices. A three-person group with five options and
two different distributions is
supplied in the lower two matrices. Those examples provide
four possible distributions of group
members’ initial preferences on five options of one item are
given as scheme examples, and

FIGURE 2 Decision distribution–individual versus group.
TABLE 1
Individual and Group Responses
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Total
Individuals M 3.10 3.81 2.52 3.09 3.20 15.73
SD 1.34 .65 .89 1.12 1.29 3.40
Group M 3.23 3.82 2.59 3.11 3.11 15.87
SD 1.09 0.50 0.76 0.95 1.17 2.66
Best members M 3.80** 3.98 3.08** 3.77** 3.80** 18.43**
SD 1.16 0.70 0.76 0.84 1.09 3.32
**p < .01.
scheme’s treatment of each distribution (i.e., the predicted
possibility of a group adapting each
option).
According to SDS, the best social decision scheme can be
identified to describe group
decision making process by comparing the distributions of
group-observed decisions to pre-
dicted decisions (Laughlin, 2011). The goodness of fit between
observed and predicted distribu-
tions was then tested by examining three indexes. These are
Dmax, deviation, and accuracy (Kerr
et al., 1975; Ohtsubo et al., 2002; Stasser, 1999).

First, Dmax, which is calculated by one-sample Kolmogorov-
Smirnov goodness-of-fit test,
was employed as it is commonly used in SDS theory research
(e.g., Ohtsubo et al., 2002;
Stasser, 1999). The Dmax reflects the maximum difference
between predicted and observed
distributions. The second column of Table 4 shows the Dmax
for observed and predicted
distributions as per the three decision scheme schemes, for the
five different scenarios. Except
for the truth-wins scheme, both the majority-wins and the
zhongyong schemes were accepted by
the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. However the Dmax
of the zhongyong scheme was less
than that of the majority-wins scheme in all five scenarios,
which supports the idea that the
zhongyong scheme is a better predicting scheme.
Second, the overall deviation of group decision’s predicted and
observed distributions for
each scenario were counted. One example was given to show
how to calculate those deviations.
For example, if the predicted distribution is (0.00, 0.08, 0.12,
0.44, 0.36), and the observed
TABLE 2
Gender Differences in Ethical Decision Making
n M SD
Individual Women 132 16.20 3.11 t = –2.85**
Men 67 14.78 3.75
Group Women 20 16.81 2.99 F = 4.57*
Diverse 28 15.10 2.29
Men 9 14.50 2.49

Note. One participant eliminated from individual responses due
to incomplete survey.
TABLE 3
Examples of the Three Schemes
Four group member preference distributions in five options
Options A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
N 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
Truth-win 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Majority-win 1 0 0 0 0 1/4 1/4 ¼ 0 1/4
Zhongyong 1 0 0 0 0 0 1/2 ½ 0 0
Three group member preference distributions in five options
N 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
Truth-win 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Majority-win 1/3 0 1/3 0 1/3 0 0 1 0 0
Zhongyong 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
distribution is (0.10, 0.15, 0.23, 0.48, 0.05) then the distances
are (0.10, 0.07, 0.11, 0.04, 0.31)
resulting in an overall distance of 0.63. The distance rankings
of each decision scheme within
each scenario were counted. The decision scheme that had the
minimum distance is ranked 1,
and so on. The results are summarized in the second column of
Table 5. The prediction of the
zhongyong scheme revealed the minimum distance in all five
scenarios (rank = 1 in each
scenario, sum of ranks = 5). Therefore, the zhongyong scheme

(sum of ranks = 5) was again
proved better than the truth-wins (sum of ranks = 15) and
majority-wins schemes (sum of
ranks = 10). For the similar reason, the majority-wins scheme is
better than the truth-wins
scheme.
Third, accuracy, which represents what percentage of observed
group decisions have been
correctly predicted by each social decision scheme, was
outlined in Table 6. As the second
column of Table 6 shows, the prediction of the zhongyong
scheme was the most accurate for all
five scenarios, and the majority-wins scheme is better than the
truth-wins scheme.
In summary, the truth-wins scheme failed to describe the
process of GEDM in Chinese
business context. The majority-wins scheme is better than the
truth-wins scheme in accordance
with goodness-of-fit tests. However, the zhongyong scheme is
much more accurate than the
majority-wins scheme in all three tests.
TABLE 4
Observed and Predicted Probability of Distribution Under Each
Option
Total All-Female All-Male Mixed
Dmax T M Z T M Z T M Z T M Z
Scenario 1 .32** .10 .06 .32* .11 .07 .33 .09 .06 .55** .15 .10
Scenario 2 .23* .04 .02 .18 .07 .04 .33 .00 .00 .25 .03 .03
Scenario 3 .42** .08 .06 .32* .07 .07 .33 .15 .67** .60** .17 .20
Scenario 4 .35** .05 .04 .29* .08 .04 .33 .22 .22 .55** .01 .03

