Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ)

Abstract

The Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) is a widely utilized psychometric instrument designed to measure individual differences in ethical ideologies. Developed by Donelson R. Forsyth, the scale assesses two fundamental dimensions: Idealism and Relativism. Idealism reflects the degree to which a person assumes that desirable outcomes can always be attained by appropriate actions, while Relativism reflects the degree to which a person rejects universal moral rules in favor of contextual or situational ethical considerations. These two dimensions classify individuals into four distinct ethical types: situationists, absolutists, subjectivists, and exceptionists.

The EPQ is primarily employed in academic and psychological research to predict and understand variations in moral judgment processes, ethical decision-making, and professional ethics across various populations.

Keywords

Ethics Position Questionnaire, EPQ, Idealism, Relativism, Ethical ideologies, Moral judgment, Situationism, Absolutism, Subjectivism, Exceptionism, Psychometric scale

Authors

Forsyth, D. R.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the EPQ is to quantify an individual’s ethical position by assessing their degree of Idealism and their rejection or acceptance of universal moral rules, which manifests as Relativism. By measuring these two constructs, researchers can classify respondents into four theoretical categories of ethical ideology, allowing for robust analysis of how these positions influence moral reasoning and behavior.

This assessment tool provides valuable insight into the underlying philosophical assumptions that guide an individual when confronted with morally questionable actions or complex ethical dilemmas.

Construct

The EPQ is structured around two orthogonal dimensions of ethical ideology: Idealism and Relativism. The initial theoretical framework considered four key ethical perspectives that informed the development of the scale:

• Situationism: Advocates that morally questionable actions must be analyzed contextually, prioritizing circumstances over rigid rules.
• Absolutism: Maintains the use of inviolate, universal moral principles to formulate judgments, regardless of consequences.
• Subjectivism: Argues that moral judgments are highly personal and should depend primarily on one’s own values and beliefs.
• Exceptionism: Acknowledges the necessity of universal moral principles but admits that exceptions must occasionally be made to these moral absolutes to achieve a greater good.

The two measured constructs, Idealism (the belief that desirable outcomes are always possible) and Relativism (the belief that moral principles are context-dependent), allow researchers to map respondents onto a two-dimensional space corresponding to these four ethical perspectives.

Validity

The validity of the EPQ has been supported through research demonstrating its theoretical alignment with moral judgment processes. The instrument was found to successfully classify subjects into one of the four predicted ethical ideologies, and subsequent predictions concerning differences in the moral judgment processes among these groups were empirically supported.

In terms of convergent and divergent validity, the Relativism scale demonstrated a correlation with scores on the Survey of Ethical Attitudes, suggesting it measures related aspects of ethical stance. Crucially, the EPQ scores were found not to be related to scores on the Defining Issues Test (DIT), which measures moral reasoning based on Kohlberg’s stages, indicating that the EPQ measures a distinct dimension of moral philosophy (ideology) rather than developmental moral reasoning capacity.

Reliability

The two scales comprising the EPQ—Idealism and Relativism—have demonstrated adequate internal consistency, confirming that the items within each subscale reliably measure the intended construct. Furthermore, the scales exhibited stability over time, confirming acceptable test-retest reliability for sustained measurement of ethical ideologies.

A significant psychometric finding is that the EPQ scores were not correlated with measures of social desirability. This finding suggests that responses to the EPQ items reflect genuine ethical positions rather than an attempt by participants to present themselves in an overly positive or morally superior light.

Factor Analysis

Although the source content does not explicitly detail a formal factor analysis, the scale is inherently designed as a two-factor model based on the theoretical constructs of Idealism and Relativism. Items 1 through 10 load onto the Idealism factor, and items 11 through 20 load onto the Relativism factor. The successful demonstration of adequate internal consistency for these two distinct subscales supports the intended two-dimensional factor structure underlying the instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometric scale

Format: 20 items, scored on a Likert-type scale. The original scale used a 9-point response range, although contemporary use often employs a streamlined 5-point scale.

Language Available: English (Primary)

Population Group: General population, frequently used with university students and adult samples in research settings.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults

Population Details: The scale is primarily intended for research purposes. Consequently, standardized normative data for the general population are not readily available.

Test Methodology: Scores are calculated by summing responses. Idealism scores derive from items 1 to 10. Relativism scores derive from items 11 to 20.

Keywords

Ethics Position Questionnaire, D. R. Forsyth, Moral psychology, Psychological measurement, Idealism, Relativism, Ethical decision-making, Research instrument

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1980 (Original Publication)

Permissions: The author has granted permission for the instrument to be included in databases under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license, suggesting free use for non-commercial research and educational purposes.

Fee: Not specified; implied free for academic and non-commercial use based on the licensing agreement.

Reference’s

Forsyth, D. R. 1980. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 175-184.

Items of the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following items. Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your reaction to such matters of opinion. Rate your reaction to each statement by writing a number to the left of each statement where:

• 1 = Completely disagree
• 2 = Largely disagree
• 3 = Moderately disagree
• 4 = Slightly disagree
• 5 = Neither agree nor disagree
• 6 = Slightly agree
• 7 = Moderately agree
• 8 = Largely agree
• 9 = Completely agree

1. People should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small
2. Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might
3. The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be
4. One should never psychologically or physically harm another
5. One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another
6. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be
7. Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.
8. The dignity and welfare of the people should be the most important concern in any
9. It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of
10. Moral behaviors are actions that closely match ideals of the most “perfect”
11. There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code of
12. What is ethical varies from one situation and society to
13. Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another
14. Different types of morality cannot be compared as to “rightness.”
15. Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to the
16. Moral standards are simply personal rules that indicate how a person should behave, and are not be be applied in making judgments of
17. Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to formulate their own individual codes.
18. Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment.
19. No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends upon the
20. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the

Idealism scores are calculated by summing responses from items 1 to 10. Relativism scores are calculated by summing responses from items 11 to 20. The original response scale used was a 9- point scale, although people often trim it back to a true Likert 5-point scale.