Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması

Ahlak felsefesindeki iki temel normatif ahlak görüşü olan faydacılık ve deontoloji, ahlak psikolojisinde de insanların ahlaki yargılarını açıklamakta kullanılan iki ana görüş durumundadır. Klasik ahlaki ikilem senaryoları, 2000’lerin başından itibaren faydacı/deontolojik karar alma eğilimlerinin ayrıştırılmasına ilişkin neredeyse tek ölçüt olarak kullanılmıştır. Buna karşın bir dizi araştırma, anti sosyal kişilik özellikleri olan kişilerin, ilgili ahlaki ikilemlerde faydacı karar alma eğiliminde olduklarını göstermiştir. Psikopati eğiliminin faydacı ahlakın temel mantığıyla taban tabana zıt olmasından dolayı, son on yılda söz konusu ahlaki ikilem senaryolarının etkinliğine dair tartışmalar başlamıştır. Bir eleştiri bu senaryoların faydacılığın sadece araçsal zarar boyutunu ölçtüğü, tarafsız iyilik boyutunu ise tamamen ihmal ettiği yönündedir. Faydacılığın belirtilen her iki boyutunun da ölçülebilmesi için Kahane ve arkadaşları (2018) Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’ni (OFÖ) geliştirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada OFÖ’nün Türkçe uyarlamasının gerçekleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Araştırmaya yaşları 18-66 arasında değişen ve %82.5’i İstanbul’da yaşayan 983 kişi katılmıştır. Araştırma örnekleminin seçkisiz olarak ikiye bölünmesi ile elde edilen alt örneklem gruplarından birinde Temel Bileşenler Faktör Analizi, diğerinde ise Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Temel Bileşenler Faktör Analizi sonuçları, orijinal çalışmaya benzer şekilde toplam varyansın %52.5’ini açıklayan iki faktörlü bir yapıyı göstermiştir. DFA sonuçları da uyarlamanın, orijinal iki faktörlü yapı ile uyumlu olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Birleşen geçerlik çalışmasında, beklentiler ile uyumlu olarak, araçsal zarar faktörü ile psikopati ve Makyavelizm arasında, tarafsız iyilik faktörü ile de empatik düşünce, perspektif alma ve faydacı özgecilik arasında pozitif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Sonuçlara göre, tarafsız iyilik ile psikopati ve Makyavelizm arasında ise negatif korelasyon bulunmaktadır. Orijinal ölçek çalışması ile uyumlu olarak, tarafsız iyilik ve araçsal zarar faktörlerinden yüksek puan alan katılımcıların, ahlaki ikilem senaryolarında da faydacı yönde kararlar aldıkları görülmüştür. Sonuçlar genel olarak OFÖ’nün Türkçe uyarlamasının orijinal çalışma ile uyumlu olduğunu gösterdiğinden, mevcut uyarlamanın ahlak psikolojisiyle ilgili olarak gelecekte yapılacak deneysel ve ilişkisel çalışmalarda kullanılması önerilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği, tarafsız iyilik, araçsal zarar

The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale

Utilitarianism and deontology are the two major normative ethics in moral philosophy extensively used to explain the source of moral judgments in moral psychology. Since 2000, scholars used classical moral dilemmas nearly exclusively to differentiate utilitarian and deontological decision-making tendencies. However, results from a series of studies indicated that these dilemmas tend to elicit utilitarian responses from people with antisocial personality features. The efficiency of these moral dilemmas was the subject of debates in the last 10 years given that antisocial tendencies are the direct opposite of a utilitarian outlook. One of the criticisms was that these dilemmas were limited to the measurement of the instrumental harm dimension of utilitarianism and entirely overlooked the impartial beneficence outlook. The Oxford Utilitarian Scale (OUS) (Kahane et al., 2018) was developed to measure both dimensions of utilitarianism. To fit the context, the study developed the Turkish adaptation of the OUS. The study recruited 983 participants aged 18-65 years and 82.5% living in İstanbul. The respondents were randomly assigned to two sub-groups for principal and confirmatory factor analyses (PFA and CFA), respectively. The PFA results revealed a two-factor structure, which is similar to that of the original study, with an explained total variance of 52.5%. Moreover, the CFA results indicated that the adaptation study is compatible with the original two-factor model. Convergent validity analysis revealed positive correlations of instrumental harm to psychopathy and Machiavellianism as expected. Similarly, the impartial beneficence factor displayed positive relationships with empathic concern, perspective-taking, and altruistic utilitarianism. Moreover, the results demonstrated that impartial beneficence is negatively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism. In line with the original study, participants with high scores in instrumental harm and impartial beneficence endorsed the utilitarian option in response to these dilemmas. In summary, the results confirmed that the Turkish version of the OUS is substantially concordant with the original inventory. Therefore, the authors suggest that the proposed version is advisable for use in future empirical and correlational studies on moral psychology.