Scenario 5 .35** .06 .04 .21 .05 .04 .45* .22 .33 .55** .11 .10
Note. T = truth-scheme; M = majority-win scheme; Z =
zhongyong scheme.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
TABLE 5
Overall Deviation and Deviation Ranking of Three Schemes
SR SD SR SD SR SD SR SD
Truth-win 15 3.18 15 2.64 14 4.45 15 5
Majority-win 10 1.06 10 1.26 6 2.26 8 1.31
Zhongyong 5 0.67 5 0.64 8 3.55 6 1.20
Note. SR = sum of ranks; SD = sum of deviation.
Further Exploring Gender, Diversity, and Group Size Effects on
GEDM Process
To explore gender and diversity effects on GEDM process,
group samples were separated into
all-female, all-male, and mixed-gender groups. By contrasting
the GEDM processes of all-
female and all-male groups, gender effects can be identified.
Similarly, diversity effect can be
identified by contrasting the GEDM processes of mixed-gender
groups to those of all-female and
all-male groups together. The last three columns of Tables 4–6
provide indexes for the goodness

of fit for all-female, all-male, and mixed-gender groups.
For all-female groups, the Dmax, deviation, and accuracy
measurements reveal truth-wins
scheme is the worst one among three schemes in describing
GEDM process and zhongyong
scheme is a better predictor than the truth-wins and majority-
wins scheme. For all-male groups,
it’s also clear that the truth-wins scheme is the worst one. The
zhongyong scheme is better than
majority-wins scheme on two of the three indicators. It is better
than the majority-wins scheme
on both Dmax and accuracy but not so on deviation. For mixed-
gender groups, the truth-wins
scheme is the worst predictor. The zhongyong scheme is better
than the majority-wins scheme
on all three indexes although the majority-wins scheme is better
than the zhongyong scheme on
Dmax for two out of the five scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 4).
Therefore, gender and diversity did
not seem to influence which decision scheme was utilized by
groups to make ethical decisions.
Regarding the effect of group size on the process of GEDM,
there was only one five-person
group in our sample. This five-person group was excluded in the
following analysis, and we
examined the goodness of fit of the three social decision
schemes in three-person (n = 35) and
four-person (n = 21) groups separately. Zhongyong decision
scheme performed best for both
three-person and four-person groups. In detail, the average
Dmax for truth-wins, majority-wins,
and zhongyong decision scheme are .28, .08, .07 in three-person
groups and .44, .08, .07 in four-
person groups; the sum of rank for truth-wins, majority-wins,

and zhongyong decision scheme
are 15, 10, 5 in three-person groups and 15, 8, 5 in four-person
groups; and the sum of deviation
for truth-wins, majority-wins, and zhongyong decision scheme
are 2.74, 1.45, 0.97 in three-
person groups and 4.40, 1.22, 1.05 in four-person groups.
Therefore, group size was not found to
influence the process of GEDM.
TABLE 6
Accuracy of Three Schemes
T M Z T M Z T M Z T M Z
Scenario 1 0.42 0.69 0.75 0.54 0.83 0.88 0.44 0.54 0.72 0.25
0.56 0.61
Scenario 2 0.67 0.88 0.92 0.64 0.88 0.96 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.70
0.83 0.87
Scenario 3 0.40 0.70 0.77 0.50 0.73 0.88 0.56 0.78 0.67 0.20
0.62 0.71
Scenario 4 0.44 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.71 0.79 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.30
0.83 0.92
Scenario 5 0.37 0.65 0.75 0.50 0.70 0.84 0.11 0.41 0.56 0.30
0.69 0.74
Average 0.46 0.73 0.80 0.54 0.77 0.87 0.47 0.68 0.72 0.35 0.70
0.73
Note. T = truth- scheme; M = majority-win scheme; Z =
Zhongyong scheme.

DISCUSSION
Business is now transacted globally at an ever increasing rate.
However, the quality of business
ethics comes under attack regularly and concern for their future
continues (De George, 2013). As
most business decisions are made by groups (Weiner, Schmitt,
& Highhouse, 2012), under-
standing the GEDM is therefore critical to enhance business
ethics. This is also an increasing
area of theoretical importance that is not particularly well
understood (DeGrassi et al., 2012;
Pearsall & Ellis, 2011). This study addresses this gap through
the SDS perspective. Specifically,
groups are found to take a zhongyong scheme in Chinese
business context. That is, groups tend
to choose the most moderate option among the alternative
options advocated by group members
rather than the most ethical option.
Furthermore, the four major conclusions on GEDM of previous
Western empirical studies
were tested to see whether they are still valid in a Chinese
business context. The results were
mixed. Some Western studies’ conclusions, such as that of
O’Leary and Pangemanan (2007),
were supported. Group decisions were not found to be
significantly ethical than those of
individuals. Groups appeared more likely to compromise and
choose neutral options rather
than more ethical options. The strictest group members were
also found to be stricter than
groups. This finding is similar to results of studies such as
Forsyth (2009). All-female groups
made stricter ethical decisions than all-male groups, which
supports previous conclusions (e.g.,

Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Baker & Hunt, 2003; Sarker
et al., 2010).
However, other results did not agree with those of similar
Western studies. For example,
diversity did not impact group ethical decisions, whereas a
study by DeGrassi et al. (2012) had
discovered this. The reason this study did not find significant
positive effects of diversity might
be due to the fact that a different way to operationalize
diversity was used. DeGrassi et al.
operationalized diversity based upon race, whereas we
operationalized diversity based upon
gender. Therefore, these results might imply that different types
of diversity have different
effects on GEDM.
This is the first empirical study focusing on the process of
business GEDM in a Chinese
cultural context. We consider that it may contribute to relevant
research in three ways. First, our
findings update GEDM literature by opening the black box—the
process of GEDM. The debate
on whether groups or individuals are stricter decision makers in
an ethical decision making
context is continuing over the past three decades
(Abdolmohammadi et al., 1997;
Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; Nichols & Day, 1982;
O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007).
The present study reconciles these conflicting theories and
findings by opening the process
mechanism of GEDM. In so doing, groups are found to take the
perspective of zhongyong so
that the outcome of GEDM is not significantly different with
individual ethical judgment. This
finding echoes the calls of Treviño et al. (2014) for deep

examination of GEDM process rather
than just comparing the outcome of group and individual ethical
decision.
Second, SDS theory is introduced to study the process of GEDM
as a theoretical perspective.
Studying how groups make ethical decision is critical in
understanding collective ethical
decision making in organizations (Treviño et al., 2014), but the
issue appears underexplored
in the current literature. This shortcoming may be due to a lack
of appropriate theory to examine
the process of GEDM. Most relevant studies have to infer the
process of GEDM indirectly
through comparing the outcome of GEDM and individual ethical
decision making (e.g., Nichols
& Day, 1982; O’Leary & Pangemanan, 2007). To deal with this
shortcoming, this study employs
the SDS theory to explore the process of GEDM. This approach
helps examine how individual
preferences translate into group decisions and may inspire
future studies.
Third, this study adds to current group decision research by
demonstrating the effect of a
cultural characteristic on GEDM. To focus on the ethical
decision making process at group level
in a Chinese business context, this study came up with the
zhongyong scheme (based on both
existing SDS theory and a Chinese cultural factor, the
zhongyong doctrine). Results indicate that

the zhongyong scheme is better than majority-wins and truth-
wins schemes in predicting
GEDM. Although many scholars emphasize the impact of
national culture (e.g., Hofstede,
2003), scant empirical studies demonstrate this cultural effect
on decision making processes,
especially for group decision making. Our results highlight the
importance of cultural influence
on the process of group decision making.
This study also has implications for managerial practice. Fi rst,
the results of this study suggest
that if we really want to promote Chinese GEDM, all individual
group members’ ethical levels
have to be enhanced, rather than hoping that one ethics expert,
such as a chief ethic officer, can
influence the others to reach the most ethical option. This is
because results suggest that Chinese
groups will not choose the most ethical option. Rather, they will
choose the most moderate of all
choices advocated by the majority (the zhongyong scheme).
Second, as more and more foreign
companies have entered China to do business, they should be
aware of any unique cultural
factors that may impact the decision making processes. This
study can help them understand
how Chinese groups make ethical business decisions and how
zhongyong would impact on
those decisions.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Despite some important contributions, there are some potential
methodological and theore-
tical limitations in this study that could be addressed by future
studies. Regarding methodo-

logical limitations, whether the answering scale offered to
participants after each scenario
truly reflects the full range of ethical options available is
debatable. However, within the
confines of the current study it was deemed the only practi cal
way to evaluate and assess
results (Abdolmohammadi & Reeves, 2003; O’Leary &
Pangemanan, 2007). Second, stu-
dents were used as participants in the study as proxies for actual
business people. Whereas
there is no reason to think their group decision process would
be different to that of
experienced business people (Randall & Gibson, 1990), the
possibility must still be recog-
nized. Third, the format of options is fixed across five
scenarios, that is, the first option is
always a response to act most unethically and the last option is
always a response to act most
morally. So the possibility of demand characteristics should be
concerned. Forth, participants
were divided into groups through random assignment, which
could attenuate some individual
and group’s differences, such as personality, collectivism,
confidence, and self-efficacy.
However, this random assignment may limit the generalizability
of our results. Future
researchers could use self-select groups to explore their
decision making process and use
more sophistical means to control or test the effects of
individual and group characteristics on
the process of GEDM.
Fifth, the effect of group size on GEDM process was tested by
comparing the GEDM
process of three- and four-member groups. However, larger
groups would have more unique

information (Stasser & Stewart, 1992) and would mention
shared information more
frequently than smaller groups (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna,
1989). Furthermore, social “loaf-
ing” would be more intensive in larger groups (Lu, Yuan, &
McLeod, 2012). Therefore,
group size would influence group information and the process
that is applied by groups to
handle this information. It might be possible that the variance
of group size is too small to
detect group size effect in this study. Future researchers could
enlarge the variance of group
size to explore group size effect on the process of GEDM.
Sixth, all group members had
equal status in their group in this study. However, there is
usually at least one leader in a real
business group environment, and leaders have more opportunity
to influence group decisions
(Westphal & Milton, 2000). This is especially true in a Chinese
business context because
Chinese culture is high on power distance (Hofstede, 2003).
Therefore, there may be a gap
between our results and real Chinese business GEDM, which
needs be addressed in further
research. Seventh, participants responded to the same scenarios
twice in this study; therefore,
demand effects may be introduced. However, because the social
decision scheme theory was
employed to examine the process of GEDM, we have to
investigate both individual prefer-
ences and group decision. Therefore, repeated measurement is

inevitable in SDS approach.
This kind of study process has been applied in examining the
group decision process in a
body of studies (e.g., Laughlin & Earley, 1982, 1986; Stasser,
1999), but demand effect
should not be neglected. Future researchers could try to
examine whether demand effect
really matters in studies that follow SDS approach. Finally, only
gender diversity is manipu-
lated in this study, and gender and race diversity (DeGrassi et
al., 2012) have shown different
effects on GEDM. Future research could attempt to address this
difference and go beyond
surface-level diversity to test the effect of deep-level diversity
on GEDM.
Regarding theoretical limitations, this study claimed that the
zhongyong scheme can
explain GEDM in Chinese business contexts. However, it was
tested only within Chinese
culture rather than between cultures. Therefore, it is too early to
conclude that the zhongyong
scheme is specific to a Chinese context. Future research could
compare the GEDM process
between China and other countries to consider if the zhongyo ng
could be generalized to other
countries. As many other countries or regions are affected
intensively by Confucian culture,
such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, it could work there as
well. Second, there might be
interactive effects of gender and issue characteristics on the
GEDM process. This could also
be explored further, as could the possible impact of moral
intensity (Jones, 1991) on GEDM.
Similarly, given fault lines or diversity may foster subgroup
hostility and competition in

groups (Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Meyer,
Shemla, Li, & Wegge, 2015). The
process of GEDM may be influenced by fault lines.
Furthermore, decision ambiguity could
also be addressed in future studies by offering scenarios with
more alternative solutions. In
general, exploring antecedents of the process of GEDM may be
a meaningful avenue for
future research.
FUNDING
This research was supported by Grant No. 71562017 and Grant
No. 71262001 from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China.
ORCID
Jianfeng Yang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-7523
REFERENCES
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., Gabhart, D. R. L., & Reeves, M. F.
(1997). Ethical cognition of business students individually
and in groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1717–1725.
doi:10.1023/A:1005709723798
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Reeves, M. F. (2003). Does group
reasoning improve ethical reasoning? Business and
Society Review, 108, 127–137. doi:10.1111/1467-8594.00001
Ali, M., Ng, Y. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2014). Board age and gender

diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear
predictions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 497–512.
doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1930-9
Baker, T. L., & Hunt, T. G. (2003). An exploratory
investigation into the effects of team composition on moral
orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 106–119.
Bergmann, A., & Yellin, T. (2013). World’s largest economies.
CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/news/
economy/world_economies_gdp
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K., & Spell, C. (2012). The
effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines,
organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 77–92. doi:10.1037/a0023684
Bloomberg. (2013). World news: Foreign investment in China.
Retrieved from http://www.businesswee k.com/articles/
2013-11-19
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001).
Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process
model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and
research (pp. 471–499). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caldwell, D., & Moberg, D. J. (2007). An exploratory
investigation of the effect of ethical culture in activating moral
imagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 193–204.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9190-6
Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style
and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East
Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6,
170–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x

Cheung, T. S., Chan, H. M., Chan, K. M., King, A. S. Y. C.,
Chiu, C. Y., & Yang, C. F. (2003). On zhongyong
rationality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing
link between instrumental rationality and commu-
nicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31(1),
107–127. doi:10.1163/156853103764778559
Cheung, T. S., Chan, H. M., Chan, K. M., King, A. S. Y. C.,
Chiu, C. Y., & Yang, C. F. (2006). How Confucian are
contemporary Chinese? Construction of an ideal type and its
application to three Chinese communities. European
Journal of East Asian Studies, 5(2), 157–180.
doi:10.1163/157006106778869289
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A
theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review,
80, 97–125. doi:10.1037/h0033951
De George, R. T. (2013). A history of business ethics. Retrieved
from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/
business/conference/presentations/business-ethics-history.html
DeGrassi, S. W., Morgan, W. B., Walker, S. S., Wang, Y. I., &
Sabat, I. (2012). Ethical decision making: Group diversity
holds the key. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics,
9(6), 51–65.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role
theory of sex differences and similarities: A current
appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The
developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flaming, L., Agacer, G., & Uddin, N. (2010). Ethical decision
making differences between Philippines and United States
students. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), 65–79.

doi:10.1080/10508420903482624
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1980). the effect of three social
decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 25(1), 97–106.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90027-6
Haines, R., & Leonard, L. N. K. (2007). Individual
characteristics and ethical decision making in an IT context.
Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 107(1), 5–20.
doi:10.1108/02635570710719025
Hamamura, T., Heine, S. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008). Cultural
differences in response styles: The role of dialectical
thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 932–
942. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.034
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-7523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005709723798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8594.00001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1930-9
http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/world_economies_gdp
http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/world_economies_gdp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023684
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-19
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9190-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853103764778559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006106778869289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033951
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/confer
ence/presentations/business-ethics-history.html
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/confer
ence/presentations/business-ethics-history.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420903482624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90027-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570710719025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.034
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The
resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic
adaptation of board composition in response to environmental
change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–
255. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00179
Hinsz, V. B. (1990). Cognitive and consensus processes in
group recognition memory performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 705–718.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.705
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing
values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hsi, C. (1985). Si shu ji zhu. Changsha: YueLu Press.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2013).
Chinese outward investment. Retrieved from https://www.
iisd.org/investment/research/china.aspx
Ji, L. J., Lee, A., & Guo, T. (2010). The thinking styles of

Chinese people. In M. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 155–167). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Ji, L. J., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and
perception of relationships in the environment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 943–955.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in
organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of
Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4278958
Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. K. (1975).
Group position as a function of member attitudes: Choice
shift effects from the perspective of social decision scheme
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31
(3), 574–593. doi:10.1037/h0076483
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and
decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–
655. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral
thought and action. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Koning, L., Van, D. E., Van, B. I., & Steinel, W. (2010). An
instrumental account of deception and reactions to deceit in
bargaining. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 57–73.
doi:10.5840/beq20102015
Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Social choice theory, social decision
scheme theory, and group decision making. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 63–79.

