PSYCH 600 UOP Psychology Lawrence Kohlbergs theory Question

User Generated

Onolqbyy923

Humanities

PSYCH 600

University of Phoenix

PSYCH

Description

Evaluate Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory in a 275-word paper. Address the following:

  • Explain three contributions that Kohlberg made to our understanding of moral development.

Include at least two references from professional peer-reviewed journals.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Using trait and moral theories to understand belief in pure evil and belief in pure good Russell J. Webster a, *, Nicolette Morrone a, Matt Motyl b, Ravi Iyer b a b The Pennsylvania State University, Abington College, United States of America CivilPolitics.org, United States of America A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Belief in pure good Belief in pure evil Morality Moral foundations Traits Big 5 HEXACO People differ greatly in their beliefs in pure good (BPG) and beliefs in pure evil (BPE), but little is known about how people develop such beliefs. In two studies using nationwide convenience samples (Ns = 384 and 345), we used trait (Big 5; HEXACO) and moral (moral foundations theory; Kohlberg’s theory of moral development) theories to uncover potential underpinnings of BPG and BPE. After controlling for demographics and ideology, traits (Agreeableness) and moral foundations (Care/Harm) reliably predicted BPG in both studies. The Big 5 and HEXACO more inconsistently predicted BPE, although lower Openness related to BPE across both studies. Greater endorsement of the Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation moral foundations uniquely pre­ dicted greater BPE across both studies. Further, BPE correlated with (but did not uniquely predict) lower postconventional moral thinking; BPG did not relate to postconventional moral thinking. These results should help researchers formulate more specified developmental pathways for BPE and BPG. For centuries, scholars and lay people alike have grappled with fundamental questions about human nature, including whether pure evil or pure good exist. Only recently have researchers systematically examined people’s perceptions about the existence of good and evil. Research has now shown that belief in pure evil (BPE; the tendency to attribute harm doing to dispositionally sadistic individuals) and belief in pure good (BPG; essentially, belief in pure altruism) are unidimensional constructs that uniquely predict prosocial and antisocial orientations toward other people (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2014; Saucier et al., 2018; Vasturia, Webster, & Saucier, 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2013, 2015, 2017; Webster, Vasturia, & Saucier, in press). BPG is essentially belief in pure altruism: the belief that there are people out there, although few in number, who selflessly, impartially, and non-violently try to help others (Webster & Saucier, 2013). In thinking about individuals who personify BPG, Mother Theresa may come to mind. People who score higher in BPG exhibit a more prosocial orientation toward others, from decisions about criminal punishment to domestic/foreign policy (e.g., more greatly opposing the death penalty, while more greatly supporting criminal rehabilitation and social welfare programs; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Also, expectedly, people who score higher in BPG report much greater levels of empathy. Webster and Saucier (2017) also showed that people who scored higher in BPG only praised a hero (who helped physically apprehend an alleged criminal) who acted in an altruistic, rather than egotistic, manner. Thus, people who report greater BPG are seem very attuned to how people render help. BPE is a simplified explanation for why people hurt others: bad things happen because there are inherently bad people in the world. More specifically, BPE is the tendency to attribute harmdoing to dis­ positionally sadistic and narcissistic individuals (Webster & Saucier, 2013). Thus, BPE could be considered a more specific instance of the correspondence bias/fundamental attribution error (see Malle, 2006). People who score higher in BPE exhibit more of an antisocial/aggressive orientation toward others, from decisions about criminal punishment to domestic/foreign policy (e.g., more greatly supporting the death pen­ alty, while more greatly opposing criminal rehabilitation and social welfare programs; see Saucier et al., 2018; Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2013, 2015, 2017; Webster et al., in press). Expectedly, people who score higher in BPE seem motivated by a strong belief in a dangerous world (Webster & Saucier, 2013). Indeed, even when there is a viable, alternative explanation (e.g., brain tumor) for criminals’ vio­ lent actions, people higher in BPE still more harshly perceive and punish them (Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster et al., in press). Although collo­ quially, people may perceive good and evil as “two sides of the same * Corresponding author. E-mail address: rjw5548@psu.edu (R.J. Webster). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110584 Received 16 July 2019; Received in revised form 15 November 2020; Accepted 23 November 2020 Available online 4 February 2021 0191-8869/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 (2009) model, lower levels of Agreeableness precede views of the world as a competitive jungle and social dominance orientation. It is also possible that higher levels of Openness would predict BPG. People who report greater BPG also tend to think more deeply about the causes for other people’s behavior (i.e., score higher in attributional complexity; Webster & Saucier, 2013), which may reflect both higher levels of A (e.g., empathy/perspective taking) as well as Openness (e.g., intellectualism, curiosity, imagination).1 In Study 1, participants completed a Big 5 measure of personality; for comparison, in Study 2, we employed the more recently developed HEXACO (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeable­ ness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) model (see, e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2001, 2007). The HEXACO model has been widely used since its inception (see http://hexaco.org/references). The HEXACO model’s major change was adding a sixth fundamental trait: HonestyHumility. Honesty-Humility comprises four subtraits: sincerity, fair­ ness, greed avoidance, and modesty. Thus, Honesty-Humility composes both unique subtraits (e.g., greed) and subtraits that were part of pre­ vious Big 5 variables, especially Agreeableness (modesty); indeed, Honesty-Humility and the Big 5 measure of Agreeableness do moder­ ately correlate (Ashton & Lee, 2005). The HEXACO’s model modified Agreeableness factor comprises forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience. We would predict that HEXACO’s Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness factors would both moderately correlate with BPG; nevertheless, S2 will importantly assess whether both factors uniquely predict BPG. The HEXACO model also reconceptualizes Neuroticism into Emotionality. Emotionality emphasizes physical and psychological insecurity more with subtraits like fearfulness, dependence, and senti­ mentality. Meanwhile, traditional Neuroticism in the Big 5 model seems more focused on emotional stability and experience of a broader range of negative emotions. Thus, we will see how Neuroticism in Study 1 and Emotionality in Study 2 uniquely predict, in particular, BPE. coin”, past research shows that BPE and BPG do not consistently intercorrelate. We argue that BPE and BPG are important constructs, as they address fundamental questions/perceptions about (the inherent evilness and goodness of) humanity and have meaningful applications and implica­ tions for a wide array of interpersonal/intergroup phenomena, as explained above. Thus, it is important to explore how people come to develop such beliefs. By knowing BPE’s/BPG’s possible antecedents/ causes, we can over time potentially change such beliefs. For example, if a society values prosociality, they could attempt to engender BPG levels in early childhood. These two cross-sectional studies offer some pre­ liminary insight into this question by applying trait (Big 5; HEXACO) and moral psychological theories (moral foundations theory; Kohlberg’s theory of moral development) to examine potential underpinnings of BPE and BPG. 1. The foundations of BPE and BPG: a trait approach Personality traits are internal, enduring characteristics that underpin much of people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across time and en­ vironments (Funder, 1991). Thus, traits are generally treated as exoge­ nous variables (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Lewis & Bates, 2011), so it was most reasonable to treat them as predictor variables in these two studies. The Big 5/Five Factor Model is the most established and wellknown theoretical trait paradigm (McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae and Costa Jr., 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five argues that there are five fundamental higher-order factors/traits—Openness, Conscien­ tiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism—that comprise a series of lower-order subtraits. In our pre-registration document (https://osf.io/tf9za/? view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25), we hypothesized that conscientiousness—which is composed of subtraits like organized, self-disciplined, and cautious—would best predict BPE given BPE’s apparent emphasis on rule following and dutifulness. BPE consistently relates to support for greater criminal punishment, even when there is a clear biological explanation for a perpetrator’s violent behavior. Thus, people who report greater BPE come down harshly on those who break rules or who are not following their duty as responsible citizens of the world. Further, BPE is strongly related to a greater belief in a dangerous world (Webster & Saucier, 2013); per Duckitt and Sibley’s (2009) dual process model, higher C along with lower O (what they term “social conformity” personality) precede/predict belief in a dangerous world. BPE may also then relate to lower levels of Openness given Duckitt and Sibley’s (2009) model. Openness includes such traits as intellectual, independent, creative, and curious. Indeed, people higher in BPE do not tend to think as deeply about the causes for other people’s behaviors (score lower on attributional complexity; Webster & Saucier, 2013), thereby suggesting a lack of intellectualism and curiosity. We also considered that greater Neuroticism would predict higher BPE. Neuroticism, in essence, is emotional instability, which includes subtraits like anxious, insecure, and angry (McCrae & Costa, 1987). People who more strongly believe in pure evil seem extremely anxious about the state of the world given that they more strongly believe in a dangerous world and score higher on pessimism (Webster & Saucier, 2013). Meanwhile, in our preregistration document (https://osf.io/tf9za/? view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25), we hypothesized that Agreeableness—which is composed of subtraits like empathic, altruistic, trusting, and modest—would by far most strongly predict BPG. BPG is the belief that there need to be more people in the world who selflessly, impartially, and non-violently help others; the essence of BPG aligns with all agreeable subtraits. People scoring higher in BPG also report greater empathy as well as stronger opposition to a “Darwinian” approach to intergroup relations (i.e., do not see the world as a very competitive place and score lower on social dominance orientation; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Indeed, in Duckitt and Sibley’s 2. The foundations of BPE and BPG: moral theories How people evaluate whether actions are moral—in essence, right vs. wrong—also likely underpin people’s beliefs about the existence of good and evil. Haidt and colleagues (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Haidt & Joseph, 2004; see also Graham et al., 2018, for a more recent review) surveyed the psychological and anthropological literature to look for crossculturally common, but not necessarily universal, dimensions on which people assess whether actions are moral. From this survey, they created Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which asserts that we can evaluate cultures’ and individuals’ moral philosophies along five different dimensions or foundations: 1. Care/harm: “This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance” (www.moralfoundations.org). That is, this dimension considers how actions promote or do not promote the safety/welfare of others. 