Emotion in Engineering Ethics Cases: How Should Engineers Respond to Righteous Anger?

Workshop Recommended citation: Tormey, R., & Kotluk, N. (2025). Emotion in Engineering Ethics Cases: How Should Engineers Respond to Righteous Anger?. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631384. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. EMOTION IN ENGINEERING ETHICS CASES: HOW SHOULD ENGINEERS RESPOND TO RIGHTEOUS ANGER? R. Tormey a,1, N. Kotluk b a Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Lausanne, Switzerland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2502-9451 b Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Lausanne, Switzerland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-9492 Conference Key Areas: Engineering ethics education; Sustainability and society in engineering Keywords: Engineering Ethics; Ethics Cases; Emotion; Anger; Justice ABSTRACT Recent years have seen a growth in interest in emotion in engineering ethics education, and it is now recognised that emotions are a component in engineering ethics cases, including those that are presented as ‘emotionally neutral’. Scholars in engineering ethics have identified that emotion conveys important information about risk and injustice, while at the same time recognising the way the emotion may impact on the process of reflective decision making. Despite their prevalence and importance, however, there are, for now, few examples of how emotions can be included in an educational process of analysing ethics cases. This workshop provides engineering educators an example of how this can be done. Participants will learn to understand and describe how emotions (i) provide information about moral sentiments (information) and (ii) influence moral decisionmaking processes. They will also learn to apply this understanding in designing ethics or design activities for engineering students. The workshop will be structured around two interactive learning methods: (i) collaborative analysis of case studies using structured questions followed by plenary debriefing questions and (ii) a jigsaw peer learning and peer teaching activity. Participants will also have an opportunity to reflect on how they could apply these practices in their own teaching and be able to take away lesson plans and resources on case analysis and jigsaw, as well as the cases analysed. 1 Corresponding Author R. Tormey [email protected] 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Recent years have seen a growth in interest in emotion in engineering education (Lönngren et al., 2024) and, in specific, in engineering ethics education (Kotluk & Tormey, 2023, 2024, 2025a, 2025b). This focus on emotion in ethics education is part of a wider move to better understand the place of emotion in ethical decision making and ethical acting more generally. The concept of moral emotions was introduced by Haidt (2003) to refer to emotions which are experienced in the context of ethical questions and where the object focus of the emotion is not linked to the interests of the person themselves. Thus, feeling angry about a perceived injustice to someone else and being motivated to do something about it would be a moral emotion, while feeling anger at someone being rude to yourself would not. Haidt identified a range of emotions that can, depending on the context, be seen as moral emotions. These include guilt, shame, anger, compassion, distress-at-another’sdistress, gratitude and awe. Historically, such emotions were often regarded as problematic in ethics cases, where the focus, following on from a Kantian framework, was often on getting students to engage in a slow, reasoned, reflective process for cognitively thinking through and making decisions (Kotluk, Lönngren, & Tormey, 2025). This view was based on conceptualising emotion as being a bodily experience which interrupted rational thinking, and which therefore was disruptive of, rather than contributing to, moral reasoning (see Barbalet, 2001; Solomon, 2008). While this view of emotion remains widespread in folk or common-sense accounts of emotion, it is increasingly at odds with the perspective of emotion researchers from biological, psychological and sociological traditions. Since the 1990s, researchers now generally see emotions as being linked to or interpenetrating with rationality, with emotions being identified as shaping rational decision-making through contributing to the goals which are set, through affecting the urgency attributed to a situation, and through influencing what information is taken into account in the reasoning process (Lerner et al., 2014). This view of emotion and rationality as intertwined is sometimes difficult for people to take on board, especially those in disciplines – such as engineering – which base their claim to excellence, in part on their claim to being ‘rational’ (Roeser, 2020). But recognising this relationship between emotion and reason in ethics is important, as these emotions are potentially hugely significant in engineering ethics contexts. The philosopher Sabine Roeser (2012a; 2012b) has argued that emotions are crucial to ensure people develop a full understanding of the nature of risk; “rather than being biases that threaten objectivity and rationality in thinking about acceptable risks, emotions contribute to a correct understanding of the moral acceptability of a hazard” (2012a: 107). For example, ‘fear’ in ourselves and other can help us identify whether or not a risk is perceived to exist, while other emotions such as sympathy, empathy, compassion, enthusiasm, and indignation are all seen as playing a role in helping engineers to identify whether risk is fairly distributed (i.e., are some of the people potentially affected bearing a greater risk than others), and whether the rights and perspectives of the public are being taken seriously (i.e. are people being subjected to risks without their consent or approval) (Roeser & Steinert, 2024: 175). Kotluk and Tormey (2025a) found that engineering students see the protagonists in engineering ethics cases as experiencing a range of emotions, including embarrassment, anger, guilt and shame. One emotion that is particularly interesting here is anger (Kotluk & Tormey, 2025b), which Haidt (2003) describes as “perhaps the most underappreciated moral emotion”. For example, Samantha Stanley and colleagues have found eco-anger to be associated with pro-environmental personal behavior (Stanley et al., 2021), while Montada and Schneider (1989) found that moral outrage was associated with readiness to take prosocial actions such as spending money to support a disadvantaged group or participating in a demonstration. Similarly, Vitaglione and Barnett (2003) found that what they called empathetic anger (that is, anger at unfairness to someone else) was predictive of wanting to help that person (as well as predictive of wanting to punish those responsible). At the same time, anger is also associated with a tendency to think in particular ways when evaluating situations. As noted above, Lerner et al. (2015) identify that anger plays a role in decision making (including ethical decision making) in a number of different ways: (i) emotions play a role in deciding which goal to focus on in a situation; the emotion of anger has been found to be associated with a goal of ‘changing the situation’ (Frijda et al., 1989), which would then set the end purpose for any subsequent reflection. (ii) Emotions play a role in determining what people think about in a situation; anger is associated with a tendency to see events as being the fault of someone and therefore controllable. As a result, angry people tend to perceive less risk in situations than those who are not angry (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). (iii) Emotion plays a role in determining how deeply people think about a decision. Some emotions, for example, are associated with a belief that a person understands the situation and can predict what will happen (appraisals of ‘certainty’). These include emotions such as happiness, anger and disgust. There is evidence that emotions linked to certainty are associated with greater use of stereotypes, and greater susceptibility to non-reflective, heuristic thinking than those linked to uncertainty (Tiedens & Linton, 2001). Despite the importance of an emotion like anger in shaping the goals, the information perceived, and the length of time engaged in ethical reflection in engineering ethical contexts, traditional approaches to case analysis tend to ignore the emotional dimensions of cases and treat them as if they can be analysed without reference to emotions (Kotluk & Tormey, 2025a, 2025b). But, as Kotluk and Tormey (2023: 736) note: “Since emotions cannot be avoided in engineering ethics cases, we would suggest that engineering ethics teachers and researchers need to be much more deliberate in addressing emotion. Ignoring them will not make them go away”. We need, therefore, educational processes that would enable us to explicitly treat emotions when we work with ethics cases with students. These processes should allow students to identify the information which the emotion is conveying to them about justice/injustice in the case, while at the same time recognising the way the emotion may impact on decision making. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 2.1 Target audience The target audience is engineering educators working in (i) ethics education or (ii) with design projects which include a social or sustainability dimension. More generally the workshop will be of value to those interested in emotion in learning or in social justice and engineering. 2.2 Expected learning outcomes By the end of the workshop participants will be able to: • Understand and describe how emotions (i) provide information about moral sentiments and (ii) influence moral decision-making processes. • Apply this understanding in designing ethics or design activities for engineering students. 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan The workshop will consist of four activities: (i) a case study analysis of a case of compassion in biomedical engineering (an engineer who knows information that may reduce a patient’s anxiety but cannot divulge it without biasing the study) – participants will identify in the debrief that emotion has a moral information component as well as a potential impact on decision making processes. (ii) a jigsaw reading activity (Jigsaw - see 3.2 below - is a peer learning and peer tutoring activity that has been found to have a strong impact on learning (see Petty, 2009:145-148); in this case two groups will each learn about one of these two aspects, specifically focused on anger in ethics cases, then teach each other. (iii) a case study analysis in which participants will apply their learning to an analysis of a case on anger in biomedical engineering (an email received by a biomedical engineer from a participant in a Phase II human trial of a cancer treatment). (iv) a reflection on how to apply the same method in their own teaching focusing on what additional information they would need to feel comfortable in facilitating the process and what kinds of cases they could use in their setting. Table 1. Workshop time plan Run time Activity Notes 4 min Introduction The structure and learning goals of the workshop will be described (2 slides) 6 min Case study 1 analysis Participants will read the compassion case, and a short debrief will enable the key focus of the workshop to be emerged: the two dimensions of emotions in ethics cases ( moral information and potential impact on decision making processes). 