Melissa A. Wheeler, Samuel G. Wilson, Naomi Baes, Vlad Demsar
{"title":"A search for commonalities in defining the common good: Using folk theories to unlock shared conceptions","authors":"Melissa A. Wheeler, Samuel G. Wilson, Naomi Baes, Vlad Demsar","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Throughout the course of scholarly history, some concepts have been notoriously hard to define. The ‘common good’ is one such concept. While the common good has a long and contested scholarly history, social psychology research on folk theories – lay beliefs that represent an individual's informal and subjective understanding of the world – may provide a key for unlocking this nebulous concept. In the current paper, we analysed lay definitions of the common good using the linguistic inquiry and word count's meaning extraction method. From a nationally representative Australian sample of open-ended text responses (<i>n</i> = 14,303), we uncovered a consistent conceptual structure, with nine themes corresponding to three core aspects: (i) outcomes and objects, (ii) principles and processes and (iii) stakeholders and beneficiaries. From this, we developed a working definition of the folk concept of the common good: ‘achieving the best possible outcome for the largest number of people, which is underpinned by decision-making that is ethically and morally sound and varies by the context in which the decisions are made’. A working definition benefits the academic community and society more broadly, particularly when diverse stakeholders come together to act for the common good to address shared challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"63 2","pages":"956-974"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12713","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12713","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Throughout the course of scholarly history, some concepts have been notoriously hard to define. The ‘common good’ is one such concept. While the common good has a long and contested scholarly history, social psychology research on folk theories – lay beliefs that represent an individual's informal and subjective understanding of the world – may provide a key for unlocking this nebulous concept. In the current paper, we analysed lay definitions of the common good using the linguistic inquiry and word count's meaning extraction method. From a nationally representative Australian sample of open-ended text responses (n = 14,303), we uncovered a consistent conceptual structure, with nine themes corresponding to three core aspects: (i) outcomes and objects, (ii) principles and processes and (iii) stakeholders and beneficiaries. From this, we developed a working definition of the folk concept of the common good: ‘achieving the best possible outcome for the largest number of people, which is underpinned by decision-making that is ethically and morally sound and varies by the context in which the decisions are made’. A working definition benefits the academic community and society more broadly, particularly when diverse stakeholders come together to act for the common good to address shared challenges.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.