2. Fairness/cheating: “This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy” (www.moralfoundations.org). That is, this dimen­ sion considered how actions promote (or do not promote) equality and justice for all. 3. Ingroup Loyalty/betrayal: “This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s ‘one for all, and all for one’” (www.mora lfoundations.org). That is, this dimension considers how actions 1 2 We thank a Reviewer for this theorizing. R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 promote (or do not promote) patriotism and self-sacrifice for the ingroup. 4. Authority/subversion: “This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies vir­ tues of leadership and followership, including deference to legiti­ mate authority and respect for traditions” (www.moralfoundations. org). That is, this dimension considers how much actions promote (or do not promote) legitimate authority and tradition. 5. Sanctity/degradation: “This foundation was shaped by the psychol­ ogy of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It un­ derlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions)” (www.moralfoundations.org). That is, this dimension considers how much actions desecrate the body and soul (i.e., how actions may violate the “body as a temple” principle). People who score higher in BPE seem to have lower cognitive complexity and likely emphasize obedience to authority and internali­ zation of rules; thus, at least as Kohlberg conceptualized, such in­ dividuals would exhibit moral thinking in line with stages 3 and 4, which emphasize authority, rules, and the law. People who score higher in BPG seem to have higher cognitive complexity and emphasize a more empathic approach to interpersonal and intergroup relations. Such in­ dividuals would likely be reasoning at stages 5 and 6. As Kohlberg (1976) explained, people are driven “to make and abide by laws for the welfare of all and for the protection of all people’s rights” (at stage 5). Thus, we reasoned that DIT scores will likely negatively relate to BPE and positively relate to BPG. 3. The five-factor theory of personality McCrae and Costa Jr.’s (1999) five-factor theory (FFT) of personality provides a framework to contextualize the current studies (see Fig. 1). The key exogenous variables in the model are called “basic tendencies”, that is, the central factors/traits to human personality. Of course, McCrae and Costa’s FFT defines these basic tendencies as the Big 5 factors; however, they note that “trait researchers may discover another factor…of personality of comparable scope…. At that point it will be time to modify FFT” (McCrae and Costa Jr., 1999, p. 147). Hence, this model can easily accommodate the HEXACO factors. The biological bases component of the model underscores that the Big 5 (Bouchard & McGrue, 2002) and HEXACO (Lewis & Bates, 2014) factors evince a strong genetic/heritable contribution. These basic tendencies then influence characteristic adaptations, which are essentially perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and values about how and why the world works (or should work); these characteristic adaptations result in objective biography, that is, observable choices or behaviors. Moral reasoning/attitudes are examples of such character­ istic adaptations. Indeed, multiple studies have examined the effects of the Big 5 on endorsement of the moral foundations (e.g., Alper & Yilmaz, 2019; Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, & Peterson, 2010; Lewis & Bates, 2011). All these studies showed that higher Agreeableness relates to greater endorsement of the individualizing foundations, even in non-Western, industrialized countries (Alper & Yilmaz, 2019). However, the re­ lationships between the other Big 5 factors and the moral foundations are inconsistent across samples (something we discuss further in the General Discussion). Regardless, the current studies add to the bur­ geoning literature combining the predictive power of personality traits and moral attitudes (e.g., Athota, Budhwar, & Malik, 2019; Lewis & Bates, 2011; Međedović & Petrović, 2016), in this case, in predicting BPE and BPG. In the FFT of personality, BPE and BPG would also serve as more attitudinally specific characteristic adaptations. We would not construct them as part of objective biography; but, choices about whether to nullify the death penalty or decisions about criminal punishment would be part of such biography (see Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2013; Webster & Saucier, 2015; Webster et al., in press). Finally, external influences—which are environmental influences like cultural norms and life events—are perhaps the purest “social psychology” component of the model. External influences are assumed to influence characteristic adaptations but can have bidirectional or reciprocal re­ lationships with objective behavior. We do not measure objective behavior in the current studies, but we do discuss theoretical implica­ tions of our studies in the General Discussion. In sum, the aim of these two studies was to uncover potential un­ derpinnings of BPE and BPG. Study 1 (S1) examined the unique effects of the Big 5 traits and moral foundations on BPE and BPG. In Study 2 (S2), we examined the effect of the HEXACO traits, moral foundations, and post-conventional moral thinking on BPE and BPG. The Care and Fairness dimensions comprise the “individualizing” foundations, as they reflect securing, protecting, and strengthening the individual in society. The Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity dimensions comprise the “binding” foundations, as they reflect securing, protecting, and strengthening society—especially through restraining or restricting individuals’ behavior (Graham et al., 2013, 2018). The moral foundations, as its very name implies, assess about how people fundamentally decide what is right vs. wrong, and the founda­ tions should serve as the underpinning (i.e., foundation) of more specific beliefs (thinking in terms of attitudinal specificity), including the exis­ tence/nature of good and evil in human beings. We expected that the binding moral foundations (Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity) would most strongly predict BPE. People higher in BPE more strongly believe that the world is a very dangerous place and would more strongly endorse the ingroup