- Information
- AI Chat
Applying Kidder's ethical decision making model
Introduction To Behavior Analysis (PSY 2800)
Florida Institute of Technology
Related Studylists
EthicsPreview text
IN THIS ARTICLE, THE AUTHORuses a model of decision-making to show journal- ists how using a checklist can make it easier to decide how to decide what to do when faced with making ethical choices. The Kidder model, revised by the author for media ethics cases, uses checkpoints at which journalists should stop and determine appropriate actions. When faced with a decision, journalists should first recognize whether the decision involves a moral issue, to recognize whether the deci- sion does, in fact, involve an ethics question. Journalists should ask whether the question involves deception, fairness, conflicts of interest, privacy, poor taste, etc. Deciding whether one of those issues exists is the first step in rec- ognizing that we are going to have to make a moral judgment. Next, the journalist should decide whose responsibility the decision is. Is it my decision, as a journalist, to make or does someone else have the responsibility for this? If it is our decision, we must next gather all of the facts we need for a decision. If we don’t have all of the information, how can we possibly expect to make a good decision? Once we have the facts, we should check to see whether the issue is right or wrong. This is a way for us to determine whether we are, in fact, deciding an ethical dilemma or a moral temptation. Right-or-wrong deci- sions are moral temptations that don’t require analysis because, the author says, they’re clearly wrong. Right-or-wrong paradigms allow us to weigh truth vs. loyalty, individ- ual vs. community, short-term vs. long-term, and justice vs. mercy. These, the author writes, are the classic tensions in ethics, the points that make us wonder what our choices should be. Throughout the model, the emphasis is on thinking and reasoning out what to do, instead of reacting emotionally or impulsively. The final steps in the model emphasize this: make the decision, justify it, then reflect on the decision some more. Using actual cases, the author takes the reader step by step through deciding whether to publish the graphic photo of a woman covered with the
APPLYINGKIDDER’SETHICALDECISION-MAKING
CHECKLIST TOMEDIAETHICS
Sherry Baker
Introduction, Patricia Ferrier
blood of her son, who had been killed by a car. Instinctively, we might say “publish” or “don’t publish,” based on our immediate reactions. The Kidder model forces us to go beyond that and think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. As you read this article, keep in mind an ethical dilemma you might face as a journalist. Does the Kidder model provide any guidance for you? Once you work through the model, would your decision in your earlier dilemma be the same if you had to make it again? What would be different? Were you as able then to justify your decision as you might be with the Kidder model?
A
substantial library of mass communications ethics texts is now avail- able, from which has emerged a canon of philosophical approaches to ethical decision making in this field. This canon includes, for example, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Judeo-Christian ethics, Mill’s Principle of Utility, Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance, and Ross’s Prima Facie Duties. Some communications, literature also includes specific decision-making models and checklists such as the Potter Box (Christians, Fackler, & Rotzoll, 1995), Sissela Bok’s model for ethical decision making in general (Patterson & Wilkins, 1994,) and for deception, in specific (Bok, 1989), the Poynter Institute checklist of questions to make good ethical deci- sions (Black & Bryant, 1995), Deni Elliott’s guidelines for ethical reflection (Patterson & Wilkins, 1994), and the issue-specific checklists (for privacy, deception, diversity, etc.) developed by Black, Steele, and Barney (1995) in Doing Ethics in Journalism. Each of these theories and checklists allows stu- dents and practitioners a different approach or window by which to consider the multiple aspects of an ethical dilemma, and by which to arrive at an ethi- cal course of action. In his book How Good People Make Tough Choices, journalist Rush- worth Kidder (1995) presented a list of checkpoints for ethical decision mak- ing that should be considered by media ethics instructors for inclusion in this canon. Kidder’s checklist can serve as an organizing framework by which students sequence the decision-making process, clarify values and issues, increase awareness of the morally relevant issues, make a decision about an
“Applying Kidder’s Ethical Decision-Making Checklist to Media Ethics,” by Sherry Baker, reprinted from Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1997, pp. 197–210. Copyright © 1997. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kidder’s Checkpoint #1 requires a careful look at the case at hand to determine if there is a moral issue with which to grapple and about which to make a decision. Within the context of media ethics, the literature suggests that some of the core moral issues that should alert students about underlying ethical concerns include: deception and misrepresentation; lack of fairness; disloyalty; conflicts of interest; careerism (including greed and self-interest); sensationalism; violence or threats of harm; pornography; poor taste; inva- sions of privacy; misappropriation of intellectual and creative property; inappropriate resource allocation (including dissemination of harmful images and messages and omission of positive images and messages); exclu- sion of constituent groups of society (such as women, minorities, the aged, and the disadvantaged); stereotyping and typecasting; lack of concern for social responsibility and the common good; and lack of respect for persons as self-determining agents. When students sense one or more of these issues may be operating in a case, they have taken the first step in recognizing that there is a moral consideration to be made.
