276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Professor PUZZLE Moral Conflict

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

It's always an excellent service with brilliant products at a very competitive price - will use again! Armstrong J, Friesdorf R, Conway P. Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: the complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2018. Players take turns to read out the cards and nominate a player using their whiteboard paddles. The player with the fewest nominations at the end of the game is the winner and can claim their title as the best-behaved of the bunch!

It is the soccer world cup and the final match is on TV. I am a big soccer fan and very excited about the game. All of a sudden, a friend of mine who is not feeling well gives me a call and wants to meet up with me right now. What do I do? Furthermore, we did not explicitly control for socially desirable responding in our surveys. Nevertheless, we tried to keep the potential impact of social desirability as low as possible by ensuring strict anonymity to all our participants. Moreover, we excluded all items with extremely high percentages of altruistic decisions. For the remaining items, we observed statistical variance both within participants and across items, which probably speaks against highly socially desirable responding. S2 File: SPSS data of Studies 1 and 3. Based on this data set ( n = 150), we developed the two parallelized item sets for future use in within-subjects design studies and assessed the test and measurement properties of the EMCS Scale. Supplementary analysis: Influence of the actual existence of socially close protagonists in the lives of participants I have promised my partner to go to the company party with him/her. He/she has already signed both of us up. Now I realize that I would urgently need the time to prepare for an important exam. What do I do?

Social discounting involves modulation of neural value signals by temporoparietal junction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112: 1619–1624. 10.1073/pnas.1414715112

Each card has a different scenario, which might be anything from “Who’s most likely to drop something in the toilet accidentally?” to “Who’s most likely to claim they have been abducted by aliens?”. Players take turns to read out the cards and nominate a player using their whiteboard paddles. Ceccato S, Kettner SE, Kudielka BM, Schwieren C, Voss A. Social preferences under chronic stress. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0199528 Thus, current moral dilemma research comprises no longer only abstract reasoning about moral dead-or-life situations (e.g., [ 3, 4]) but also research on moral decision-making in a variety of daily life situations (e.g., [ 17, 18]). Applying ecological momentary assessment in a large study sample ( N = 1.252 participants), Hofmann et al. [ 18] repeatedly assessed moral or immoral acts and experiences in everyday life. The authors were able to confirm five areas of human morality (care/harm, fairness/unfairness, loyalty/disloyalty, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) as originally proposed by the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; [ 19, 20]). Moreover, honesty/dishonesty was the third most frequently mentioned dimension regarding morality in everyday life and, thus, emerged as another important category [ 18, 21]. FeldmanHall O, Mobbs D, Evans D, Hiscox L, Navrady L, Dalgleish T. What we say and what we do: the relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition. 2012; 123: 434–441. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001 I want to sell my old car. I know that the car’s radiator actually needs to be exchanged urgently. A man who does not notice the problem with the radiator offers to pay a good price in cash right away. What do I do?In the final version, the items 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 (socially close protagonists) and 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 (socially distant protagonists) were assigned to set A; the items 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 (socially close protagonists) and 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36 (socially distant protagonists) became part of set B (see last column in S1 Table). As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, In addition to scale development and validation, we aimed at investigating if everyday moral decision-making depends on the social closeness of the protagonists. As revealed in a recent review, the relatedness of the participant to the story characters is an important experimental design parameter in moral dilemma research [ 2]. Therefore, social closeness could be one further potential modulating factor of everyday moral decision-making (apart from the emotionality of a situation, which has already been examined in previous studies; see [ 22, 23]). Consistently, several studies have shown that both abstract and everyday moral decision-making differ depending on the closeness of the relationship with the target person (e.g., [ 5, 17, 28– 31]). With regard to everyday moral decision-making in laboratory settings, so far only Zhan and colleagues [ 31] investigated the impact of the social closeness of the protagonists. They observed that participants made less altruistic decisions, took more time for their decisions, and rated the situations as emotionally more negative if the moral conflicts involved strangers versus friends and acquaintances. Presuming that altruistic decisions are some kind of generous acts, this finding is also in line with studies in social psychology on social discounting, showing that generosity decreases hyperbolically with increasing social distance between the donor and the recipient [ 32– 37]. Thus, we experimentally varied the social closeness of the protagonists in our scenarios (socially close vs. socially distant) and hypothesized a lower percentage of altruistic decisions for scenarios involving socially distant protagonists as compared to stories involving socially close target persons. Margittai Z, Strombach T, van Wingerden M, Joёls M, Schwabe L, Kalenscher T. A friend in need: time-dependent effects of stress on social discounting in men. Horm Behav. 2015; 73: 75–82. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.05.019 Capraro V, Sippel J. Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents. Cogn Process. 2017; 18: 399–405. 10.1007/s10339-017-0822-9

Clifford S, Iyengar V, Cabeza R, Sinnott-Armstrong W. Moral foundations vignettes: a standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behav Res Methods. 2015; 47: 1178–1198. 10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2 Find out who’s the goody-two-shoes and whose antics deserve a time-out in this hilarious family-friendly game of most likely to!I am running to catch a bus that is about to leave and that only runs once every hour. In front of me, several items drop out of the purse of a woman with two small children. Except for me, there is no one else around to help the woman. What do I do?

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment