开发伦理视角量表。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/00332941241269518
Kevin J Diegel, Timothy M Barth, Charles G Lord
{"title":"开发伦理视角量表。","authors":"Kevin J Diegel, Timothy M Barth, Charles G Lord","doi":"10.1177/00332941241269518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many theories hold that ethical perspectives inform moral judgments, but few such theories have corresponding individual difference scales. The present research aimed to develop an Ethical Perspectives Scale (EPS) reflecting specifically the five-perspective Markkula framework: utilitarianism; rights; fairness/justice; common good; and virtue. The authors wrote and progressively revised five sets of three items, each set intended to represent one and only one Markkula perspective, before obtaining responses from the present convenience sample (<i>n</i> = 621; 463 female, 157 male, 1 unspecified; Mage = 19.13, SD = 1.44) of university students. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO = 0.867) and Bartlett's sphericity tests (<i>χ</i>2 = 3211.5, <i>p</i> < .001) showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis. An EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation yielded a five-factor structure corresponding to the five Markkula perspectives. A CFA yielded satisfactory indices of fit (<i>χ</i>2(80) = 92.81, <i>p</i> = .155, CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.989, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.023, HI90 ≤ .001, and LO90 = 0.041). The five subscales displayed satisfactory internal consistency (<i>M</i> subscale α = .76). Responses from a separate student sample (<i>n</i> = 148) yielded satisfactory three-week test-retest reliability (<i>M</i> subscale <i>r</i> = .72). EPS sub-scales significantly predicted evaluations of contemporary moral dilemma decisions that involved drug legalization, free speech, and pandemic restrictions. The results were interpreted as promising first steps toward an EPS useful for future research and application.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing an Ethical Perspectives Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin J Diegel, Timothy M Barth, Charles G Lord\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941241269518\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many theories hold that ethical perspectives inform moral judgments, but few such theories have corresponding individual difference scales. The present research aimed to develop an Ethical Perspectives Scale (EPS) reflecting specifically the five-perspective Markkula framework: utilitarianism; rights; fairness/justice; common good; and virtue. The authors wrote and progressively revised five sets of three items, each set intended to represent one and only one Markkula perspective, before obtaining responses from the present convenience sample (<i>n</i> = 621; 463 female, 157 male, 1 unspecified; Mage = 19.13, SD = 1.44) of university students. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO = 0.867) and Bartlett's sphericity tests (<i>χ</i>2 = 3211.5, <i>p</i> < .001) showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis. An EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation yielded a five-factor structure corresponding to the five Markkula perspectives. A CFA yielded satisfactory indices of fit (<i>χ</i>2(80) = 92.81, <i>p</i> = .155, CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.989, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.023, HI90 ≤ .001, and LO90 = 0.041). The five subscales displayed satisfactory internal consistency (<i>M</i> subscale α = .76). Responses from a separate student sample (<i>n</i> = 148) yielded satisfactory three-week test-retest reliability (<i>M</i> subscale <i>r</i> = .72). EPS sub-scales significantly predicted evaluations of contemporary moral dilemma decisions that involved drug legalization, free speech, and pandemic restrictions. The results were interpreted as promising first steps toward an EPS useful for future research and application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241269518\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241269518","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多理论都认为,道德观为道德判断提供了依据,但很少有此类理论有相应的个体差异量表。本研究旨在开发一个伦理视角量表(EPS),具体反映马克库拉的五视角框架:功利主义、权利、公平/正义、共同利益和美德。作者编写并逐步修订了五套共三个项目的量表,每套量表只代表一种马库拉观点,然后从本方便抽样(n = 621;463 名女性,157 名男性,1 名不详;Mage = 19.13,SD = 1.44)的大学生中获得了回答。Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO = 0.867) 和 Bartlett 球形度检验 (χ2 = 3211.5, p < .001) 表明,数据适合进行因子分析。采用直接开方旋转法进行的 EFA 分析得出了与 Markkula 的五种观点相对应的五因素结构。CFA 的拟合指数令人满意(χ2(80) = 92.81, p = .155, CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.989, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.023, HI90 ≤ .001, LO90 = 0.041)。五个分量表显示出令人满意的内部一致性(M 分量表 α = .76)。另一个学生样本(n = 148)的三周测试-再测可靠性令人满意(M 子量表 r = .72)。EPS 子量表对涉及毒品合法化、言论自由和大流行病限制的当代道德困境决策的评价有明显的预测作用。这些结果被认为是为未来研究和应用 EPS 迈出了充满希望的第一步。
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
Developing an Ethical Perspectives Scale.

Many theories hold that ethical perspectives inform moral judgments, but few such theories have corresponding individual difference scales. The present research aimed to develop an Ethical Perspectives Scale (EPS) reflecting specifically the five-perspective Markkula framework: utilitarianism; rights; fairness/justice; common good; and virtue. The authors wrote and progressively revised five sets of three items, each set intended to represent one and only one Markkula perspective, before obtaining responses from the present convenience sample (n = 621; 463 female, 157 male, 1 unspecified; Mage = 19.13, SD = 1.44) of university students. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO = 0.867) and Bartlett's sphericity tests (χ2 = 3211.5, p < .001) showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis. An EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation yielded a five-factor structure corresponding to the five Markkula perspectives. A CFA yielded satisfactory indices of fit (χ2(80) = 92.81, p = .155, CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.989, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA = 0.023, HI90 ≤ .001, and LO90 = 0.041). The five subscales displayed satisfactory internal consistency (M subscale α = .76). Responses from a separate student sample (n = 148) yielded satisfactory three-week test-retest reliability (M subscale r = .72). EPS sub-scales significantly predicted evaluations of contemporary moral dilemma decisions that involved drug legalization, free speech, and pandemic restrictions. The results were interpreted as promising first steps toward an EPS useful for future research and application.

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
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
期刊最新文献
"Alexithymia, Cognitive Distortion and internet Addiction: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence". The Development and Preliminary Validity and Reliability of Self-Disclosure to Romantic Partner (SDRP) Scale. Phubbing Makes the Heart Grow Callous: Effects of Phubbing on Pro-social Behavioral Intentions, Empathy and Self-Control. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of COVID-19 on Optimism Prediction. Should Adolescents Listen to Their Hearts? A Closer Look at the Associations Between Interoception, Emotional Awareness and Emotion Regulation in Adolescents.
×
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