Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Defining Issues Test is a proprietary self-report measure [4] which uses a Likert-type scale to give quantitative ratings and rankings to issues surrounding five different moral dilemmas, or stories. Specifically, respondents rate 12 issues in terms of their importance to the corresponding dilemma and then rank the four most important issues.
Trolley problems cannot be used to test for non-negotiability, because they force extreme responses (e.g., push or do not push). [45] So, to test the prediction, Guzmán and colleagues designed a sacrificial moral dilemma that permits compromise judgments, of the form "sacrifice x people to save y", where N > 1 people are saved for each one ...
Today, moral psychology is a thriving area of research spanning many disciplines, [9] with major bodies of research on the biological, [10] [11] cognitive/computational [12] [13] [14] and cultural [15] [16] basis of moral judgment and behavior, and a growing body of research on moral judgment in the context of artificial intelligence. [17] [18]
One example is the Defining Issues Test (DIT) created in 1979 by James Rest, [39] originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Judgement Interview. [40] Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a quantitative test, the Likert scale, to rate moral dilemmas similar to ...
Moral judgments are said to be explained in part by dual process theory. In moral dilemmas we are presented us with two morally unpalatable options. For example, should we sacrifice one life in order to save many lives or just let many lives be lost?
James Rest was an American psychologist specializing in moral psychology and development. Together with his Minnesota Group of colleagues, including Darcia Narvaez, Muriel Bebeau, and Stephen Thoma, Rest extended Kohlberg's approach to researching moral reasoning.
Moral luck, the tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event. Puritanical bias, the tendency to attribute cause of an undesirable outcome or wrongdoing by an individual to a moral deficiency or lack of self-control rather than taking into account the impact of broader societal determinants . [133]
With these two ideas in mind, researchers decided to do their experiments based on moral dilemmas that both men and women face regularly. To reduce situational differences and discern how both genders use reason in their moral judgments, they therefore ran the tests on parenting situations, since both genders can be involved in child rearing. [54]