寻找定义共同利益的共性:利用民间理论发掘共同理念。

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12713
Melissa A. Wheeler, Samuel G. Wilson, Naomi Baes, Vlad Demsar
{"title":"寻找定义共同利益的共性:利用民间理论发掘共同理念。","authors":"Melissa A. Wheeler,&nbsp;Samuel G. Wilson,&nbsp;Naomi Baes,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"A search for commonalities in defining the common good: Using folk theories to unlock shared conceptions\",\"authors\":\"Melissa A. Wheeler,&nbsp;Samuel G. Wilson,&nbsp;Naomi Baes,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

在学术史上,有些概念是出了名的难以界定。共同利益 "就是这样一个概念。虽然 "共同利益 "在学术史上有着漫长而有争议的历史,但有关民间理论(代表个人对世界的非正式和主观理解的非专业信仰)的社会心理学研究可能会为解开这一模糊概念提供一把钥匙。在本文中,我们使用语言调查和字数统计的意义提取法分析了普通人对共同利益的定义。从具有全国代表性的澳大利亚开放式文本回复样本(n = 14303)中,我们发现了一个一致的概念结构,其中九个主题分别对应三个核心方面:(i) 结果和对象,(ii) 原则和过程,以及 (iii) 利益相关者和受益人。在此基础上,我们提出了 "共同利益 "这一民间概念的工作定义:"为最大多数人实现尽可能好的结果,其基础是伦理道德上合理的决策,并因决策环境而异"。一个行之有效的定义有利于学术界和更广泛的社会,特别是当不同的利益攸关方为共同利益而携手行动,应对共同挑战时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A search for commonalities in defining the common good: Using folk theories to unlock shared conceptions

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
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.
期刊最新文献
Memorials and collective memory: A text analysis of online reviews. Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection, predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism. From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy Between east and west, between past and future: The effects of exclusive historical victimhood on geopolitical attitudes in Hungary and Serbia. The opposite roles of injustice and cruelty in the internalization of a devaluation: The humiliation paradox revisited
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1