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#2: DETERMINE THE ACTOR
This requires students to consider who the moral actor is, or who has respon- sibility in a given situation. “If this is a moral issue, Whose is it? Is it mine?” Am I “morally obligated and empowered to do anything in the face of the moral issues raised?” (Kidder, 1995, p. 183). This step gives students an opportunity to discuss personal moral responsibility. For example, how does one decide who is the appropriate moral actor, and when must an individual take a stand as an autonomous moral agent? Also, is there more than one moral actor in this situation? Does each have a different moral responsibil- ity? Consideration of a case or issue from the points of view of the moral responsibilities of different actors helps develop moral perspective.
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#3: GATHER RELEVANT FACTS
This step requires the ethical decision maker to gather and recognize all the information and facts needed to make a decision in the case. This may seem too obvious to mention, but students may prematurely decide about the dis- position of a case without carefully identifying and considering relevant facts. The first of the four steps in the Potter Box model also makes explicit the need to define the situation and identify the relevant facts, and the first questions in the Poynter Institute checklist are, “What do I know? What do I need to know?” (Black & Bryant, 1995, p. 567). Kidder (1995) said:
not to know [all the facts] leaves crucial voids in the understanding. Why? Because ethics does not happen in a theoretical vacuum, but in the push and pull of real experience, where details determine motives and character is reflected in context. (p. 184)
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#4: TEST FOR RIGHT-VERSUS-WRONG ISSUES
This step is one of the unique contributions in Kidder’s approach. He distin- guished in checkpoints #4 and #5 between ethical dilemmas and moral temp- tations, defining ethical dilemmas as right-versus-right issues. Ethical dilemmas have good and right arguments to commend them on all sides of the situation. They require careful moral reasoning to arrive at the most appropriate action. Right-versus-wrong issues, on the other hand, are moral temptations. They do not require deep philosophical/ethical analysis because they are simply wrong from the outset. Checkpoint #4 offers four tests for recognizing a right-versus-wrong moral temptation: the legal test, the stench test, the front-page test, and the Mom test (Kidder, 1995). The legal test asked if the proposed action is illegal. If so, the situation usually is a legal question, not a moral one. The stench test requires a decision maker to refer to his or her moral intuition—to assess if “this action goes against the grain of [his or her] moral principles” (Kidder, 1995, p. 184). The front page test is the familiar test of publicity. “How would you feel if what you are about to do showed up tomorrow morning on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers?” (p. 184). The Mom test is Kidder’s appeal to a moral exemplar—a notion often discussed in conjunction with Aristotle and virtue ethics (Pojman, 1995). Kidder (1995) required the decision maker to ask, “If I were my [moral exemplar], would I do this?” (p. 184). If a potential action fails one or more of these tests, it does not have merit as a potential course of ethical action; it is a right-versus-wrong issue—a moral temptation, and not an ethical dilemma. One must simply decide if one chooses to succumb. If the case is a moral temptation, there is no need to work it further through the checklist. If, however, the case appears to be a moral dilemma, the student continues to the next step.
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#5: TEST FOR RIGHT-VERSUS-RIGHT PARADIGMS
In this step, Kidder (1995) provided another unique clarifying tool for ethi- cal thinking. He offered four right-versus-right value sets that he said “appear to be so fundamental to the right-versus-right choices all of us face that they can rightly be called dilemma paradigms” (p. 18). These four
rather nondefinitive discussions in media ethics literature about how one goes about identifying applicable values in the Potter Box process. Kidder’s right-versus-right dilemma paradigms help students conceptualize the spe- cific counter-tensions or conflicting values in an ethical dilemma. Kidder (1995) also went beyond identification of the dilemma paradigms to theorize about which value in each of the sets should hold the most weight. He acknowledged “there is no invariably ‘right’ side” (p. 219) to the competing values, but all things being equal, he is able to make a choice between them. He imagined a situation in which there is “a level playing field, on which both sides have equal weight and nothing in the situ- ation drives you more toward one of these sides than toward the other” (pp. 219–220), and in which he is compelled, all things being equal, to choose between the competing values in each dilemma paradigm set. He then “comes down” on each of the paradigms as follows: truth over loyalty (“The history of this century suggests that those who put loyalty above truth... are capable of doing terrible damage to the world”); community over individual (“Individualism and its emphasis on rights has run to such extremes in this century that it has done serious damage to community and its emphasis on responsibilities”); long term over short term (“The long term always includes the short term, whereas short-term thinking... does not always provide for the long term”); and mercy over justice (“I can imagine a world so full of love that justice, as we now know it, would no longer be necessary. But I cannot imagine a world so full of justice that there would no longer be any need for love”; pp. 220–221). The reflection required by considering countervailing tensions in the core value paradigms is a meaningful expansion of the tools of moral reflec- tion that can lead students to the heart of media ethics cases. Additionally, however, students will need still to identify and consider other values central to each case, such as the role-specific duties and values of journalists, adver- tisers, and public relations professionals. The Poynter Institute checklist is specific about the importance of considering one’s role. Its list of questions includes: “What is my professional purpose, role, or duty?” and “What orga- nizational policies and professional guidelines should I consider?” (Black & Bryant, 1995, p. 567).
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#6: APPLY THE RESOLUTION PRINCIPLES
In Kidder’s checklist, one does not move to resolve issues until they have been thoroughly defined, thus giving clarity to the ethical problem before
working to resolve it. Kidder’s Checkpoint #6 is to apply the resolution prin- ciples. This equates to using for moral analysis the familiar canon of philoso- phies that are presented in media ethics literature. Kidder characterized utilitarian ethics as the ends-based principle, deontological ethics as the rule- based principle, and Judeo-Christian ethics (or the Golden Rule) as the care- based principle. He said the goal of applying these resolution principles is “to locate the line of reasoning that seems most relevant and persuasive to the issue at hand” (Kidder, 1995, p. 185). The notions of ends-based, rule-based, and care-based resolution princi- ples can be helpful, but Kidder’s treatment of the application of principles is not sufficiently deep or intense for a media ethics course. A more definitive discussion about the application of philosophical theories is needed, as are discussions about career- and issue-specific values and decision making checklists. In place of Kidder’s resolution principles, students should be introduced in this checkpoint to Kant, Mill, Rawls, Ross, Judeo-Christian ethics, Aristotle, Bok, and/or other ethicists, theories, and decision-making frameworks of the instructor’s choice.
KIDDER’SCHECKPOINT#7: INVESTIGATE THE“TRILEMMA” OPTIONS
This step requires students to look beyond, the obvious to find other alterna- tives that are ethical courses of action and that achieve ethical outcomes. It emphasizes the need to consider a creative third way, middle ground, or compromise to resolve the trilemma (p. 185). For example, what alternative courses of action might be appropriate in lieu of invasion of privacy or deception in newsgathering? The careful search for all options and alternative courses of action needs specific emphasis in teaching media ethics. One of the basic skills taught in texts and courses about problem-solving procedures is to identify and explore all alternatives. For example, Hamilton’s (1993), basic steps of prob- lem-solving procedure are (it) define the problem, (b) research and analyze the problem, (c) establish a checklist of criteria which an acceptable alterna- tive must meet, (d) list all possible alternatives, (e) evaluate each alternative, and (f) select the best alternative (pp. 273–287). Bok, “a former lecturer of decision making” (Rivers & Mathews, 1988, p. 41), reminds her readers of the natural propensity to turn to easy solutions when she says of lying, “The fact is that reasons to lie occur to most people quite often. Not many stop to examine the choices confronting them...” (Bok, 1989, pp. xvii–xviii). The search for alternatives is explicitly required in Bok’s (1989) decision-making
CHECKPOINT#9: REVISIT AND REFLECT ON THE DECISION
Kidder’s final step is a feedback loop in which by hindsight, after action has been taken, the lessons that emerge from the decision and the produced out- comes are revisited and reflected upon. For classroom purposes, this step can be modified to have students project the outcomes, and then reflect on the insights that might be gleaned from those outcomes. Another application of this step is to conceptualize it as leading back in a circular manner to Check- point #1, thus creating a Potter Box-type process or cycle of moral analysis. Students work through the checkpoints, make and justify their decision, con- sider the outcomes, and then work back through the checklist as a means of testing their decision, this time with the heightened insight provided by hav- ing worked through it before.