doi:10.1177/1368430210372524
Laughlin, P. R., & Earley, P. C. (1982). Social combination
models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison
theory, and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42(2), 273–280. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.42.2.273
Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and
social combination processes on mathematical intellective
tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 177–
189. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3
Lee, Y. T. (2000). What is missing in Chinese-Western
dialectical reasoning. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1065–
1067.
doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.9.1065
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., &
Ellis, A. (2002). Gender composition, situational strength,
and team decision making accuracy: A criterion decomposition
approach. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 88(1), 445–475.
doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2986
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years
of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–
75. doi:10.1177/0146167209333176
Meyer, B., Shemla, M., Li, J., & Wegge, J. (2015). On the same
side of the faultline: Inclusion in the leader’s subgroup
and employee performance. Journal of Management Studies,
52(3), 354–380. doi:10.1111/joms.12118
Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in

cross-national research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 26(3), 573–596. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490187
Nichols, M. L., & Day, V. E. (1982). A comparison of moral
reasoning of groups and individuals on the Defining Issues
Test. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 201–208.
doi:10.2307/256035
O’Leary, C., & Pangemanan, G. (2007). The effect of
groupwork on ethical decision making of accountancy students.
Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 215–228. doi:10.1007/s10551-
006-9248-5
Ohtsubo, Y., Masuchi, A., & Nakanishi, D. (2002). Majority
influence process in group judgment: Test of the social
judgment scheme model in a group polarization context. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 249–261.
doi:10.1177/1368430202005003005
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The
effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on
unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
401–411. doi:10.1037/a0021503
Randall, D. M., & Gibson, A. M. (1990). Methodology in
business ethics research: A review and critical assessment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.
doi:10.1007/BF00382838
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.705
https://www.iisd.org/investment/research/china.aspx
https://www.iisd.org/investment/research/china.aspx
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1991.4278958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55 .090902.142009
http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq20102015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430210372524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.9.1065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2986
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209333176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490187
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9248-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021503
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00382838
Rest, J. R., Bebeau, W. M., & Volker, J. (1986). An overview of
the psychology of morality. In J. R. Rest (Ed.), Moral
development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention
to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1027–1041. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027
Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2010).
Media effects on group collaboration: An empirical
examination in an ethical decision making context. Decision
Sciences, 41, 887–931. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2010.00291.x
Sanchanta, M., & Mavin, D. (2013, January 16). Deloitte

tightens client screening after China scandals. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578
245201953713258
Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., & Sebora, T. C. (2002).
Leadership and ethics in work groups: A longitudinal
assessment. Group and Organization Management, 27, 272–293.
doi:10.1177/10501102027002006
Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1990). Revision, weighting, and
commitment in consensus group judgment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45,
66–84. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90005-T
Spicer, J., & Giannone, J. (2011). Exclusive: Broker says China
concerns drove margin ban. Retrieved from http://www.
reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-interactivebrokers-china-
idUSTRE7584
Stasser, G. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory:
Models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and
prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 80, 3–20. doi:10.1006/
obhd.1999.2851
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles
by decision making groups: Solving a problem versus
making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 426–434. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information
sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three-
and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 67–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Stendardi, E. J., Graham, J. F., & O’Reilly, M. (2006). The
impact of gender on the personal financial planning process:
Should financial advisors tailor their process to the gender of
the client? Humanomics, 22, 223–238. doi:10.1108/
08288660610710746
Stenmark, C. (2013). Forecasting and ethical decision making:
What matters? Ethics & Behavior, 23, 445–462.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.807732
Swol, L. M. V. (2008). Performance and process in collective
and individual memory: The role of social decision
schemes and memory bias in collective memory. Memory, 16,
274–287. doi:10.1080/09658210701810187
Tindale, R. S., & Sheffey, S. (2002). Shared information,
cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 5, 5–18.
doi:10.1177/1368430202005001535
Treviño, L. K., Nieuwenboer, N. A. D., & Kish-Gephart, J. J.
(2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660. doi:10.1146/annurev-
psych-113011-143745
Wang, M. Y., Tang, D. L., Kao, C. T., & Sun, V. C. (2013).
Banner evaluation predicted by eye tracking performance and
the median thinking style. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user
experience, and usability. health, learning, playing,
cultural, and cross-cultural user experience (pp. 129–138).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Weber, E., & Hsee, C. (2000). Culture and individual judgment

and decision making. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49, 32–61. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00005
Weiner, I. B., Schmitt, N. W., & Highhouse, S. (2012).
Handbook of psychology, industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management
decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and
network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities
on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–
398. doi:10.2139/ssrn.236441
White, D. W., & Lean, E. (2008). The impact of perceived
leader integrity on subordinates in a work team environment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 765–778. doi:10.1007/s10551-
007-9546-6
Xu, K. (1998). Exploring zhongyong thinking from the triple
meaning of zhong. Kong Meng’s Monthly, 37, 5–9.
Yang, C. F. (2010). Multiplicity of Zhong Yong Studies.
Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies,
12(34),
3–96.
Yang, J. (2013). Linking proactive personality to moral
imagination: Moral identity as a moderator. Social Behavior &
Personality: An International Journal, 41(1), 165–176.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.1.165
Yao, X., Yang, Q., Dong, N., & Wang, L. (2010). Moderating
effect of Zhong Yong on the relationship between creativity
and innovation behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
13(1), 53–57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00291.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00291.x
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142412788732 3468604578
245201953713258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10501102027002006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90005-T
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-
interactivebrokers-china-idUSTRE7584
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-
interactivebrokers-china-idUSTRE7584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08288660610710746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08288660610710746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.807732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210701810187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00005
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.236441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9546-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.1.165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01300.x
You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender
differences in moral sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Ethics &
Behavior, 21, 263–282. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.585591
Zheng, P., Gray, M. J., Zhu, W.-Z., & Jiang, G.-R. (2014).