and authority foundations as protection from “evildoers”; cohesive and loyal ingroups, combined with a strong sets of rules/laws, can best protect people from “evil” (cf. Van Leeuwen & Park, 2009). Additionally, evil is something that is dispositionally impure. From a spiritual or religious standpoint, evildoers’ souls are “unsav­ able”: they enjoy hurting others and will always be inclined to hurt others without reasonable provocation. Meanwhile, the individualizing moral foundations (Care and Fair­ ness) should most strongly relate to BPG. First, per BPG’s definition (that humans should selflessly, impartially, and peacefully help others as much as we can), people scoring higher in BPG appear very concerned about the safety/welfare of the individual. Second, BPG is essentially belief in pure altruism, and the Fairness dimension emphasizes the importance of justice and reciprocal altruism. Indeed, people scoring higher in BPG report higher levels of empathy and more strongly oppose attitudes that support the social hierarchy (e.g., social dominance orientation; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Thus, the Fairness foundation would also likely help underpin BPG. We employed MFT in both Study 1 and Study 2; but, we did not only want to use the MFT as the only theory from moral psychology. That is, we reasoned it would be beneficial to employ another operationalization of moral reasoning/judgment. Kohlberg’s (1976, 1984) model of moral reasoning of course dominated psychology for decades (until, perhaps, MFT). Kohlberg asserted that individuals progress through six devel­ opmental stages, from more rudimentary (preconventional, which em­ phasizes obedience and avoidance of punishment) to more mature (postconventional, which emphasizes abstract reasoning and individual, utilitarian principles of justice) moral reasoning. Based on Kohlberg’s theorizing, researchers created a moral reasoning/judgment question­ naire, the Defining Issues Test (DIT), which purportedly assesses pro­ gression through the developmental stages (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz, & Anderson, 1974; Rest, Thoma, Narvaez, & Bebeau, 1997). 3 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 Fig. 1. The Five-Factor Model of Personality (adapted from McCrae & Costa Jr., 1999). The shaded area reflects the part of the model examined in the cur­ rent studies. 4. Study 1 • Care (e.g., “Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue”; alpha = 0.75). • Fairness (e.g., “Justice is the most important requirement for a so­ ciety”; alpha = 0.68). • Ingroup Loyalty (e.g., “I am proud of my country’s history”; alpha = 0.71). • Authority (e.g., “Respect for authority is something all children need to learn”; alpha = 0.77). • Sanctity (e.g., “Chastity is an important and valuable virtue”; alpha = 0.84). 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants A nationwide convenience sample of 384 participants (157 women, 227 men; Mage = 46.47; age range 19–70; 88.3% Caucasian; 35% had obtained a graduate degree) voluntarily completed the materials online (via www.YourMorals.org) for no compensation. A group of professors and graduate students from multiple institutions created YourMorals. org to collect data about morality, ethics, and values. Participants can be directed to yourmorals.org from a variety of internet sources (Face­ book, political websites, journal articles, the moral foundations theory website). The N represents the listwise N of everyone who completed the measures of interest. Sample size could not predetermined, as we did not have control over recruitment (i.e., who completed the measures and when). However, the smallest effect size that we can detect with 80% power is r = 0.15 (https://www.anzmtg.org/stats/PowerCalculato r/PowerCorrelation), which is a small effect size according to Cohen. Thus, if there are any meaningful (small or above) effects, we should be able to detect them with our sample size. We uploaded a Word document with the general hypotheses and projected analysis on OSF (https://osf. io/tf9za/?view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25). The data files and analysis script are available on the project’s OSF site, too. Participants responded to the moral foundation items on a 0 (Not At All Relevant) to 5 (Extremely Relevant) Likert-type scale. While the MFQ is a more recently-developed scale, several crosscultural studies have validated the factor structure of the scale (Davies, Sibley, & Liu, 2014; Du, 2019; Matsuo, Sasahara, Taguchi, & Karasawa, 2019; Milsson & Erlandsson, 2015; Yilmaz, Harma, Bahçe­ kapili, & Cesur, 2016). Additionally, the alpha for the Fairness scale is slightly below the guideline for acceptable internal consistency (0.70), which mirrors past research (Tamul et al., 2020); however, Graham et al. (2011) argue that “Although the alphas are not as high as many other scales, they indicate a reasonable internal consistency given that our goal was to gauge an expansive range of moral concerns with a small number of items” (p. 371). Further, the alphas for all MFQ scales were > 0.70 in S2. 4.1.2. Materials Participants voluntarily completed the measures below in a nonspecified order, as respondents can choose to take as many or as few of the measures on YourMorals.org. We scored measures as the average response per item with higher values expressing higher levels of the construct of interest. 4.1.2.2. BPE and BPG. Participants completed Webster and Saucier’s (2013) 28-item belief in pure good scale (e.g., “Selfless people help anyone in need, even their rivals”; alpha = 0.91) and 22-item belief in pure evil scale (e.g., “Evil people are so narcissistic and full of themselves”; alpha = 0.95). Participants responded to BPG and BPE items on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale. 4.1.2.1. Moral foundations. Participants completed Graham et al.’s (2011) 30-item moral foundations questionnaire (MFQ), with 6 items assessing each of the five foundations: 4.1.2.3. Big Five. Participants completed John and Srivastava’s (1999) 44-item Big Five Personality Inventory: 4 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 • Extraversion (e.g., “Is talkative”; 8 items, alpha = 0.87). • Agreeableness (e.g., “Is helpful and unselfish with others”; 9 items, alpha = 0.82). • Conscientiousness (e.g., “Does a thorough job”; 9 items, alpha = 0.85). • Neuroticism (e.g., “Is depressed, blue”; 8 items, alpha = 0.81). • Openness (e.g., “Is original, comes up with new ideas”; 10 items, alpha = 0.87) of the Big 5 and MFQ scores modestly increased (by 5% and 4%); but, the overall pattern of significance nominally changed (Sanctity significantly predicted BPG without covariates). Overall, the results mostly supported our predictions. Expectedly, Conscientiousness uniquely related to greater BPE, while Openness was only a marginal predictor. Unexpectedly, Neuroticism did not correlate with BPE. Nevertheless, confirming our predictions, the binding moral foundations—particularly Authority and Sanctity— uniquely related to greater BPE. As for BPG, Agreeableness was the best predictor, as hy­ pothesized. Consistent with our predictions, the individualizing foun­ dations—specifically, Care/Harm—uniquely related to BPG. In conceptually replicating S1, S2 examined the unique effects of the HEXACO traits, the moral foundations, and postconventional moral thinking on BPE and BPG. Participants responded to Big Five items on a 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 5 (Agree Strongly) Likert-type scale. 4.1.2.4. Political orientation. Participants responded to a single item on a 1 (Very Liberal) to 7 (Very Conservative) scale. 4.1.2.5. Religiosity. Participants responded to a single item describing their religious attendance on a 0 (Never) to 5 (More Than Once a Week) Likert-type scale. 5. Study 2 4.1.2.6. Education. Participants responded to a single item on a 1 (Some High School) to 9 (Completed Graduate or Professional Degree) Likerttype scale. 5.1.1. Participants A nationwide convenience sample of 345 American participants (180 women, 164 men, 1 Other Gender; Mage = 36.81; age range 21–85; 76% Caucasian; 25.6% had obtained a professional or graduate degree) completed the materials online as part of a larger battery of question­ naires.3 We recruited participants through Mechanical Turk, Amazon’s recruitment tool or “crowdsourcing marketplace”. MTurk workers tend to be “slightly more demographically diverse than are standard Internet samples and are significantly more diverse than typical American col­ lege samples” (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011, p. 3). Participants earned $1.50. We did remove 99 participants who had >5% missing data (Dong & Peng, 2013; Schafer, 1999). Next, we removed 42 participants for impossibly fast completion rates (> 2 s per item; Curran, 2016). Then, we removed 10 participants who reported that English was not their first language. Finally, as explained below, we sent our dataset to the Uni­ versity of Alabama’s Center for the Study of Ethical Development to calculate participants’ post-conventional moral thinking score. The Center has a multistep process of recommending participant deletion (rate-and-rank consistency, meaningless items, missing data, nondifferentiation of rates or ranks; https://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu /about-the-dit.html); their analysts recommended removing 36 more participants. Sample size was not specifically predetermined. However, the smallest effect size that we can detect with 80% power is r = 0.15 (htt ps://www.anzmtg.org/stats/PowerCalculator/PowerCorrelation), which is a small effect size according to Cohen. Thus, if there are any meaningful (small or above) effects, we should be able to detect them with our sample size. We did not amend our original OSF document (htt ps://osf.io/tf9za/?view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25) when we conducted S2, as we reasoned that the studies were similar enough in scope. The data files and analysis script are available on the project’s OSF site, too. 5.1. Method 4.2. Results and discussion 4.2.1. Belief in pure evil Correlations between all variables of interest are in Table 1. Regarding the Big 5, higher Conscientiousness and lower Openness scores related to greater BPE; next, regarding the moral foundations, lower Fairness and higher Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity scores related to greater BPE. We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of the Big 5 trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPE.2 We entered any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (as well as BPG scores), Big Five personality trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scale scores in Step 3. We entered MFQ scale scores in Step 3, as the Big 5 traits likely antedate MFQ scores (cf. Lewis & Bates, 2011). See Table 2 for results. This analysis showed that Conscientiousness uniquely predicted BPE, while Openness was a marginal predictor. Next, only scores the Au­ thority and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPE. Running the model without covariates increased the predictive contribution of the Big 5 and MFQ scores (by 6% and 14%, respectively); but, the overall pattern of significance nominally changed (Openness went from being a marginal to a significant predictor). 4.2.2. Belief in pure good On a bivariate level, higher Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness related greater BPG; meanwhile, higher scores on the Care, Fairness, and Sanctity moral foundations related to greater BPG. We then ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique ef­ fects of the Big 5 trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPG. We entered any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (as well as BPE scores), Big Five personality trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scale scores in Step 3. See Table 2 for results of the two regression models. This analysis showed that Agreeableness only uniquely predicted BPG; meanwhile, only scores on the Care moral foundation uniquely pre­ dicted BPG. In running the model without covariates, the predictive contribution 5.1.2. Materials Participants completed all measures in the order presented below. We scored measures as the average response per item with higher values expressing higher levels of the construct of interest. 5.1.2.1. HEXACO. Participants completed Ashton and Lee’s (2009) 60- 2 In our pre-registration document, we originally planned to conduct struc­ tural equation models, but we felt that hierarchical regression models would more simply and directly test our hypotheses about how the personality traits and moral foundations predict BPE/BPG (in lieu of fully opening the narrative to how personality factors and moral foundations relate to each other; cf. Lewis & Bates, 2011). 