Is it acceptable and moral to sacrifice a few people’s lives to save many others? Research on moral dilemmas in psychology, experimental philosophy, and neuropsychology has shown that respondents judge utilitarian personal moral actions (footbridge dilemma) as less appropriate than equivalent utilitarian impersonal moral actions (trolley dilemma). Accordingly, theorists (e.g., Greene et al., 2001) have argued that judgments of appropriateness in personal moral dilemmas are more emotionally salient and cognitively demanding (taking more time to be rational) than impersonal moral dilemmas. Our novel findings show an effect of psychological accessibility (driven by partial contextual information; Kahneman, 2003) on utilitarian moral behavior and response time for rational choices. Enhanced accessibility of utilitarian outcomes through comprehensive information about moral actions and consequences boosted utility maximization in moral choices, with rational choices taking less time. Moreover, our result suggests that previous results indicating emotional interference, with rational choices taking more time to make, may have been artifacts of presenting partial information.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1029-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
No abstract
The aim of this current study is to identify the Prevalence of Academic engagement and psychological values, also identify the relationship between Academic engagement and psychological values to a sample of university students, As well as the differences between male and female in Academic engagement, and psychological values , This study includes a sample of university students(N=500),(215male and285 female) the researcher used Academic engagement Scale and psychological values Scale. The result showed that a Prevalence of Academic engagement and psychological values, and a relationship between them, no differences between male and female in Academic engagement, and psychological values, but there are differences led to academic specialization.
The current study investigated the speech act of ostensible invitations in Saudi Arabic from a sociopragmatic perspective. It was conducted to examine whether Saudi Arabic speakers draw on the same strategies stipulated by Clark and Isaacs (1990) for extending ostensible invitations. Additionally, the study aimed at investigating whether there are Saudi-specific strategies for extending ostensible invitations. To this end, the study examined 37 recalled instances of ostensible invitations provided by Saudi Arabic speakers in the Central Region of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh. The corpus of the study was compiled through face-to-face and written interviews with 37 informants aged between 18 to 60. The collected data was analyzed on the basis of Clark and Isaacs’s seven strategies for establishing ostensible invitations. Results showed that Saudi Arabic speakers utilize the seven strategies proposed by Clark and Isaacs for extending ostensible invitations, yet with relative weight. The most frequently used strategies by Saudi Arabic speakers to issue ostensible invitations in the collected exchanges were the absence of persistence, which was detected in (86%) of the exchanges, and the absence of motivating the invitee, which was used in (73%) of the collected ostensible invitations. Those were followed in order of frequency by vague arrangements (59%), implausibility (49%), inappropriate cues (19%), solicitation (14%), and hedging (5%). In addition to Clark and Isaacs’s proposed strategies, the study found that three more strategies are employed by Saudi Arabic speakers to highlight the ostensibility of their invitations which are: using intensifying and empty swearing devices (e.g., d̪ˁaroori, laazem, wallah, etc.) (27%), extending the invitation in the form of a question (5%), and asking someone else to extend the invitation on behalf of the inviter (5%), the last of which seems to be peculiar to Saudi Arabic speakers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.