Influence of culture on ethical decision making in psychology.
Ethics & Behavior, 24, 510–522.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.891075
APPENDIX
Example Ethical Scenario
You have completed your degree and have spent six months in
your first job, as a trainee
accountant in a medium-sized accounting firm. Much of the
firm’s revenues come from a few
large local clients. One of these has approached your firm to
prepare a set of accounts as part of a
long-term bank loan application. You perform ratio calculations
and find the “times interest
earned” ratio, appears low. This implies your firm’s client will
probably have its bank loan
application rejected. You report this to your superior, and a
meeting with the client is arranged.
During the meeting, the client company requests that
accountants from your accounting firm
working on this case make necessary ‘adjustments’ so that the
ratio will look better than it
actually is. They appeal to you and your colleagues’ sense of
loyalty saying they need this loan
and that this quarter’s low profit will improve in the next. Your
firm sympathises, and then
agrees to make the necessary adjustments. Subsequent sets of
financial statements will be sent to
the bank over the life of the loan.
Please circle one option:
Would you:
Agree with your fellow accountants and make the necessary

adjustments?
Agree with your fellow accountants and make the necessary
adjustments this time, but insist the
practice stops then?
Disagree with your fellow accountants, resign from the firm and
tell no one?
Disagree with your fellow accountants and advise them to
inform the relevant corporate and
professional authorities (but inform them you won’t pursue the
matter if they don’t)?
Disagree with your fellow accountants and immediately inform
relevant corporate and profes-
sional authorities?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.585591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.891075
Copyright of Ethics & Behavior is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
AbstractINTRODUCTIONLITERATURE REVIEWGEDM
versus Individual Ethical Decision MakingEffects of Gender
and Diversity on GEDMProcess of GEDM: SDS
TheoryZhongyongMETHODOLOGYParticipantsMeasuresEthica
l DecisionsGender and DiversityProcedureRESULTSIndividual
versus GEDM ResultsGender and Diversity Effects on GEDM
ResultsGEDM ProcessFurther Exploring Gender, Diversity, and
Group Size Effects on GEDM ProcessDISCUSSIONLimita tions
and Directions for Future

ResearchFUNDINGORCIDREFERENCESAPPENDIXExample
Ethical Scenario
1
Learning: Theory and Research
© 2016 Regents of the University of California
Learning theory and research have long been the province of
education and psychology, but what is now
known about how people learn comes from research in many
different disciplines. This chapter introduces
three central learning theories: Behaviorism, Cognitive
Constructionism, and Social Constructionism
Overview of Learning Theories
Although there are many different approaches to learning, there
are three basic types of learning theory:
behaviorist, cognitive constructivist, and social constructivist.
This section provides a brief introduction to each
type of learning theory. The theories are treated in four parts: a
short historical introduction, a discussion of the
view of knowledge presupposed by the theory, an account of
how the theory treats learning and student
motivation, and finally, an overview of some of the
instructional methods promoted by the theory is presented.
Behaviorism Cognitive Constructivism Social Constructivism

View of knowledge Knowledge is a repertoire of
behavioral responses to
environmental stimuli.
Knowledge systems of cognitive
structures are actively constructed by
learners based on pre-existing
cognitive structures.
Knowledge is constructed within social
contexts through interactions with a
knowledge community.
View of learning Passive absorption of a predefined
body of knowledge by the learner.
Promoted by repetition and positive
reinforcement.
Active assimilation and
accommodation of new information to
existing cognitive structures.
Discovery by learners.
Integration of students into a
knowledge community.
Collaborative assimilation and
accommodation of new
information.
View of motivation Extrinsic, involving positive and
negative reinforcement.
Intrinsic; learners set their own goals
and motivate themselves to learn.

Intrinsic and extrinsic. Learning goals
and motives are determined both by
learners and extrinsic rewards
provided by the knowledge
community.
Implications for
Teaching
Correct behavioral responses are
transmitted by the teacher and
absorbed by the students.
The teacher facilitates learning by
providing an environment that
promotes discovery and
assimilation/accommodation.
Collaborative learning is facilitated and
guided by the teacher. Group work.
Behaviorism
Behaviorist teaching methods have proven most successful in
areas where there is a "correct"
response or easily memorized material.
http://gsi.staging.wpengine.com/gsi-guide-contents/learning-
theory-research/behaviorism/
theory-research/cognitive-constructivism/
theory-research/social-constructivism/

2
Background
Methodological behaviorism began as a reaction against the
introspective psychology that
dominated the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Introspective
psychologists such as
Wilhelm Wundt maintained that the study of consciousness was
the primary object of
psychology. Their methodology was primarily introspective,
relying heavily on first-person
reports of sensations and the constituents of immediate
experiences. Behaviorists such as J.
B. Watson and B. F. Skinner rejected introspectionist methods
as being subjective and
unquantifiable. Instead, they focused on objectively observable,
quantifiable events and
behavior. They argued that since it is not possible to observe
objectively or to quantify what
occurs in the mind, scientific theories should take into account
only observable indicators
such as stimulus-response sequences. According to Skinner
(1976, 23),
The mentalistic problem can be avoided by going directly to the
prior physical causes while
bypassing intermediate feelings or states of mind. The quickest
way to do this is to ...
consider only those facts which can be objectively observed in
the behavior of one person in
its relation to his [or her] prior environmental history.
Radical behaviorists such as Skinner also made the ontological