10 min Jigsaw reading activity Participants will read in a group of 3-4 a short excerpt on either emotion as moral information or on emotions’ potential impact on decision making processes (drawn from literature cited above). They will clarify with each other the content of their reading. 6 min Jigsaw teaching activity Participants will be paired with someone from the other reading group, and they will teach each other about the content of their reading. 9 min Case study 2 analysis Participants will work in groups of 4 (each group including someone from each of the two reading groups) to read and discuss questions about the anger case. 10 min Discussion of case 2 analysis Debrief questions will focus on: - how the engineer will themselves feel when confronted with the patient anger - the potential impact of this emotion on their decision - making process - the moral information conveyed by the anger in the case - the supports needed by the patient and the engineer to ensure a just and caring outcome in such a case 1 5 min Application to their own context Participants will reflect in writing on (i) what additional information they would need to feel comfortable in facilitating such a process and (ii) and what kinds of cases they could use in their setting (assuming that not everyone will use biomedical engineering cases). The learning goals will be restated. 3.2 Interactivity The workshop is based on two active learning methods: 1. Case analysis, with debrief questioning: participants will actively process information by reading and discussing with their peers two engineering ethics cases. Participants will have written question to aid them in analysing the case in their groups. There will also be plenary questioning which will allow the facilitator to focus attention on the learning goal for each case study. The facilitator questioning strategy will follow the model proposed by Tormey, Isaac, Hardebolle and Le Duc (2021) in chapter 4 of their book on experiential learning. 2. Jigsaw: Jigsaw is an interactive learning approach in which (i) material on a topic is divided into a number of components by a facilitator, (ii) participants are divided into groups (AAAA, BBBB..) and then collaboratively study one aspect of an issue, supporting each other in their learning to ensure the material is well understood before (iii) participants are re-organised into mixed groups (ABAB, ABAB…) and they teach their aspect of the issue to each other. Jigsaw combines therefore the benefits of both peer learning teaching and peer learning. It is a collaborative learning method that has been found to have a strong impact on learning (the method is described in more detail by Petty, 2009:145-148). 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS (Our thanks to Siara Isaac for her helpful feedback and ideas – she has made an important input into this section). One emergent question was how the workshop’s focus on the ethical benefits of feeling empathy or guilt would be experienced by students (including those on the autistic spectrum) who may struggle with perspective-taking or empathy. Reflecting on this, it seems important in this workshop to make clear that the focus is on ‘emotional capabilities’ or ‘competences’ (which can be learned) and not on ‘emotional intelligence’ or ‘abilities’ (which may be considered as fixed and unlearnable). The issue is not to be ‘good’ at emotions but rather to provide everyone with a space to become ‘better’ at emotional recognition and regulation. A second emergent question was whether there should be ‘trigger warnings’ at the outset of the workshop since the cases used may raise issues which are potentially quite personal and challenging for participants. Reflecting on this, it seems that the issue here is not that these cases are more ‘triggering’ than other cases (any case which involves potentially negative impact on people or the environment is likely to evoke emotional responses from some learner in the room). Furthermore, since learning happens when we are outside our comfort zone (i.e. experiencing ‘desirable difficulty’), any workshop that will involve learning about emotion will need to generate some emotional ‘difficulty’. The issue is that this workshop provides a space where these emotions can be recognised, expressed, taken seriously and processed. The habitual failure to provide such spaces in engineering education should be understood, as not just an omission, but as an active process of silencing which reinforces practices of ‘showing no weakness’ which is linked to a culture of hegemonic masculinity (Krivoshchekov et al., 2025). It is probably useful (in all ethics or design classes that deal with potentially negative impacts) to begin by inviting participants to (1) be aware of the possibility that cases may raise real and important emotions for them, (2) recognise that being stretched beyond their comfort zone creates a climate in which they can develop their emotional capabilities, (3) take care of themselves during the session, and (4) feel free to sit back from activities (“quiet quitting”) or to step out, as they feel appropriate. A third emergent question concerned how facilitators should