Collective moral disengagement: Initial validation of a scale for adolescents

Collective moral disengagement refers to shared group beliefs that morally justify negative actions. This study reports an initial validation of the newly developed Classroom Collective Moral Disengagement Scale (CCMDS) for adolescents. This self-report instrument assesses the degree to which mechanisms of moral disengagement are shared by students in their class. Data were collected from two samples of 486 and 654 adolescents attending middle and high schools in Italy. Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses the unidimensional structure of the scale was established. Multigroup analyses demonstrated configural, metric and scalar invariance of the model across age and gender groups. The final version of the scale consists of 17 items and it has good internal consistency and validity. It is concluded that the scale is a promising measure for research concerning group level morality.     

An examination of the complex associations between religiousness and femininity among US Christian women

Although various forms of religiousness have been found to be associated with women’s body image, sexuality, and personal and professional roles, these studies have failed to examine multiple aspects of religiousness and femininity (i.e., conformity to feminine norms) concurrently. The current study explored the association between femininity and religiousness among women using multivariate definitions of these constructs. As hypothesised, there were multiple significant associations between religiousness and femininity. In terms of the more complex, multivariate relationships, more conservative and “traditional” religiousness was found to be associated with high sexual fidelity, adherence to domestic roles, and adherence to being sweet and nice. Also, minimal engagement in religiousness was associated with low levels of modesty, low adherence to being nice, and more emphasis on being in a romantic relationship. Several simpler, bivariate relationships were also found as hypothesised.     

The distinctive “should” of assertability

Recent work has assumed that the normativity associated with assertion differs from the normativity of morality, practical rationality, etiquette, and legality. That is, whether an assertion “should” be made is not merely a function of these other familiar sorts of normativity and is especially connected to truth. Some researchers have challenged this assumption of distinctive normativity. In this paper I report two experiments that test the assumption. Participants read a brief story, judged whether an assertion should be made, and rated several other qualities of the assertion, including its truth value, morality, rationality, etiquette, legality, and folly. Of these qualities, truth value most strongly predicted assertability. The findings support the assumption of distinctive normativity and provide further evidence that the norm of our social practice of assertion is factive (i.e., it makes truth essential to assertability).     

Perceived social pressure not to experience negative emotion is linked to selective attention for negative information

Social norms and values may be important predictors of how people engage with and regulate their negative emotional experiences. Previous research has shown that social expectancies (the perceived social pressure not to feel negative emotion (NE)) exacerbate feelings of sadness. In the current research, we examined whether social expectancies may be linked to how people process emotional information. Using a modified classical flanker task involving emotional rather than non-emotional stimuli, we found that, for those who experienced low levels of NE, social expectancies were linked to the selective avoidance of negative emotional information. Those who experienced high levels of NE did not show a selective avoidance of negative emotional information. The findings suggest that, for people who experience many NEs, social expectancies may lead to discrepancies between how they think they ought to feel and the kind of emotional information they pay attention to.     

Making sense of one’s actions in an explanatory vacuum: The interpretation of nonconscious goal striving

Previous research has found that performing norm-violating behaviors based on a nonconsciously-activated goal elicits negative affect (Oettingen, Grant, Smith, Skinner, & Gollwitzer, 2006). In the present research we explored whether this negative affect is eliminated when an earlier conscious goal with congruent behavioral effects can be used to explain the norm-violating behavior. Our findings suggest that applicable conscious goals are indeed used to interpret nonconsciously-activated goal striving (Study 1), and that this interpretation occurs reflexively rather than reflectively (Study 2), with implications for interpersonal behavior (Study 3). The role of social norms, applicable conscious goals, and negative affect in the interpretation of nonconscious goal pursuit is discussed.     

How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations

Evidence from two experiments indicates that task-related communication promotes cooperation in mixed-motive situations by activating interpersonal norms related to fairness and trust. In Experiment 1, task-related communication increased cooperation between individuals in a three-choice prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG-Alt) but task-unrelated communication did not. In Experiment 2, cooperation was increased both by sending a task-related message to one’s counterpart and receiving a cooperative task-related message from one’s counterpart. Mediation analyses revealed that task-related communication increased cooperation by activating fairness and trust norms (Experiments 1 and 2). Specifically, whereas sending (relative to receiving) a task-related message increased cooperation by activating fairness norms, receiving (relative to sending) a task-related message increased cooperation by activating trust norms (Experiment 2).     

The intention to commit driving violations – A qualitative study

This study was designed to carry out an in-depth exploration of an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Fifty licensed drivers took part in the study and each one was given three different driving scenarios; speeding in an urban area, dangerous overtaking and speeding on a major road. The results indicated that drivers usually find speeding acceptable although this was also related to a context, since speeding on a major road was more acceptable than on a minor one. The immediate response to the question about consequences of the act varied and depended on the perception of the situation. In a serious situation the response was purely affective and immediate whereas in a low risk situation it was more considered. The response to the question about subjective norm was sometimes difficult to answer or misunderstood which throws some light on its weak association with intention. Driving skills were explored in some detail together with its possible link to perceived behavioural control. In general those participants who believed themselves to be superior to others, expressed high degrees of control. The study also found that a low degree of perceived behavioural control (external or internal) could be used as a form of justification for carrying out an act although this only applied to a situation which they perceived as low risk. In a high-risk situation they always tried to maintain their own control. Habit, or rather past behaviour, influenced future behaviour when the experience had been positive. The police, or feelings of regret, could break this pattern. The implications of these findings in relation to theoretical and practical issues are discussed.