claim that facts about mental
states are reducible to facts about behavioral dispositions.
View of Knowledge
Behaviorists such as Watson and Skinner construe knowledge as
a repertoire of behaviors.
Skinner argues that it is not the case that we use knowledge to
guide our action; rather
"knowledge is action, or at least rules for action" (152). It is
a set of passive, largely mechanical responses to environmental
stimuli. So, for instance, the
behaviorist would argue that to say that that someone knows
Shakespeare is to say that
they have a certain behavioral repertoire with respect to
Shakespeare (152). Knowledge
that is not actively expressed in behavior can be explained as
behavioral capacities. For
example, "I know a bluebird when I see one" can be seen as
effectively equivalent to "I have
the capacity to identify a bluebird although I am not now doing
so" (154). If knowledge is
construed as a repertoire of behaviors, someone can be said to
understand something if
they possess the appropriate repertoire. No mention of cognitive
processes is necessary
(156-57).
View of Learning
From a behaviorist perspective, the transmission of information
from teacher to learner is
essentially the transmission of the response appropriate to a
certain stimulus. Thus, the
point of education is to present the student with the appropriate
repertoire of behavioral

responses to specific stimuli and to reinforce those responses
through an effective
reinforcement schedule (161). An effective reinforcement
schedule requires consistent
repetition of the material; small, progressive sequences of tasks;
and continuous positive
reinforcement. Without positive reinforcement, learned
responses will quickly become
extinct. This is because learners will continue to modify their
behavior until they receive some
positive reinforcement.
View of Motivation
3
Behaviorists explain motivation in terms of schedules of
positive and negative
reinforcement. Just as receiving food pellets each time it pecks
at a button teaches a pigeon
to peck the button, pleasant experiences cause human learners
to make the desired
connections between specific stimuli and the appropriate
responses. For example, a
student who receives verbal praise and good grades for correct
answers (positive
reinforcement) is likely to learn those answers effectively; one
who receives little or no
positive feedback for the same answers (negative reinforcement)
is less likely to learn them
as effectively. Likewise, human learners tend to avoid responses
that are associated with
punishment or unpleasant consequences such as poor grades or

adverse feedback.
Implications for Teaching
Behaviorist teaching methods tend to rely on so-called "skill
and drill" exercises to provide
the consistent repetition necessary for effective reinforcement
of response patterns. Other
methods include question (stimulus) and answer (response)
frameworks in which questions
are of gradually increasing difficulty; guided practice; and
regular reviews of material.
Behaviorist methods also typically rely heavily on the use of
positive reinforcements such as
verbal praise, good grades, and prizes. Behaviorists assess the
degree of learning using
methods that measure observable behavior such as exam
performance. Behaviorist
teaching methods have proven most successful in areas where
there is a "correct" response
or easily memorized material. For example, while behaviorist
methods have proven to be
successful in teaching structured material such as facts and
formulae, scientific concepts,
and foreign language vocabulary, their efficacy in teaching
comprehension, composition,
and analytical abilities is questionable.
Reference
Skinner, B. F. (1976). About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage
Books.
Cognitive Constructivism

Cognitivist teaching methods aim to assist students in
assimilating new information
to existing knowledge, and enabling them to make the
appropriate modifications to
their existing intellectual framework to accommodate that
information.
Background
Dissatisfaction with behaviorism's strict focus on observable
behavior led educational
psychologists such as Jean Piaget and William Perry to demand
an approach to learning
theory that paid more attention to what went on "inside the
learner's head." They
developed a cognitive approach that focused on mental
processes rather than observable
behavior. Common to most cognitivist approaches is the idea
that knowledge comprises
symbolic mental representations, such as propositions and
images, together with a
mechanism that operates on those representations. Knowledge is
seen as something that is
actively constructed by learners based on their existing
cognitive structures. Therefore,
learning is relative to their stage of cognitive development;
understanding the learner's
existing intellectual framework is central to understanding the
learning process.
4

View of Knowledge
While behaviorists maintain that knowledge is a passively
absorbed behavioral repertoire,
cognitive constructivists argue instead that knowledge is
actively constructed by learners and
that any account of knowledge makes essential references to
cognitive structures.
Knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental
representations derived from past
learning experiences. Each learner interprets experiences and
information in the light of their
extant knowledge, their stage of cognitive development, their
cultural background, their
personal history, and so forth.
Learners use these factors to organize their experience and to
select and transform new
information. Knowledge is therefore actively constructed by the
learner rather than passively
absorbed; it is essentially dependent on the standpoint from
which the learner approaches
it.
View of Learning
Because knowledge is actively constructed, learning is
presented as a process of active
discovery. The role of the instructor is not to drill knowledge
into students through consistent
repetition, or to goad them into learning through carefully
employed rewards and
punishments. Rather, the role of the teacher is to facilitate
discovery by providing the
necessary resources and by guiding learners as they attempt to
assimilate new knowledge to
old and to modify the old to accommodate the new. Teachers
must thus take into account

