Literature DB >> 33362623

Challenges in Process Dissociation Measures for Moral Cognition.

Anton Kunnari1, Jukka R I Sundvall2, Michael Laakasuo2.   

Abstract

The process dissociation procedure (PDP) for moral cognition was created to separately measure two dispositions of moral judgment based on the dual-process theory of moral reasoning: deontological and utilitarian inclinations. In this paper we raise some concerns from a psychometrics perspective regarding the structure, reliability, and validity of the moral PDP as a measure of individual differences. Using two simulation studies as well as a real sample of N = 1,010, we investigate the psychometric properties of the moral PDP. We present novel evidence showing that (1) some correlations between PDP parameters are mathematical artifacts, and as such cannot be taken as evidence in support of a theory, (2) there are severe response inconsistencies within dilemma batteries, and (3) reliability estimates for these scores seem to be far below the accepted standards. We discuss some potential theoretical and content-related reasons for these statistical issues and their implications. We conclude that in their current form, PDP measures of utilitarian and deontological tendencies are sub-optimal for assessing individual differences.
Copyright © 2020 Kunnari, Sundvall and Laakasuo.

Entities:  

Keywords:  deontology; measurement; process dissociation; psychometrics; simulation studies; utilitarianism; validity

Year:  2020        PMID: 33362623      PMCID: PMC7759142          DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559934

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Psychol        ISSN: 1664-1078


  25 in total

1.  An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment.

Authors:  J D Greene; R B Sommerville; L E Nystrom; J M Darley; J D Cohen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-09-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment.

Authors:  Joshua D Greene; Leigh E Nystrom; Andrew D Engell; John M Darley; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements.

Authors:  Michael Koenigs; Liane Young; Ralph Adolphs; Daniel Tranel; Fiery Cushman; Marc Hauser; Antonio Damasio
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making.

Authors:  Bertram Gawronski; Joel Armstrong; Paul Conway; Rebecca Friesdorf; Mandy Hütter
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2017-09

5.  The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.

Authors:  Craig Hedge; Georgina Powell; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2018-06

6.  Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas.

Authors:  Caleb J Reynolds; Paul Conway
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2018-02-01

7.  Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures.

Authors:  Indrajeet Patil; Micaela Maria Zucchelli; Wouter Kool; Stephanie Campbell; Federico Fornasier; Marta Calò; Giorgia Silani; Mina Cikara; Fiery Cushman
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2020-01-09

8.  Violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation.

Authors:  T Curran; D L Hintzman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Gender-related differences in moral judgments.

Authors:  M Fumagalli; R Ferrucci; F Mameli; S Marceglia; S Mrakic-Sposta; S Zago; C Lucchiari; D Consonni; F Nordio; G Pravettoni; S Cappa; A Priori
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2009-08-30

10.  Are Utilitarian/Deontological Preferences Unidimensional?

Authors:  Michael Laakasuo; Jukka Sundvall
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-08-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.