Post-conventional moral reasoning and reputation

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development conceives conventional and post-conventional moral reasoning as consecutive levels in a developmental sequence. This claim was examined in terms of the relationship between preference for these two styles of reasoning on the one hand and moral identity as perceived by others (reputation) and as self-perceived and on the other. Participants (n = 172), in groups of four mutual acquaintances, provided ratings of one another’s standing, and estimates of their own standing and reputation, on four trait dimensions (moral responsibility, consideration for others, respect for authority, and political orientation). Post-conventional moral reasoning, assessed using the Defining Issues Test, was not significantly related either to reputation or to self-rating on any dimension except political orientation. Conventional reasoning was related to politics though in the opposite direction, but additionally to both self- and other-ratings of moral responsibility and to the corresponding ratings of respect for authority. Findings do not support the view that the conventional/post-conventional distinction in moral reasoning is a developmental difference. An alternative proposed is that these are independent domains of moral thought, related to quite different aspects of social behaviour and political attitudes.     

The role of culture in appraisals,emotions and helplessness in response to threats

In honour cultures, such as Turkey, reputation management is emphasised, whereas in dignity cultures such as northern US, self-respect and personal achievements are central. Turkey is also a collectivistic culture, where relationship harmony is as important as reputation management. When Turkish people's reputation is threatened, they may experience an internal conflict between these two motives and display helplessness. The purpose of the present study was to examine how people from Turkey (an honour culture; n = 52) and northern US (a dignity culture; n = 48) would perceive and respond to reputation threats as opposed to self-respect threats. As predicted, Turkish participants anticipated stronger anger, shame, and helplessness in response to reputation threats than self-respect threats, whereas differences were smaller or non-existent in northern US. Moreover, shame was a mediator between appraisal and helplessness for reputation threats in Turkey (shame positively predicted helplessness); anger was a mediator between appraisal and helplessness for self-respect threats in northern US (anger negatively predicted helplessness). These results are novel in their inclusion of helplessness and appraisal theory of emotions when examining responses to threats in honour and dignity cultures.     

Do clutch players win the game? Testing the validity of the clutch player's reputation in basketball

ObjectivesThe sport psychology literature recognizes the existence of clutch behavior among elite athletes. The present study questions the validity of the clutch reputation in basketball. The performance of clutch players was compared to that of their teammates, using a broad approach that included different performance measures.DesignEight basketball experts ranked NBA players according to their perceived reputation of being clutch shooters. The selection procedure resulted in a sample of 16 clutch players who had successfully made a game-deciding shot, or had made a successful shot in the final few minutes to tie the game, during the 2003–2006 seasons.MethodData were collected from play-by-play reports of 222 tied NBA games during the 2005–2006 season and playoffs. Data were reduced to the final five minutes of the second and fourth quarters in each close/tied game. A MANOVA and several ANOVAs were conducted in order to compare the performance measures of the clutch players and the average of their teammates, in game phases of low and high pressure.ResultsThe reported main effects of clutch versus non-clutch players suggest a superior performance of the clutch players. The results also show that the clutch players improved their performance in the final, most decisive phase of the game, which could be interpreted as evidence for clutch ability. However, the clutch players did not improve their general shooting skills, as might have been expected.ConclusionsTop NBA players, like most other people, do not perform better under pressure situations, at least not while considering their chances of making a shot, but clutch players do influence the end-result of the game in other aspects.