REVISEDKIDDERMODEL
Based on Kidder’s checklist and the discussion above, Table 2 proposes a revised model for sequencing the ethical decision making process, identify- ing morally relevant issues, clarifying values, seeking ethical alternatives, and making and justifying ethical decisions in media ethics cases.
Table 2. Revised Kidder Model for Ethical Decision Making in Media Ethics Classes (Kidder, 1995)
Identify the relevant facts (including details and context).
Recognize and identify the relevant moral issue(s). Where is the potential for harm? Common issues in media ethics cases include: deception; misrepresentation; unfairness; disloyalty; conflicts of interest; careerism (greed and self-interest); sensationalism; violence or threats of harm; pornography; poor taste; invasions of privacy; pandering; misappropriation of intellectual and creative property; inappropriate resource allocation; exclusion of constituent groups in society; stereotyping; typecasting; lack of concern for social responsibility and the common good; lack of respect for persons as self- determining agents.
Determine the moral actor(s). “If this is a moral issue, whose is it? Is it mine?” Am I “morally obligated and empowered to do anything in the face of the moral issues raised?” (Kidder, p. 183).
Investigate the “trilemma” options. ls there a third way? A middle ground? A compromise? Identify and list all possible alternatives and courses of action.
Test for right-versus-wrong issues to determine if this is a moral temptation:
- The legal test (Is it legal?)
- The intuition test (Does this action go against the grain of my moral principles?)
The publicity test (How would I feel if this action were to become public?)
The moral exemplar test (Would a person of high moral stature do this?)
If the situation is a moral temptation (a right-versus-wrong issue), stop here. Choose between doing the right and doing the wrong. No further ethical reflection is needed. However, if it is not a clear right-versus-wrong issue, continue.
6a. Test for right-versus-right dilemma paradigms: - Truth vs. Loyalty* (honesty vs. commitment, promise-keeping, Allegiance) - Individual vs. Community * (self, us vs. them, others) - Short-term vs. Long-term * (now, immediate desires vs. then, future goals) - Justice vs. Mercy * (fairness vs. compassion, empathy, love)
6b. Identify other role-specific values and duties (including organizational policies and professional guidelines) 7. Apply resolution principles. “Locate the line of reasoning that seems most relevant and persuasive to the issue at hand” (Kidder, p. 185).
- Kant’s Categorical Imperative
- Mill’s Principle of Utility
- Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance
- Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
- Judeo-Christian Ethics
- Aristotle’s Golden Mean
- Other ethicists, theories, and decision making frameworks of choice, such as: Bok (1989), Elliott (Patterson & Wilkins, 1994), Black et al. (1995), Poynter Institute (Black & Bryant, 1995), etc.
Make the decision.
Justify the decision.
Revisit and reflect on the decision. Work the decision through the model again.
Note. * Value Kidder would choose, all things being equal, in each set.
The revised model sequences the decision-making process somewhat differently from Kidder’s original checklist to reflect a more natural order in the analysis of a media ethics case. For example, in the revised model one
DETERMINE THE ACTOR
Case II-D in the Patterson and Wilkins text (1994, p. 39) presents a reporter who went undercover in a county nursing home to get a true picture of patient conditions and to discover what really went on in the nursing home. The story had been prompted by reports to the newspaper by nursing home employees of patient neglect. After having clarified all of the facts in this case, and identifying the moral issues involved, the revised Kidder model requires students to give some thought to determining the moral actors. Who has responsibility here? “If this is a moral issue, whose is it?” What actors are “morally obligated and empowered to do anything in the face of the moral issues raised?” (Kidder, 1995, p. 183). The textbook’s discussion of the case focused on the deceptive news- gathering practices, the newsworthiness and public value of the story, and the possible exploitation of the story for the newspaper’s ends. The revised model in Step 3 requires students to consider an additional issue, that of the moral actors. Who, has a responsibility to act ethically here? The reporter? The editor? The nursing home director? The agency that regulates the nurs- ing home? Do the newspaper and its employees have an ethical responsibil- ity to investigate and print (which will require a considerable amount of time). Or, in the interest of patients who are allegedly suffering at this moment, should this matter be brought to the immediate attention of others who have power to come to their immediate aid? If the reporter is assigned to engage in the deception, is he or she an autonomous moral agent who can participate in the discussion and choose whether or not to participate in the deception? At what points in the process of the development of this story should moral actors make ethical decisions? Long before this matter reaches the point of considering resolution prin- ciples from the newspaper’s point of view, Kidder’s model engages students in ethical reflection about moral actors and thus broadens their moral sensi- tivity and perspective.
