In 1988, P. Scott Richard's dissertation research at the University of Minnesota asserted that the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a widely accepted paper-and-pencil test of moral reasoning, exhibited item bias against religiously orthodox persons. Since 1988 (when Richard's data were reported), new methods of differential-item functioning (DIF) have developed, a new DIT has emerged (the DIT-2), as well as a Neo-Kohlbergian framework based upon moral schemas derived from Kohlberg's Piagetian-like six stages. With new methods, new tests, and unanswered questions, this study's results imply: (1) that DIT-2 items exhibit differential item functioning for religiously orthodox persons in statistically significant but not as practically significant ways as Richards' earlier findings, (2) that religious orthodoxy does influence macromoral reasoning as measured by the DIT-2, (3) that the maintaining norms schema is insufficient to explain the variables that contribute to why religiously orthodox persons score the way they do. This study implies that the maintaining norms schema may be misnamed because it appears to be measuring a different construct than maintaining norms macromoral reasoning.

The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Schools (AACSB) requires the attainment of ethics education accreditation standards by its member institutions (AACSB International, 2018). The AACSB does not specify any courses or program template for assessing and meeting these requirements. While ample research has been conducted on the higher educational impact on the students’ ethical development, the issue that this study addressed was to examine the moral education effects of a minimally studied segment. To deal with this problem, the purpose of this study was to examine whether classes of first year MBA/MS students and undergraduate seniors in core and capstone marketing courses, respectively, measurably exhibited positive changes in moral judgment from having participated in an individual marketing ethics simulation game as compared to classes not assigned any ethics instruction. This research used a quantitative, quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group design with marketing students at a large, private, urban university in the U.S. Northeast as subjects. The Defining Issues Test-2 (DIT-2), measuring a subject’s moral judgment, was used for the pre-test and the post-test. Analysis of the change in the DIT-2 scores showed a significant improvement in the treatment groups as compared to the control groups. The potential implications from this study included suggesting approaches by which business schools can start to develop embedded ethics modules that may prepare students to become more ethical business professionals. Keywords: Moral judgment, schema, ethics, dilemmas, assessment, accreditation, DIT-2, stakeholders, Kohlberg, moral cognitive development theory, AACSB, business scandals, business education, marketing, simulation games, experiential learning, mixed ANOVA / Educational Administration

Previous research by Vitton & Wasonga (2009) and Strenth (2013) found public school K-12 principals struggling in the moral reasoning and decision-making measures of the second Defining Issues Test ("DIT-2"). In response to these studies, this research sought to collect, to examine, and to compare DIT-2 data for educational leaders at various stages of the principalship track in an effort to determine and/or to isolate the locus of principals' reported underperformance. The moral reasoning and decision-making of regular-education K-12 public school principals and assistant principals in Florida, and current master's degree students in educational leadership programs at a large public Florida university were measured and compared. Research questions were posed: 1) to find the levels of moral reasoning and decision-making reached by acting principals, acting assistant principals, and current master's students in educational leadership programs; 2) to determine if there was a difference between these principals, assistant principals, and master's students in moral reasoning and decision-making; and 3) to see if there was a difference in moral reasoning and decision-making between principals across various years of experience. The DIT-2 was administered anonymously to participants through an online link, and was scored by the University of Alabama's Office for the Study of Ethical Development. Data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical methods principally to determine the degree to which participants reasoned and made decisions based upon personal interests, upon the maintenance of norms, or upon the basis of more sophisticated principles. Results showed master's students in educational leadership outperforming active principals and assistant principals in moral reasoning and decision-making by more often employing sophisticated principles and by more often avoiding choices associated with personal interests. With regard to principals, the difference was statistically significant on DIT-2 N-2 scores (based on ANOVA and t-test results) and P-scores (based on t-test results, but not based on ANOVA results). Principals not only underperformed master's students in educational leadership statistically significantly, but also underperformed active assistant principals in comparisons of group means on DIT-2 sub-scores. This research confirms the prior works of Strenth (2013) and Vitton & Wasonga (2009), where principals had been found to struggle in measures of moral reasoning and decision-making. These consecutive and consistent findings now require consideration, discussion, and action by the array of K-12 public school stakeholders. In response to the startling findings that K-12 principals are significantly underperforming those still aspiring for the principalship, a substantial, alarmed, and sober re-examination must take place as to what has happened to principals in K-12 public schools, and as to what can and must be done about it.