3 There is some overlap between the measures used here in Study 2 and another study examining how BPE and BPG predict ethical consumer decisionmaking (Webster et al., 2020). The current study does not address consumer ethics in any way and is answering novel, empirical questions about how per­ sonality traits and moral foundations predict BPE and BPG. 5 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 Table 1 Intercorrelations between variables of interest (Study 1). Variables 1. BPE 2. BPG Demographics 3. Age 4. Religious Attendance 5. Gender 6. Political Conservatism 7. Education Big 5 Traits 8. Extraversion 9. Neuroticism 10. Agreeableness 11. Conscientiousness 12. Openness Moral Foundations 13. Harm 14. Fairness 15. Ingroup Loyalty 16. Authority 17. Sanctity M 3.26 4.90 SD 1.22 .88 1 .20 2 46.47 1.22 0.59 2.79 6.45 15.87 1.70 0.49 1.77 2.23 .25 .16 -.07 .39 .04 2.92 2.81 3.60 3.40 4.03 0.87 0.84 0.63 0.73 0.62 3.48 3.59 2.29 2.26 1.67 0.90 0.77 0.89 0.97 1.15 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .19 .29 -.08 -.07 .10 .03 .06 .08 .26 -.01 .31 .08 .09 .01 .04 - .00 -.03 .03 .25 -.11 -.06 -.02 .41 .12 .12 .04 -.18 .18 .28 .10 .05 .01 .12 .00 .01 -.11 -.09 -.03 -.06 -.04 -.03 -.05 -.13 .13 -.20 .00 -.12 .08 .11 .15 -.23 .17 .18 .29 -.33 -.35 -.01 .18 .19 .01 - -.08 -.11 .36 .48 .47 .43 .19 .08 .08 .22 .10 .05 .12 .28 .18 .02 -.12 .28 .28 .53 -.27 -.12 .04 .08 -.01 -.44 -.56 .46 .60 .58 .02 -.03 .11 .07 .08 .00 .01 .14 .00 .04 .13 .09 -.12 -.09 -.07 .30 .20 .16 .06 .09 .01 .01 .21 .27 .24 .23 .27 -.13 -.24 -.10 13 14 15 16 .56 -.12 -.20 -.07 -.16 -.29 -.24 .67 .54 .67 - Note. BPE = belief in pure evil. BPG = belief in pure good. Correlations significant at p ≤ .05 are bolded. Correlations with BPE and BPG are highlighted for readability. Participant sex coded as 0 = “female” and 1 = “male”. Given N = 384, 95% CI for r = ±0.10. Table 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Predicting Belief in Pure Evil and Belief in Pure Good (Study 1) Predictors Outcome: BPE β (beta) β (beta) β (beta) Outcome: BPG β (beta) 2 Step 1: Demographics BPG / BPE Age Religious Attendance Gender Conservatism Education .21 .18 -.03 .40 - Step 2: Big Five Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness .14 -.08 Step 3: Moral Foundations Harm Fairness Ingroup Loyalty Authority Sanctity Total R2 Outcome: BPE p-value .07 .03 .17 .23 ΔR = .24 ΔR2 = .02 ΔR2 = .07 .33 p-value Outcome: BPG β (beta) p-value 2 < .001 < .001 .52 < .001 - .12 .14 .27 .04 .003 .08 .25 -.12 .18 .64 .02 .001 .04 .02 .27 .26 ΔR2 = .08 ΔR2 = .21 .30 < .001 .02 .41 .04 .06 .46 .74 < .001 < .001 .37 -.04 .01 ΔR = .13 ΔR2 = .13 ΔR2 = .11 .37 .01 .007 < .001 .41 < .001 .47 .21 .40 .05 .05 < .001 .48 .92 .39 -.04 .21 ΔR2 = .18 ΔR2 = .15 .33 < .001 .34 .32 < .001 .43 < .001 Note: All steps were significant at p ≤ .05. Significant betas are bolded for readability. The second and fourth columns present results with no covariates in the model. BPE = belief in pure evil; BPG = belief in pure good. item HEXACO Personality Inventory (10 items for each trait). • Agreeableness (e.g., “I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged me”; alpha = 0.78). • Conscientiousness (e.g., “I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute”; alpha = 0.82). • Openness (e.g., “I’m interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries”; alpha = 0.78). • Honesty-Humility (e.g., “I wouldn’t use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed”; alpha = 0.82). • Emotionality (e.g., “I would feel afraid if I had to travel in bad weather conditions”; alpha = 0.77). • Extraversion (e.g., “I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall”; alpha = 0.86). Participants responded to items on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale. 6 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of the HEXACO trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPG. We entered any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (including BPE scores), HEXACO trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scores in Step 3. This analysis showed that Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientious­ ness uniquely predicted BPG (comparison of the 95% CIs showed that no trait better predicted BPG). Honesty-Humility and Openness approached significance. Next, both the Care and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPG. Running the model without covariates modestly altered the pattern of results. Without covariates, both Honesty-Humility and Extraversion scores predicted BPG, which appeared to increase the R2 by 6%. The pattern of significance for MFQ scores did not change, although without covariates, the predictive contribution of the MFQ scores modestly increased (3%). Overall, the results mostly supported our predictions. Unexpectedly, Honesty-Humility uniquely related to lower BPE, while—consistent with predictions—Emotionality and Openness were also unique pre­ dictors. The binding moral foundations—specifically, Authority and Sanctity—uniquely related to greater BPE, as predicted. As for BPG, Agreeableness was a unique predictor, as predicted; more unexpectedly, Emotionality and Conscientiousness were also unique predictors. Consistent with our predictions, the individualizing foundations—spe­ cifically, Care/Harm—uniquely related to BPG; yet, the Sanctity/ Degradation moral foundation also uniquely predicted BPG. 5.1.2.2. Moral foundations. As in S1, participants completed Graham et al.’s (2011) 30-item moral foundations questionnaire (MFQ). • • • • • Care (alpha = 0.73) Fairness (alpha = 0.79) Ingroup Loyalty (alpha = 0.79) Authority (alpha = 0.83) Sanctity (alpha = 0.91) 5.1.2.3. BPE and BPG. As in S1, participants completed Webster and Saucier’s (2013) BPG (alpha = 0.93) and BPE (alpha = 0.98) scales. 