TEST FOR RIGHT-VERSUS-WRONG ISSUES
Case #50 in the Christians et al. (1995, p. 226) text presents a PR executive who, faced with the opportunity to achieve competitive advantage and to secure a contract, sneaks a peek at a competitor’s proposal left unattended on the desk of a potential client. In analyzing this actor’s behavior, students
would apply the revised Kidder model by first identifying the relevant facts, including the executive’s motives. Students would then identify the relevant moral issues such as theft of intellectual property, intrusion into the privacy of the client, and “invasion of corporate documents” (Christians et al., 1995, p. 227). The actor in the case is clearly the PR executive and he already has chosen from among his available courses of action by stealthily perusing the competitor’s proposal. With this as a background, students must test for the right-versus-wrong issues by applying the legal test, the intuition test, the publicity test, and the moral exemplar test. Inasmuch as this case fails most or all of these right-versus-wrong issues (as evidenced by the detail provided in the hypothetical), the actor was not by Kidder’s definition in an ethical dilemma. Rather, this PR executive was faced with a moral temptation, and he chose to succumb. Students do not need to reason further through the right-versus-right dilemma paradigms and resolution principles to ascertain if he did the right thing. The moral reasoning and analysis stops here.
INVESTIGATE THE“TRILEMMA” OPTIONS
Case V-C in the Patterson and Wilkins text (1994, p. 126) presents a photo- journalism dilemma in which students must decide if a picture of a woman should have been published in a newspaper. The photo depicts the woman in excruciating distress (as evidenced in the close-up of her face) and covered with the blood of her young son who had just been killed by a car. Students working through the Kidder model would identify the relevant facts (such as the circumstances under which the photo was taken) and the attendant moral issues (such as invasion of private grief and publication of an intensely per- sonal moment). They would then determine the actors in this case (such as the photojournalist in shooting the picture in the first place, and the photo editor in deciding to run the photo in the paper). In Step 4, students are prodded to think of all possible action alterna- tives in the case. Are the only choices to publish or not to publish this partic- ular photo? For example, if it is important for the public to be aware of this event or the issues it raises, does the news story need to be accompanied by a photo? If it does, are there other photos that could serve the public while being less intrusive of personal grief? Prior to the question of publication, did the photojournalist have alternatives in either not taking the photo or in photo framing that would have been less intrusive of the subject’s privacy? Kidder’s model forces students to push beyond the immediate two choices of either printing or not printing the photo. It requires a consideration of other
skills, ethical awareness, and moral imagination as attributes needed in the study of media ethics (p. xi). Similarly, in his foreword to Patterson and Wilkins (1994), Christians suggested that critical thinking, systematic reflec- tion, and moral discernment are nurtured through the analysis and discussion of cases that push “toward substantive issues and integra[tion of] appropriate theory in the decision making process” (pp. xiv–xv). In their introduction, Black, Steele, and Barney (1995) suggested that ethical thinking must be reasoned, principled, and consistent (p. 2):
Doing ethics... is not just deciding between two choices, right and wrong, when facing an ethical dilemma. True ethical decisionmaking is much more difficult and complex. It’s about developing a range of acceptable actions and choosing from among them. It’s about consider- ing the consequences of those actions. And it’s about basing decisions on obligation [and principles].... True ethical decisionmaking is also about public justification, the ability to explain clearly and fully the pro- cess of how and why decisions are made.... Ethical decisionmaking entails competition among values.... The ability to make good ethical decisions in the face of difficult challenges is also a great skill, which can be taught and learned. (p. 39) Kidder’s model for ethical decision making is a valuable tool by which media ethics instructors can help students develop these skills and habits of mind for deliberation in the classroom and for application in the work place.
REFERENCES
Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1995). Doing ethics in journalism (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Black, J., & Bryant, J. (1995). Introduction to media communication (4th ed.). Chicago: Brown & Benchmark.
Bok, S. (1989). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage.
Christians, C., Fackler, M., & Rotzoll, K. (1995). Media ethics: Cases and moral rea- soning (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Hamilton, C. (1993). Communicating for results: A guide for business and the profes- sions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kidder, R. (1995). How good people make tough choices. New York: Morrow.
Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (1994). Media ethics: Issues and cases (2nd ed.). Madi- son, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Pojman, L. (1995). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rivers, W., & Mathews, C. (1988). Ethics for the media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall.
Seib, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Applying Kidder's ethical decision making model
Course: Introduction To Behavior Analysis (PSY 2800)
University: Florida Institute of Technology
- Discover more from: