Ethics Position Questionnaire

Abstract

The Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) is a concise, 20-item psychological instrument developed by Donelson R. Forsyth in 1980. Its primary function is to measure the extent to which individuals subscribe to specific ethical ideologies. These ideologies are defined by two underlying, orthogonal dimensions: idealism and relativism. The EPQ yields scores that characterize an individual’s approach to moral conflicts, classifying them into one of four distinct ethical positions: situationism, absolutism, subjectivism, and exceptionism.

Keywords

Ethics Position Questionnaire, EPQ, Ethical ideologies, Idealism, Relativism, Moral judgment, Situationism, Absolutism, Psychological assessment.

Authors

Donelson R. Forsyth

Purpose

The core purpose of the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) is to provide an empirical measurement of individual differences in ethical ideology. Forsyth (1980) sought to establish a reliable method for classifying how people conceptualize and resolve moral dilemmas, assessing underlying cognitive structures concerning ethics rather than focusing solely on specific behavioral outcomes.

Specifically, the scale is designed to quantify an individual’s score on two crucial psychological dimensions—idealism and relativism—which, in turn, predict adherence to one of four specific ethical positions (absolutism, situationism, exceptionism, or subjectivism). This measurement allows researchers to understand the fundamental assumptions individuals hold regarding the nature of good and evil, and the applicability of universal moral standards.

Construct

The EPQ measures two orthogonal psychological constructs that define ethical ideology: Idealism and Relativism. Idealism reflects the degree to which an individual assumes that desirable consequences can always be obtained and that harmful actions must always be avoided. High idealists believe in universal moral rules and strive for the “perfect” ethical outcome, as captured by the first ten items of the scale.

Relativism reflects the degree to which an individual rejects the notion of universal moral principles, believing instead that ethical standards are context-dependent and subjective. High relativists maintain that moral judgments should depend primarily on personal values and situational factors rather than fixed codes, as measured by items 11 through 20.

The interaction of these two dimensions defines four distinct ethical ideologies:

• Absolutism: Characterized by High Idealism and Low Relativism. Absolutists utilize inviolate, universal moral principles to formulate moral judgments.
• Situationism: Characterized by High Idealism and High Relativism. Situationists espouse a contextual analysis of morally questionable actions while still striving for highly optimal, non-harmful outcomes.
• Exceptionism: Characterized by Low Idealism and Low Relativism. Exceptionists state that exceptions must sometimes be made to moral absolutes, accepting that some harm may be necessary to achieve a greater good.
• Subjectivism: Characterized by Low Idealism and High Relativism. Subjectivists maintain that moral judgments should depend primarily on one’s own personal values, rejecting universal standards and the necessity of preventing all harm.

Validity

The initial validation studies for the EPQ provided comprehensive information regarding its concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity. The developmental process involved multiple revisions, ensuring that the final 20 items accurately reflected the intended latent constructs of idealism and relativism.

In the scale development phase, the revised 27-item EPQ was administered alongside the Edwards’ Social Desirability Scale. This comparison was essential for establishing discriminant validity, confirming that responses to the ethical statements were not unduly influenced by a desire for social approval. Furthermore, evidence supporting concurrent validity indicated that EPQ scores correlated logically with other established measures of moral judgment, while predictive validity confirmed its utility in forecasting ethical choices and behaviors in various scenarios.

Reliability

The reliability of the Ethics Position Questionnaire was established through analyses of internal consistency and temporal stability. The instrument demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability for both primary subscales, supporting its use in psychological research.

The internal consistency, measured using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, showed robust results. The alpha coefficient for the idealism subscale was reported as 0.80, indicating high internal consistency among the items measuring this construct. The coefficient for the relativism subscale was 0.73, also falling within the acceptable range for psychological scales. Additionally, information regarding test-retest reliability was provided by the author, confirming the stability of the obtained scores over time.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the EPQ was confirmed through rigorous factor analysis conducted during its development. The methodology employed was principal components factor analysis combined with an orthogonal varimax rotation. This rotational technique was specifically used to ensure that the two resulting factors—idealism and relativism—were statistically independent or orthogonal, aligning with the theoretical model proposed by Forsyth.

The initial item and factor analyses were crucial in refining the scale from a 55-item pilot version down to the final, accepted 20-item version (the sixth revision). The final factor structure allocated 14 items to measure the idealism subscale and 13 items to measure the relativism subscale (with some items potentially loading on both factors or being removed during refinement to achieve orthogonality). Further data analysis included inter-scale correlations, which confirmed the independence of the two derived subscales.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory

Format: 20 items using a 9-point Likert-type scale

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population; originally validated primarily on university students

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults

Population Details: The scale was meticulously developed and refined using several groups of students enrolled in introductory psychology courses. The process began with a pilot study involving 65 students, and subsequent revisions (including a 27-item version) were administered to additional student cohorts until the final 20-item version was accepted based on psychometric properties.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their agreement with ethical statements using a 9-point scale. The scoring yields two mean scores: one for idealism and one for relativism. Extensive data, including interitem correlations, item-to-total correlations, item means, item standard deviations, and item test-retest reliabilities, are available from the original author.

Keywords

Psychological testing, Ethical assessment, Moral philosophy, Orthogonal factors, Cronbach’s Alpha, Principal components factor analysis, Ethical framework, EPQ scoring.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Donelson R. Forsyth (Correspondence details available through the original publication institution).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1980

Permissions: The original scale is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Researchers should consult the original publication and/or contact the author for formal permissions regarding scale usage and access to detailed psychometric data.

Fee: Information not provided in source content.

Reference’s

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1):175–84.

Hogan, R. A. (1970). A dimension of moral judgment. Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 35:205–12.

Kohlberg, L. (1968). The child as a moral philosopher. Psychology Today 2(4):25–30.

Rest, J. R., et al. (1974). Judging the important issues in moral dilemmas—An objective measure of development. Developmental Psychology 10:491–501.

Schlenker, B. R., and Forsyth, D. R. (1977). On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13:369–96.

Sharp, F. C. (1898). An objective study of some moral judgments. American Journal of Psychology 9:198–234.

Items of the Ethics Position Questionnaire

1. People should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm others even to a small degree.
2. Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.
3. The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.
4. One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.
5. One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.
6. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.
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 people should be the most important concern in any society.
9. It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.
10. Moral behaviors are actions that closely match ideals of the most “perfect” action.
11. There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be part of any code of ethics.
12. What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
13. Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.
14. Different types of moralities 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 indi- vidual.
16. Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave, and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.
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 totally depends on the situation.
20. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action.

Scoring: The scale uses a 9-point response format: Completely disagree = 1; Largely disagree = 2; Moderately disagree = 3; Slightly disagree = 4; Neither agree nor disagree = 5; Slightly agree = 6; Moderately agree = 7; Largely agree = 8; and Completely agree = 9. The idealism score is the mean of items 1 through 10. The relativism score is the mean of items 11–20.