the knowledge that the learner currently possesses when
deciding how to construct the
curriculum and to present, sequence, and structure new material.
View of Motivation
Unlike behaviorist learning theory, where learners are thought
to be motivated by extrinsic factors
such as rewards and punishment, cognitive learning theory sees
motivation as largely intrinsic.
Because it involves significant restructuring of existing
cognitive structures, successful learning
requires a major personal investment on the part of the learner
(Perry 1999, 54). Learners must face
up to the limitations of their existing knowledge and accept the
need to modify or abandon existing
beliefs. Without some kind of internal drive on the part of the
learner to do so, external rewards and
punishments such as grades are unlikely to be sufficient.
Implications for Teaching
Cognitivist teaching methods aim to assist students in
assimilating new information to existing
knowledge, and enabling them to make the appropriate
modifications to their existing intellectual
framework to accommodate that information. Thus, while
cognitivists allow for the use of "skill and
drill" exercises in the memorization of facts, formulae, and
lists, they place greater importance on
strategies that help students to actively assimilate and
accommodate new material. For instance,
asking students to explain new material in their own words can
assist them in assimilating it by forcing
them to re-express the new ideas in their existing vocabulary.
Likewise, providing students with sets of

questions to structure their reading makes it easier for them to
relate it to previous material by
highlighting certain parts and to accommodate the new material
by providing a clear organizational
structure. Because learning is largely self-motivated in the
cognitivist framework, cognitivists such as A.
L. Brown and J. D. Ferrara have also suggested methods which
require students to monitor their own
learning. For instance, the use of ungraded tests and study
questions enables students to monitor
5
their own understanding of the material. Other methods that
have been suggested include the use of
learning journals by students to monitor progress and highlight
any recurring difficulties, and to
analyze study habits.
Jean Piaget
The most influential exponent of cognitivism was Swiss child
psychologist Jean Piaget. Piaget rejected
the idea that learning was the passive assimilation of given
knowledge. Instead, he proposed that
learning is a dynamic process comprising successive stages of
adaption to reality during which
learners actively construct knowledge by creating and testing
their own theories of the world (1968,
8). Piaget’s theory has two main strands: first, an account of the
mechanisms by which cognitive
development takes place; and second, an account of the four
main stages of cognitive development
through which children pass.

The basic principle underlying Piaget's theory is the principle of
equilibration: all cognitive
development (including both intellectual and affective
development) progresses towards increasingly
complex and stable levels of organization.
Equilibration takes place through a process of adaption, that is,
assimilation of new information to
existing cognitive structures and the accommodation of that
information through the formation of
new cognitive structures. For example, learners who already
have the cognitive structures necessary
to solve percentage problems in mathematics will have some of
the structures necessary to solve
time-rate-distance problems, but they will need to modify their
existing structures to accommodate
the newly acquired information to solve the new type of
problem. Thus, learners adapt and develop
by assimilating and accommodating new information into
existing cognitive structures.
Piaget suggested that there are four main stages in the cognitive
development of children. In the first
two years, children pass through a sensorimotor stage during
which they progress from cognitive
structures dominated by instinctual drives and undifferentiated
emotions to more organized systems
of concrete concepts, differentiated emotions, and their first
external affective fixations. At this stage,
children's outlook is essentially egocentric in the sense that they
are unable to take into account
others' points of view. The second stage of development lasts
until around seven years of age.
Children begin to use language to make sense of reality. They
learn to classify objects using different

criteria and to manipulate numbers. Children's increasing
linguistic skills open the way for greater
socialization of action and communication with others. From the
ages of seven to twelve years,
children begin to develop logic, although they
can only perform logical operations on
concrete objects and events. In adolescence, children enter the
formal operational stage, which
continues throughout the rest of their lives. Children develop
the ability to perform abstract
intellectual operations, and reach affective and intellectual
maturity. They learn how to formulate and
test abstract hypotheses without referring to concrete objects.
Most importantly, children develop the
capacity to appreciate others' points of view as well as their
own.
Piaget's theory was widely accepted from the 1950s until the
1970s. Although the theory is not now
as widely accepted, it has had a significant influence on later
theories of cognitive development. For
instance, the idea of adaption through assimilation and
accommodation is still widely accepted.
William G. Perry
William G. Perry, an educational researcher at Harvard
University, developed an account of the
cognitive and intellectual development of college-age students
through a fifteen-year study of
students at Harvard and Radcliffe in the 1950s and 1960s. Perry
generalized that study to give a
more detailed account of post-adolescent development than did
Piaget. He also introduces the

6
concept of positionality and develops a less static view of
developmental transitions.
The sequence of cognitive structures that make up the
developmental process may be described in
terms of cross- sections of cognitive structures representative of
different stages in the
developmental sequence. Each stage is construed as a relatively
stable, enduring cognitive structure,
which includes and builds upon past structures. Stages are
characterized by the coherence and
consistency of the structures that compose them. The transition
between stages is mediated by less
stable, less consistent transitional structures. Freud, Whitehead,
and Piaget all use the notion of a
stage in this way. Perry rejects the notion of a stage. He argues
that construing development in terms
of a sequence of stable stages in which students are
"imprisoned" is too static (Perry 1999, xii).
Instead, he introduces the notion of a position. Perry accepted
Piaget's claim that learners adapt and
develop by assimilating and accommodating new information
into existing cognitive structures. He
also accepted Piaget's claim that the sequence of cognitive
structures that constitute the
developmental process are both logically and hierarchically
related, insofar as each builds upon and
thus presupposes the previous structure. However, he laid far
greater emphasis on the idea that
learners approach knowledge from a variety of different
standpoints. Thus, according to Perry,
gender, race, culture, and socioeconomic class influence our
approach to learning just as much as

Creating Developmentally and Culturally Responsive Lessons

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Creating Developmentally and Culturally Responsive Lessons

Ähnlich wie Creating Developmentally and Culturally Responsive Lessons (15)

Mehr von CruzIbarra161

Mehr von CruzIbarra161 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Creating Developmentally and Culturally Responsive Lessons