5.1.2.4. Defining Issues Test-Version 2 (DIT-2). To measure people’s level of postconventional moral reasoning, researchers adapted Kohl­ berg’s theory to create the Defining Issues Test (DIT) in the 1970s (Rest et al., 1974), which has been subsequently revised (Rest, Thoma, Nar­ vaez, & Bebeau, 1997). About 400 articles have been published using the DIT (Thoma, 2006), and around 500 researchers use the DIT every year (as cited in Bailey, 2011). Participants read a set of five ethical dilemmas (e.g., “a father contemplates stealing food for his starving family from the warehouse of a rich man hoarding food”; see http://ethicaldeve lopment.ua.edu/about-the-dit.html) and respond to standardized items asking what the actor in the scenario should do and why. The University of Alabama’s Center for the Study of Ethical Development analyzes the data. We report participants’ “N2 score”, which represents the extent to which participants prefer postconventional (vs. preconventional) moral thinking (see http://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/information-provide d-by-the-dit.html). 6. General discussion Overall, the results generally supported our hypotheses for both how personality traits (Big 5 in S1 and HEXACO in S2) and moral reasoning/ judgment predicted BPE and BPG above and beyond common de­ mographic variables (gender, age, education, religiousness, political conservatism). As predicted for BPG, higher levels of Agreeableness uniquely related to BPG across both studies. Somewhat unexpectedly, higher levels of Emotionality in S2 uniquely related to BPG, too. Perhaps people higher in BPG may be predisposed to sentimentality and “worry”, especially about the physical/psychological safety others and the state of the world. However, this emotionality does not seem to translate into seeing the world as an inherently dangerous or believing that some in­ dividuals are unsavable. Part of the BPG construct is the belief that people—and the world—can change for the better; indeed, while BPG is not associated with belief in a dangerous world, BPG is associated with greater optimism and support for criminal rehabilitative efforts (Webster & Saucier, 2013). As for the moral foundations, both studies confirmed that the indi­ vidualizing foundation of Care/Harm uniquely predicted BPG. Higher levels of Fairness did correlate with greater BPG but did not contribute any unique variance in predicting BPG. Thus, sensibly, people scoring higher in BPG seem to focus most on the physical/psychological safety of others vs. concerns about fairness and reciprocity. Indeed, reciprocal altruism implies a tit-for-tat approach to human relations, when in fact people who report greater BPG believe that we should be helping others regardless of whether others reciprocate in the future. Interestingly, people who report greater BPG blanketly recommend less stringent criminal punishment with regards to specific crimes, even violent crimes (Webster & Saucier, 2013). However, after reading an allegedly real news article about a specific incident (e.g., a woman being stabbed or a mass shooter at a mall), BPG does not consistently correlate with perceptions or punishment of the perpetrator (Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2015). Perhaps when thinking more broadly about punishing specific crimes (vs. specific criminals), people who report greater BPG may apply their moral code of care (i.e., those virtues of kindness and nurturance) in recommending less punishment and greater rehabilitation; but, when faced with an allegedly real event, the rela­ tionship between BPG and punishment is eliminated perhaps because they are confronted with (allegedly) real victims and their moral 5.1.2.5. Political orientation. Participants responded to a single item on a 1 (Very Liberal) to 7 (Very Conservative) scale. 5.1.2.6. Religiosity. Participants responded to a single item describing their religious attendance on a 0 (Never) to 5 (More Than Once a Week) Likert-type scale. 5.1.2.7. Education. Participants responded to a single item on a 1 (Grades 1–6) to 9 (PhD/EdD) Likert-type scale. 5.2. Results and discussion 5.2.1. Belief in pure evil Correlations between all variables of interest are in Table 3. Regarding the Big 5, higher Emotionality as well as lower HonestyHumility, Agreeableness, and Openness scores related to greater BPE; next, regarding the moral foundations, higher Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity scores related to greater BPE. Lower N2 scores also related to greater BPE. We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of the HEXACO trait scores and MFQ/N2 scale scores on BPE. We entered any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (including BPG scores), HEXACO trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ/N2 scores in Step 3. See Table 4 for results. This analysis showed that Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Openness uniquely predicted BPE. Next, only the Authority and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPE. Running the model without covariates nominally changed the pattern of results. The pattern of significance did not change; however, the predictive contribution of the Big 5 scores negligibly increased (1%), while the predictive contribution of MFQ scores meaningfully increased (9%). 5.2.2. Belief in pure good On a bivariate level, higher scores on all six HEXACO traits related to greater BPG; meanwhile, higher scores on the Care, Fairness, Authority, and Sanctity moral foundations related to greater BPG. 7 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 Table 3 Intercorrelations between variables of interest (Study 2). Variables 1. BPE 2. BPG Demographics 3. Age 4. Rel. Attendance 5. Gender 6. Conservatism 7. Education HEXACO Traits 8. Honesty-Humility 9. Emotionality 10. Extraversion 11. Agreeableness 12. Conscientiousness 13. Openness Moral Foundations 14. Harm 15. Fairness 16. Ingroup Loyalty 17. Authority 18. Sanctity Postconventional Thinking 19. N2 Score M 4.48 5.12 SD 1.38 0.89 1 .17 2 3 4 5 6 - 36.81 1.87 1.53 3.47 7.38 11.35 1.22 0.51 1.76 2.80 .09 .12 .05 .34 -.01 .26 .08 .18 .11 -.10 .05 .23 .14 -.06 -.02 .35 .17 -.04 -.11 4.82 4.37 4.30 4.47 5.54 5.05 1.22 1.17 1.35 1.18 0.98 1.14 -.17 .20 .05 -.15 -.01 -.29 .26 .18 .18 .29 .35 .14 .32 .07 .09 .12 .23 .09 -.04 .07 .16 .09 .02 -.17 4.57 4.59 3.39 3.63 3.23 0.90 0.82 0.96 1.04 1.41 .07 .00 .36 .49 .47 .39 .20 .14 .23 .29 .10 .07 .09 .11 .08 31.81 15.13 -.26 .02 .09 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .00 - .27 .38 -.03 .03 .12 .03 .05 -.03 .13 .00 -.02 -.30 -.20 -.06 .12 -.06 .07 .06 .08 -.05 .38 .25 .10 -.29 -.13 -.09 -.15 .28 .32 .23 .20 .20 -.04 -.14 .32 .38 .47 .23 .15 -.10 -.01 .08 -.19 -.33 .25 .45 .47 -.12 .00 .02 .03 -.01 .28 .12 -.14 -.07 -.03 .33 .15 .09 .12 .21 .02 -.02 .22 .15 .15 -.18 .12 -.28 .06 .18 -.01 -.16 18 .34 - .21 .14 .07 .10 .06 .19 .24 -.04 .00 -.01 .22 .26 -.24 -.32 -.28 .61 .14 .13 .16 .05 .04 -.04 .70 .57 .71 - -.07 .12 .27 .06 .19 -.37 -.38 -.34 Note. BPE = belief in pure evil. BPG = belief in pure good. Correlations significant at p ≤ .05 are bolded. Correlations with BPE and BPG are highlighted for readability. Participant gender coded as 1 = “male” and 2 = “female”. Given N = 345, 95% CI for r = ±0.11. compass is focused more on the victims’ suffering. Perhaps if a perpe­ trator apologized and exhibited genuine remorse for their actions (e.g., Kleinke, Wallis, & Stadler, 1991), participants who report greater BPG would more greatly apply the Care foundation and lessen the punishment. In S2, higher levels of Sanctity/Degradation also uniquely related to BPG. Higher scores on the Sanctity dimension correlated with greater BPG in both studies, but Sanctity only uniquely related to BPG in S2. Sanctity does have moderate to strong religious undertones, and religi­ osity variables (across behavioral, functional, and structural measures) more consistently correlate with BPG (e.g., Webster & Saucier, 2013; see also Study 1 in this paper). BPG also emphasizes striving for a sort of “wholesomeness” about human nature, which seems to be reflected in the Sanctity foundation. Thus, it does make sense (in hindsight) that the Sanctity foundation would relate to BPG. Given the personality and moral profile of BPG (particularly the higher levels of Agreeableness and endorsement of the Care/Harm foundation), BPG should serve a buffer to acting antisocially (immorally or aggressively), while serving as a catalyst in helping others. Two studies have shown that greater BPG uniquely predicted greater endorsement of more prosocial consumer actions (e.g., eco-friendly/ green behaviors) and greater admonition of more questionable, pas­ sive, and active (i.e., outright illegal) forms of consumer misconduct; moreover, a third experiment showed that, regardless of price, BPG uniquely predicted lower likeability/intentions to buy an environmen­ tally unfriendly product and greater likeability/intentions to buy an environmentally friendly product (Webster, Morrone, & Saucier, 2020). A third study\ In predicting BPE, the Big 5 and HEXACO were somewhat inconsis­ tent. In S1, higher levels of Conscientiousness uniquely related to BPE; Openness was a marginal predictor. In any case, these Big 5 traits only explained 2% of the variability in BPE. The HEXACO explained much more variability in S2 at 14% (cf. Ashton & Lee, 2019). Higher levels of Openness to experience and lower levels of Emotionality uniquely related to BPE, as predicted. Neuroticism in S1 may not have related to BPE, but Emotionality in S2 did, perhaps because of how these traits are conceptualized. Traditional Neuroticism in the Big 5 model seems more focused on emotional stability and experiencing a wider range of negative emotions. In comparison, Lee and Ashton explain “Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale experience fear of physical dangers, [and] experience anxiety in response to life’s stresses” (http://h exaco.org/scaledescriptions). People who score higher in BPE strongly believe in a more dangerous world, and Emotionality perhaps better captures this anxiety. Lower levels of Honesty-Humility also uniquely related to BPE, which was somewhat unexpected. Perhaps people higher in BPE will go to any lengths, including more deceitfulness (e.g., pre-emptive strikes; Webster & Saucier, 2013), to save the world from evildoers. Lastly, BPE showed a larger correlation with the Big 5 measure of Conscientiousness than the HEXACO. Of course, this difference could be due to measure­ ment, although the two models conceptualize and measure conscien­ tiousness similarly. Alternatively, there may be less of a relationship between BPE and conscientiousness than we hypothesized; conceivably, people higher in BPE may have greater expectations of others to be very conscientious, but perhaps not be as stringent themselves. As for the moral foundations, both S1 and S2 showed that higher scores on all the binding foundations correlated with BPE, but only the Authority and Sanctity dimensions uniquely related to BPE. That is, it seems people who believe more in pure evil consider whether actions are immoral based on how much actions violate perceived legitimate au­ thority and saintly values, rather than violations of ingroup loyalty. Perhaps when considering the nature of evildoers, such individuals are inherently corrupted and only obedience to authority (not necessarily loyalty to ingroups) will help right the world. Ultimately, given the personality and moral profile of people who report greater BPE (i.e., lower levels of Honesty-Humility and Openness, higher levels of emotionality, greater endorsement of the Authority and Sanctity foundations), how would such individuals act when given the chance to behave immorally? Two studies on ethical consumer behavior showed that BPE did not predict endorsement or admonition of ecofriendlier, questionable, or outright illegal consumer behaviors (Webster et al., 2020). We reason that people who report greater BPE do not recklessly engage in immoral actions (e.g., as people higher in psy­ chopathy or sadism do; see Moshagen, Hilbig, & Zettler, 2018), but 8 R.J. Webster et al. Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584 Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression results predicting belief in pure evil and belief in pure good (Study 2). Predictors Outcome: BPE β (beta) Step 1: Demographics BPG/BPE Age Religious attendance Gender Conservatism Education Step 2: HEXACO Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness Step 3: Moral foundations Harm Fairness Ingroup Loyalty Authority Sanctity N2 score Total R2 ΔR2 = 0.14 0.14 0.01 − 0.01 – 0.33 – ΔR2 = 0.13 ¡0.23 0.15 – − 0.08 – ¡0.19 ΔR2 = 0.11 – – 0.01 0.24 0.21 − 0.05 0.38 Outcome: BPE p-Value 0.01 0.91 0.90 –
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Running head: MORAL DEVELOPMENT

1

Moral Development
Institutional Affiliations:
Date:

MORAL DEVELOPMENT

2
Moral Development

Kohlberg’s theory about moral development in 1958 was an advancement of Piaget’s
idea of 1932. In his research, he used techniques of providing moral dilemmas and asking for the
best answers. He was more concerned about the respondent’s logic than the amo...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags