TABLE 4.

Intercorrelations among Compensatory Strategies for Ethical Decision Making, Expert Rating System

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Attending to Scientific Principles	1.63	.40
2. Complexity Evaluation	1.75	.37	–.26*
3. Contingency Planning	1.49	.41	–.02	.08
4. Deliberative Action	1.70	.48	.25*	–.01	.16
5. Following Appropriate Role Models	1.54	.58	–.03	–.19	.03	–.14
6. Maintaining Objective Focus	1.60	.44	.22	.23	–.10	.06	–.19
7. Monitoring Assumptions	1.44	.46	.30*	.01	.15	.36**	–.01	.35**
8. Recognition of Insufficient Information	2.05	.64	.06	–.08	–.01	.06	–.03	.07	.03
9. Recognizing Boundaries	1.92	.53	–.11	.19	–.04	–.18	.09	.12	.01	.17
10. Selective Engagement	1.34	.28	.18	–.06	.13	.10	.17	.05	.20	.07	.16
11. Self-Accountability	1.69	.56	.31*	–.09	.22	.29*	–.11	–.06	.37**	.13	–.32*	–.01
12. Strategy Selection	1.23	.27	.14	.11	.07	.13	–.16	.05	–.05	.19	–.11	–.00	.31*
13. Striving for Transparency	1.65	.46	.04	–.04	–.02	–.04	.21	–.19	.07	–.15	–.06	.19	.29*	.01
14. Understanding Guidelines	2.13	.65	.13	.23	.06	.14	.06	.15	.25*	.24	.35**	.17	.16	.13	–.05
15. Value/Norm Assessment	1.85	.53	.13	–.04	.04	.21	.16	–.01	.26*	–.03	.03	.11	.15	–.06	.01	.25*

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.