James Rest model of ethical decision making

James Rest was an American psychologist specializing in moral psychology and development. Together with his Minnesota Group of colleagues, including Darcia Narvaez, Muriel Bebeau, and Stephen Thoma, Rest extended Kohlberg's approach to researching moral reasoning.[1]

James Rest was a professor at the University of Minnesota from 1970 until his formal retirement in 1994 and was a 1993 recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award at the University. Rest continued mentoring, researching, and writing until his death in 1999.[2]

Rest's and the Neo-Kohlbergians' work included the Defining Issues Test (DIT), which attempts to provide an objective measure of moral development, and the Four Component Model of moral development, which attempts to provide a theoretical perspective on the subject. Rest and the Minnesota Group were unusually open to other approaches, new research, criticisms, and integrating their Neo-Kohlbergian approach with others.

Reception[edit]

There have been extensive criticisms of Rest's work in general and the DIT in particular.[citation needed] Testing by independent sources has tended to uphold the strength and validity of the test.[3][4][5]

The 4 component model of James Rest involves 4 psychological processes: 1.Moral sensitivity - the individual must be able to interpret a particular situation in terms of possible courses of action, determine who could be affected by the action, and understand how the affected party would regard the effect 2.Moral judgement - the individual must be able to judge which action is right and ought to decide what to do in a particular situation. 3.Moral motivation - the individual must be able to choose moral values over personal values 4.Moral character - the individual must have sufficient ego, strength and implementation skills to follow his or her intentions.

See also[edit]

  • Defining Issues Test
  • Kohlberg's stages of moral development

References[edit]

  1. ^ Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Her, Lucy Y. (20 July 1999). "Obituaries: James R. Rest, 58, professor". Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  3. ^ Pascarella & Terenzini, E.T. & P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  4. ^ King, P.M.; Mayhew, M.J. (2002). "Moral Judgment Development in Higher Education: Insights from the Defining Issues Test". Journal of Moral Education. 31 (3): 247–270. doi:10.1080/0305724022000008106. S2CID 59368646.
  5. ^ McClosky, H.; Brill, A. (1983). "Moral Judgment and antisocial behavior in early adolescence". Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 4 (2): 189–199. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(83)90006-0. S2CID 144729466.

  • Center for the Study of Ethical Development [the University of Alabama]

James Rest model of ethical decision making

By Kimberly Peer, EdD, ATC, FNATA, Gretchen Schlabach, PhD, ATC, Marisa Colston, PhD, ATC, Carrie Baker, PhD, ATC, and Midge Peterson, MS, LAT, ATC, NATA Professional Responsibility in Athletic Training Workgroup

Given professional values (PVs) are moral in nature, not only do they guide our professional behaviors, but also our ethical decisions.

Moral reasoning is a complex process requiring reflection on several elements of consideration. James Rest, a cognitive-developmental researcher, provides us with a backward design model used widely in ethical decision-making. This means that we look to act with moral intent as the ultimate outcome yet progress through the former steps in order to do so. It is not enough to just identify the issue and apply judgement – we must be motivated and committed to take action.

Rest’s original model (1986) and the Rest and Narvaez collaborative model (1994) identified four processes that determine moral behavior by health professionals. These processes offer guidelines that allow for the application of a range of decision-making principles and theories that can assist in resolving ethical conflicts. Rest’s models provide a strong foundation for moving toward ethical practice in athletic training as we integrate the shared PVs (CIRCA) into this important step.

Ethical actions are not an outcome of a single decision-making process, but rather a combination of cognitive structures and psychological processes. Rest’s four-step model provides the foundation for moral reasoning and includes the following steps: 1) identification of the ethical dilemma (ethical sensitivity); 2) application of moral judgment; 3) engagement of moral motivation; and 4) acting with moral intent.

Ethical sensitivity is the ability to see things from the perspective of others rather than focusing on one's own views. Ethical sensitivity involves an awareness of one’s own personal values. Furthermore, it also requires us to be mindful other others’ values, whether you are interacting with a patient, colleague, administrator, etc. As such, you can appreciate multiple points of view and show sensitivity to the feelings and reactions of others.

