Directional preferences in turning behavior of girls and boys

Turning biases in humans and animals are known to be related to dopaminergic asymmetry between the brain hemispheres. A laboratory method, in which turning preference was evaluated, was adapted based upon the turning of the subject toward a particular sound in a square room. One of the aims of this study was to investigate the reliability of this method with children, and the other aim was to research the turning preference in boys and girls. 31 children between 7 and 13 yr. old volunteered as subjects, and 17 subjects were retested. The subjects tended significantly to turn leftward (60.1%), and fewer girls (53.7%) turned to the left than boys (66.2%). The correlation between the test and the retest was significant (r=.79, p< .01). Most studies have indicated that humans in childhood and adulthood exhibit left-turning preference, but conflicts between the results obtained on different types of rotation tasks have suggested that hemispheric dopaminergic activity might affect preference. That needs study.     

Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Organ Donation: a Study on Officials of Religion in Turkey

The aim of this study is to determine the attitudes and behaviors of religious scholars regarding organ donation and transplantation. In this study, 540 officials working in the Department of Religious Affairs in Kayseri, Turkey, were included. Overall, 86.6% response rate (n = 468) was achieved. Although a majority of the officials of religion in this study stated that they believed in the importance of organ donation (90.8%), the rate of considering donation (57.9%) and the donation rate (1.1%) were found to be substantially low. There is a difference between the employment status and willingness to donate organs. The rate of willingness to donate was significantly high in men than women. And also was high in imams and preachers. Regarding the sources of information, the majority of the respondents (70.0%) cited mass media. Overall, 15.3% cited school education and 42.0% religious publications. The most common question (83.1%) that was asked was “whether or not organ donation was suitable for Muslim religious”. Our study revealed that although the research groups have positive ideas about organ donation and transplantation, their role was low in informing and motivating people about organ donation and transplantation.     

Testing the Domain Specificity of Creativity with Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale: A Meta-Analytic Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Domain-specificity is a topic of debate within the field of creativity. To shed light on this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of cross-domain correlations based on the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). To evaluate the model fit of one general factor versus two factors that encompass the primary K-DOCS subscales (Scholarly, Everyday, Artistic, Scientific, and Performance), we employed the one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling (OSMASEM) approach. Poor fit of these models would provide evidence of domain-specificity, as the proposed models would not outperform the independence model. Our analysis included 45 correlation matrices from 30 studies, with a total sample size of 31,136 participants. The results provided support for a general domain of creativity, as well as a two-factor solution consisting of Arts and Sciences factors. Among the subscales, the highest correlation was found between the Artistic and Performance domains (r = .478), while the smallest correlation was observed between the Everyday and Scientific domains (r = .178). Furthermore, moderator analyses incorporating age and gender revealed that the Scientific and Everyday subscales exhibited a stronger factor load in older participants compared to younger participants. Implications are discussed for research and practice.     

Basing Science Ethics on Respect for Human Dignity

A “no ethics” principle has long been prevalent in science and has demotivated deliberation on scientific ethics. This paper argues the following: (1) An understanding of a scientific “ethos” based on actual “value preferences” and “value repugnances” prevalent in the scientific community permits and demands critical accounts of the “no ethics” principle in science. (2) The roots of this principle may be traced to a repugnance of human dignity, which was instilled at a historical breaking point in the interrelation between science and ethics. This breaking point involved granting science the exclusive mandate to pass judgment on the life worth living. (3) By contrast, respect for human dignity, in its Kantian definition as “the absolute inner worth of being human,” should be adopted as the basis to ground science ethics. (4) The pathway from this foundation to the articulation of an ethical duty specific to scientific practice, i.e., respect for objective truth, is charted by Karl Popper’s discussion of the ethical principles that form the basis of science. This also permits an integrated account of the “external” and “internal” ethical problems in science. (5) Principles of the respect for human dignity and the respect for objective truth are also safeguards of epistemic integrity. Plain defiance of human dignity by genetic determinism has compromised integrity of claims to knowledge in behavioral genetics and other behavioral sciences. Disregard of the ethical principles that form the basis of science threatens epistemic integrity.     

An Ecological Intelligence Scale Intended for Adults

Abstract

Ecological intelligence (EI) refers to systemic thinking, ecophilosophy, holistic perspective, collective lifestyle and cultural commons. It is difficult to determine the exact nature of EI and its characteristics due to it being a complex concept. The aim of this study is to develop an EI scale intended for adults which is based on a holistic perspective, social intelligence and economy and try to specify the concept of ecological intelligence. The goodness-of-fit values were at an acceptable level. The results were Cronbach’s alpha: 0.824; KMO: 0.878; X²/df: 3.39; RMSEA: 0.077; SRMR: 0.0504; GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, CFI?≥?0.90. These results showed that the scale is reliable, and has validity and strong theoretical background. There are 12 items within the scale.