Unethical behaviour in the military: The role of supervisor ethicality, ethical climate, and right-wing authoritarianism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an anonymous self-report survey of 350 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel, this study investigated the effect of perceptions of the ethicality of one's immediate supervisor (supervisor ethics), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and ethical climate on self-reported unethical behavior in the form of discrimination and obeying an unlawful command (past behavior, behavioral intentions). As well, we investigated how supervisor ethics and RWA interact when predicting unethical behavior, and whether ethical climate mediated the relation between supervisor ethics and self-reported unethical behavior. Unethical behavior depended on perceptions of the ethicality of one's supervisor and RWA. RWA predicted discrimination toward a gay man (behavioral intentions), and supervisor ethics predicted discrimination against outgroups of people, and obedience of an unlawful command (past behavior). As well, the effects of ethical supervision on discrimination (past behavior, behavioral intentions) depended on participants' level of RWA . Finally, ethical climate mediated the relation between supervisor ethics and obeying an unlawful command, such that higher perceptions of supervisor ethics led to a higher ethical climate, which led to less obedience of an unlawful command in the past. This suggests that leaders can affect the ethical climate of on organization, which in turn affects ethical behavior of followers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it