As athletic trainers, we engage the values of care and compassion and respect, for example, when we recognize that there are multiple options for the plan of care, rather than advocating for only their own perception of the best plan. Although the other shared PVs can also be applied here, this example focuses on just a few. As NATA’s shared PVs are engaged in the moral sensitivity component of this model, athletic trainers can be confident that they are meeting the social contract as a health care provider.

Rest’s second component is moral judgment. Moral judgment requires knowledge of discipline specific information, standards of practice, shared PVs, ethical principles and theory to identify the guidelines that support a decision. Being able to understand and integrate formal and informal guidelines for professional practice will promote sound moral judgement in the consideration of justifiable outcomes.

Athletic trainers are bound by a compliance orientation, laws, ethical codes, state regulation and practice guidelines to reason about choices to resolve dilemmas, a time-intensive, methodical form of ethical reasoning. In contrast, the values orientation, such as NATA’s shared PVs, is intuitive and easy to recall. As such, shared PVs are very effective in initiating ethical action in emerging situations. When considering the ideal solution after consideration of multiple options, athletic trainers may infuse the shared PVs of competence as they decide on the ultimate path of care with their patient that complies with the standards set forth for the profession.

Rest's model continues to unfold as the third component, moral motivation, comes into play. Moral motivation is the difference between knowing the right thing to do and making it a priority. Generally speaking, moral motivation addresses competing choices and discerns which one is best aligns with the shared PVs of the profession. In your role as an athletic trainer, personal values should not take precedence over NATA’s shared PVs and self-interest should not be the deciding factor motivating the decision. Athletic trainers can’t be motivated by the outcome of a game at the risk of the safety of the injured player. Athletic trainers can’t be motivated by the ensuring a balanced budget at the expense of reducing health care services where they are most needed. Both of these examples reflect a breach of NATA’s shared PVs of integrity and respect.

Rest’s last component, moral action, is anchored in choice and character. This step requires the athletic trainer to take action and display courage in their actions. This is often a difficult step. Athletic trainers are faced with many challenges that are influenced by situational factors that distract from moral action. Being able to choose without outside influences is reflective of morally courageous behavior.

Rushworth Kidder, an ethics guru who founded the Institute on Global Ethics, identified an ethical decision-making model that guides professionals in difficult situations. Kidder’s work has withstood the test of time and is a valuable tool for facilitating ethical decision making. Kidder’s model integrates aspects of the Rest Model and anchors in the concepts of right versus right decisions. He revealed four paradigms (truth/loyalty; individual/community; short term/long term; justice/mercy) to help professionals through their decision-making processes. He further develops an ethical decision-making model involving: Identifying relevant facts including detail and context; recognizing and identifying relevant moral issues; determining the moral agents; investigating the moral trilemma; testing for right versus wrong issues; testing for right versus right issues using paradigms; applying resolution principles and justifying the decision. These steps are intended to guide you along your path toward consideration of NATA’s shared PVs in action through outcomes that reflect the behaviors set forth for the profession. By doing so, athletic training’s responsibility to support the social contract will be met and athletic trainers across settings can confidently make difficult decisions in a consistent fashion.

Think of an ethical dilemma you’ve faced. Did you see the four steps evolve as you moved through the issue? Did you use any of Kidder’s paradigms to resolve and focus on the most relevant issues? Did you consider right-wrong and right-right issues?

What are the three models for ethical decision making?

Based upon the three-part division of traditional normative ethical theories discussed above, it makes sense to suggest three broad frameworks to guide ethical decision making: The Consequentialist Framework; The Duty Framework; and the Virtue Framework.

What are the 4 ethical models?

Four broad categories of ethical theory include deontology, utilitarianism, rights, and virtues.

What are the five 5 ethical decision making process?

Their framework for Ethical Decision making includes: Recognize the Ethical Issue, Get the Facts, Evaluate Alternative Actions, Make a Decision and Test it, Act and Reflect on the Outcome.

What is the 4 component model?

The 4-component (4C) model, which divides body weight into fat, water, mineral, and protein, can overcome these limitations.