Scale of Social and Moral Judgments

Abdellaoui, Sid; Lourel, Marcel; Blatier, Catherine; Beauvois, Jean‐Léon

doi:10.1037/t66636-000

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was because a number of hypothesized relationships (e.g., Right Wing Authoritarianism, emotional intelligence) were not supported. Christensen et al (2014), Lotto et al (2014), and Abdellaoui et al (2016 did not propose specific hypotheses and were thus each assigned a score of "0". Fleischhut et al (2017) proposed specific hypotheses.…”

Section: Other Moral Dilemmasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three self-report scales were identified in three construction studies-the ABB Scale (Abdellaoui et al, 2016), the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (Kahane et al, 2018), and the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire (Yamamoto and Maeder, 2019).…”

Section: Self-report Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For construct validity, Kahane et al (2018) and Yamamoto and Maeder (2019) received positive ratings for formulating theoretically driven hypotheses and obtaining supporting evidence. Abdellaoui et al (2016) did not propose specific hypotheses and was thus assigned a score of "0".…”

Section: Self-report Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For interpretability, two studies were intermediately rated. Abdellaoui et al (2016) reported means (but not standard deviations) of seriousness and defensibility ratings of violations between prison inmates and the general population, between sex offenders and other offenders, and between recidivists and first-time offenders. Kahane et al (2018) reported means and standard deviations of Instrumental Harm and Impartial Beneficence between self-identified Republicans and Democrats.…”

Section: Self-report Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ABB scale (Abdellaoui et al, 2016) was intended to measure an individual's judgment of seriousness, defensibility, and tolerability of three types of transgressions-personal, conventional, and moral. While the scale has good internal consistency, it was not validated against any theoretically related constructs.…”

Section: Self-report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

To kill or not to kill: A systematic literature review of high-stakes moral decision-making measures and their psychometric properties

Burns²,

Mak³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe present systematic review investigates the psychological tools available for capturing high-stakes decisions involving life-death content and their psychometric properties. Valid measurement of these individual differences will provide crucial information in the personnel selection and training in fields where high-stakes moral issues exist (e.g., military, medicine). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic examination of such instruments.MethodsSystematic searches of 6 electronic databases were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An appraisal tool evaluated the quality of identified measures. Twenty studies met pre-determined inclusion criteria. Moral decision-making was assessed with either a self-report scale (n = 3) or moral dilemmas (n = 17).ResultsThe findings identified two measures, the Defining Issues Test and the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale as psychometrically sound measures of moral decision-making. However, they are unlikely to be considered “gold standard” measures due to their theoretically specific, but limited, scope. Overall, the findings suggest that research in the area has been scattered. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of moral decision-making, and a lack of cross-validation on how different measures of moral decision-making relate to each other. This presents a gap between theory and empirical measurement in moral decision-making. Further work is needed for a unified conceptualization of moral decision-making to pave the way to both theory development and the development of well-validated measurement tools, and this review provides a critical foundation for both.

show abstract