Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers: Developing and Validating the GEERI

This study examines the evolution of moral reasoning among STEM professionals, focusing particularly on those within high-consequence, regulated environments. Building upon Kohlberg's moral development framework and the Defining Issues Test (DIT), the study introduces the General Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (GEERI), a revised version of the Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (EERI), adapted for broader application across educational and professional engineering contexts. Additionally, a new set of 'prominence' indices are introduced as part of this research, intended to aid in investigating shifts in moral reasoning patterns by measuring the relative prominence of principled, conventional, and preconventional reasoning schemas compared to each other. The research explores three primary hypotheses: the preservation of GEERI’s validity after changing its language to be more inclusive beyond student populations, the coherence of validity after reducing the length of the instrument to lower burden on participants, and the influence of high-stakes professional settings on moral reasoning patterns, particularly the shift from principled to conventional reasoning.

Findings support the validity of both the original EERI and the new, shorter, and more generally applicable GEERI. Furthermore, findings reveal distinct shifts in moral reasoning as individuals transition from educational to professional settings. Notably, professionals in the high-stakes and highly regulated environment sampled demonstrated decreased reliance on principled reasoning, as measured by the traditional P and N2 indices commonly used in DIT-based instruments. At the same time, there was a concurrent increase in conventional reasoning, as indicated by the newly developed 'prominence' indices, which helped uncover the tradeoff STEM professionals are experiencing between principled and conventional judgement. This approach allows for a broader understanding of how different forms of reasoning are prioritized in professional settings, highlighting not just a shift towards conventional reasoning, but also the dynamics among all reasoning schemas as individuals adapt to their environments. These findings underscore the potential impact of high consequence and strictly regulated environments on ethical decision-making.

The observed shift towards increased conventional judgement, along with the decreased reliance on principled judgements, challenges linear moral development models and suggests a context-dependent adaptation in moral reasoning as a pragmatic response to the demands of professional environments. The findings raise important psychological and philosophical questions about whether the observed shift to conventional responses represents an actual reversion to less principled thinking or whether truly principled reasoning may lead to similar outcomes given the context in which these STEM professionals operate. If the latter, it suggests the need for a more nuanced paradigm of moral reasoning assessment.