Developing an Ethical Perspectives Scale.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Kevin J Diegel, Timothy M Barth, Charles G Lord
{"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

开发伦理视角量表。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信