Keywords:

Oxford Utilitarianism Scale, instrumental harm, impartial beneficence,

PDF

___

Aktaş, B., Yılmaz, O. ve Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2017). Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 297-307. google scholar
Ames, D. R., Rose, P. ve Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440-450. google scholar
Bartels, D. M. ve Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161. google scholar
Bahçekapılı, H. G. ve Yılmaz, O. (2017). The relation between different types of religiosity and analytic cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 267-272. google scholar
Benet-Martmez, V ve John, O. P (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729. google scholar
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387-392. google scholar
Choe, S. Y. ve Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 580. google scholar
Christensen, J. F. ve Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & BiobehavioralReviews, 36(4), 1249-1264. google scholar
Christie, R. ve Geis, F. (1970). Implications and speculations. In R. Christie, ve F. Geis (Ed.), Studies in Machiavellianism (s. 339-358). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
Conway, P. ve Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216. google scholar
Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. ve Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265. google scholar
Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D. ve Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(40), 17433-17438. google scholar
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSA Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. google scholar
Dökmen, Ü. (1988). Empatinin yeni bir modele dayanılarak ölçülmesi ve psikodrama ile geliştirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 155-190. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665-697. google scholar
Engeler, A. ve Yargıç, L. İ. (2007). Kişilerarası tepkisellik indeksi: Empatinin çok boyutlu ölçümü. New Symposiun Journal, 45, 119-127. google scholar
Engeler, A. (2005). Psikopati ve antisosyal kişilik bozukluğu. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
Erzi, S. (2019). Psychometric Properties of Adaptation of The Oxford Utilitarianism Scale to Turkish. Humanitas-Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(13), 132-147. google scholar
Feshbach, N. D. ve Feshbach, S. (1969). The relationship between empathy and aggression in two age groups. Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 102-107. google scholar
Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Conway, P. ve Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110-120. google scholar
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, No: 5. google scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic, 19(4), 25-42. google scholar
Gawronski, B. ve Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632. google scholar
Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 467. google scholar
Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iyer, R., Graham, J. ve Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(7), 497. google scholar
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105- 2108. google scholar Hare, R. D. (2003). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, ON, 2003. google scholar
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. google scholar
Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. google scholar
Jonason, P. K. ve Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420. google scholar
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J. ve Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131. google scholar
Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560. google scholar
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. ve Savulescu, J. (2015). Utilitarian judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. google scholar
Kant, I. (1785/1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (H. J. Paton, Çeviri.). New York: Harper & Row. google scholar
Klein, R. B. (2011). Hypothesis Testing. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.. google scholar
Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J. ve Newman, J. P. (2011). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708-714. google scholar
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M. ve Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138), 908. google scholar
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Assessing model fit. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, 3, 23-40. google scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of Child Development Research, 1, 383-431. google scholar
Kumova, F. ve Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2020). Türk kültüründe yüksek ahlaki ikilem yaratan psikoterapist senaryoları ile klasik senaryolar: Duyguların faydacı/ deontolojik kararlar ile ilişkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 40(2), 385-427. google scholar
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A. ve Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151-158. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.68.1.151. google scholar
Leistico, A. M. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J. ve Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 28-45. google scholar
McFarland, S., Webb, M. ve Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830. google scholar
Mehrabian, A., ve Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. google scholar
Meyer, A., Zhou, E. ve Shane, F. (2018). The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 246. google scholar
Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A. ve Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19(6), 549-557. google scholar
Özsoy, E., Rauthmann, J. F., Jonason, P. K. ve Ardıç, K. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Turkish versions of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-T), and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T). Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 11-14. google scholar
Pala, A. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının empati kurma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 13-23. google scholar
Paulhus, D. L. ve Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. google scholar
Skeem, J. L., Edens, J. F., Camp, J. ve Colwell, L. H. (2004). Are there ethnic differences in levels of psychopathy? A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 505-527. google scholar
Soderstrom, H. (2003). Psychopathy as a disorder of empathy. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12(5), 249. google scholar
Stagnaro, M. N., Pennycook, G. ve Rand, D. G. (2018). Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 260. google scholar
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898. google scholar
Sümer, N., Lajunen, T. ve Özkan, T. (2005). Big five personality traits as the distal predictors of road accident. Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application, 215, 215-227. google scholar
Thomson, K. S. ve Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99. google scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204-217. google scholar
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. ve Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275-1289. google scholar
Yılmaz, O. ve Sarıbay, S. A. (2016). An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(3), 287300. google scholar
Yılmaz, O. ve Sarıbay, S. A. (2018). Lower levels of resistance to change (but not opposition to equality) is related to analytic cognitive style. Social Psychology, 49(2), 65-75. google scholar
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E. ve Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136. google scholar
Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J. ve Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition, 126(3), 364-372. google scholar