respond in the moment when a participant experiences a strong emotional reaction — for example, becoming visibly upset or tearful — in response to a case or discussion. Reflecting on this, it seems important to recognize that such moments can elicit strong emotions such as embarrassment, guilt or shame in the people facilitating the workshop. Nonetheless it is valuable to see such moments not as ‘disruptions’ but as opportunities for care and ethical responsiveness within the learning space. From a care-ethical perspective, these emotional responses signal that the material is engaging deeply with participants’ lived experiences, and therefore require facilitators to momentarily pause, acknowledge the emotion with empathy, and offer the participant options — such as stepping out, taking a break, or continuing at their own pace — while maintaining a sense of collective support within the group. Building our own capacity to respond to such moments with sensitivity, rather than avoidance, may be a key component of designing emotionally safe yet pedagogically rich learning environments. REFERENCES Barbalet, J. M. (2001). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A macrosociological approach. Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(2), 212. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice; psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In Davidson, R.J., Scherer, K.R., & Goldsmith, H.H., (Eds.) Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford University Press. Kotluk, N., Lönngren, J., & Tormey, R (2025). Reason and emotion in engineering ethics education. In Chance, S., Børsen, T., Martin, D., Tormey, R., Lennerfors, T. T., & Bombaerts, G., (Eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Engineering Ethics Education (pp. 76-90). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003464259-6 Kotluk, N. & Tormey, R. (2023). Compassion and engineering students’ moral reasoning: The emotional experience of engineering ethics cases. Journal of Engineering Education, 112 (3), 719-740. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20538 Kotluk, N. & Tormey, R. (2024). The impact of varying levels of compassion in ethics education case studies on students’ moral reasoning. Journal of Moral Education, 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2024.2411962 Kotluk, N. & Tormey, R. (2025a). The impact of different methods of increasing the intensity of compassion in engineering ethics cases. European Journal of Engineering Education, 50 (1), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2341758 Kotluk, N. & Tormey, R. (2025b). Exploring the emotional dimension in engineering ethics case studies: The latent emotions and associated features. European Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2511120 Krivoshchekov, V., Kotluk, N., Favre, Y., Fiori, M., Werlen, E., & Tormey, R. (2025). “I felt there was no team to be included in”: Navigating social emotions and masculinities in engineering team projects. Journal of Engineering Education, 114(4), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.70026 Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 146-159. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/00223514.81.1.146 Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 66(1), 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043 Lönngren, J., Bellocchi, A., Berge, M., Bøgelund, P., Direito, I., Huff, J. L., MohdYusof, K., Murzi, H., Farahwahidah Abdul Rahman, N., & Tormey, R. (2024). Emotions in engineering education: A configurative meta-synthesis systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(4), 1287–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20600 Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048081 Petty, G. (2009). Evidence-based teaching. Nelson Thornes. Roeser, S. (2012a). Emotional engineers: Towards Morally Responsible Design, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18: 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-0109236-0 Roeser, S. (2012b). Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions. Risk Analysis, 32: 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15396924.2012.01812.x Roeser, S. (2020). Risk, technology, and moral emotions: Reply to critics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 1921–1934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-02000196-3 Roeser, S., & Steinert, S. (2024). Emotions, Risk, and Responsibility: Emotions, Values, and Responsible Innovation of Risky Technologies. In Placani, A., & Broadhead, S. (Eds.) Risk and Responsibility in Context (pp. 173-190). Routledge. Solomon, R.C. (2008) The Philosophy of Emotions. In M. Lewis, J. M. HavilandJones, and L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.) Handbook of Emotions, Third Edition (pp. 3– 16). The Guilford Press. Stanley, S. K., Hogg, T. L., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 1, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003 Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 973-988. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 Tormey, R., Isaac, S., Hardebolle, C., & Le Duc, I. (2021). Facilitating experiential learning in higher education: Teaching and supervising in labs, fieldwork, studios, and projects. Routledge. Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring Democracy; Markets, equality and justice. New York University Press. Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing a new dimension of empathy: Empathic anger as a predictor of helping and punishing desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026231622102