Do Changes in Threat Salience Predict Moral Content of Sermons? The Case of Friday Khutbas in Turkey

Alper, Sinan; Bayrak, Fatih; Us, Elif Öykü; Yılmaz, Onurcan

doi:10.31234/osf.io/rpfv5

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a model in which there is extensive (daily) repeated measures on the same subjects, we opted not to use data smoothing or seasonal adjustments [ 72 ] because the time period of six months and limited number of subjects involved made seasonal adjustment potentially misleading. Similarly the exclusion of outliers would be likely to lose important data since it is normal for a small proportion of patients to account for the majority of incidents.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Prevention of violence due to severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals may require intrusive, restrictive and coercive therapeutic practices. Research concerning appropriate use of such interventions is limited by lack of a system for description and measurement. We set out to devise and validate a tool for clinicians and secure hospitals to assess necessity and proportionality between imminent violence and restrictive practices including de-escalation, seclusion, restraint, forced medication and others. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, 28 patients on a 12 bed male admissions unit in a secure psychiatric hospital were assessed daily for six months. Data on adverse incidents were collected from case notes, incident registers and legal registers. Using the functional assessment sequence of antecedents, behaviours and consequences (A, B, C) we devised and applied a multivariate framework of structured professional assessment tools, common adverse incidents and preventive clinical interventions to develop a tool to analyse clinical practice. We validated by testing assumptions regarding the use of restrictive and intrusive practices in the prevention of violence in hospital. We aimed to provide a system for measuring contextual and individual factors contributing to adverse events and to assess whether the measured seriousness of threating and violent behaviours is proportionate to the degree of restrictive interventions used. General Estimating Equations tested preliminary models of contexts, decisions and pathways to interventions. Results A system for measuring adverse behaviours and restrictive, intrusive interventions for prevention had good internal consistency. Interventions were proportionate to seriousness of harmful behaviours. A ‘Pareto’ group of patients (5/28) were responsible for the majority (80%) of adverse events, outcomes and interventions. The seriousness of the precipitating events correlated with the degree of restrictions utilised to safely manage or treat such behaviours. Conclusion Observational scales can be used for restrictive, intrusive or coercive practices in psychiatry even though these involve interrelated complex sequences of interactions. The DRILL tool has been validated to assess the necessity and demonstrate proportionality of restrictive practices. This tool will be of benefit to services when reviewing practices internally, for mandatory external reviewing bodies and for future clinical research paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals’ endorsement of moral foundations is not always fixed (Alper et al, 2019 ). Moral foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on contextual factors.…”

Section: Disease Threat and Endorsement Of Moral Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moral foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on contextual factors. Past studies indicate that situational cues such as abstract (vs. concrete) thinking (Napier & Luguri, 2013 ), or societal threats (Alper et al, 2019 ; Ekici, 2019 ; van de Vyver et al, 2016 ) can shape the endorsement of particular moral foundations. For example, van de Vyver et al ( 2016 ) report greater endorsement of the in-group loyalty foundation and lower endorsement of the fairness foundation following the July 7, 2005 London Bombings.…”

Section: Disease Threat and Endorsement Of Moral Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deciding between moral priorities and COVID-19 avoiding behaviors: A moral foundations vignette study

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel moral norms peculiar to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in tension between maintaining one’s preexisting moral priorities (e.g., loyalty to one’s family and human freedoms) and avoiding contraction of the COVID-19 disease and SARS COVID-2 virus. By drawing on moral foundations theory, the current study questioned how the COVID-19 pandemic (or health threat salience in general) affects moral decision making. With two consecutive pilot tests on three different samples ( n s ≈ 40), we prepared our own sets of moral foundation vignettes which were contextualized on three levels of health threats: the COVID-19 threat, the non-COVID-19 health threat, and no threat. We compared the wrongness ratings of those transgressions in the main study ( N = 396, M age = 22.47). The results showed that the acceptability of violations increased as the disease threat contextually increased, and the fairness, care, and purity foundations emerged as the most relevant moral concerns in the face of the disease threat. Additionally, participants’ general binding moral foundation scores consistently predicted their evaluations of binding morality vignettes independent of the degree of the health threat. However, as the disease threat increased in the scenarios, pre-existing individuating morality scores lost their predictive power for care violations but not for fairness violations. The current findings imply the importance of contextual factors in moral decision making. Accordingly, we conclude that people make implicit cost-benefit analysis in arriving at a moral decision in health threatening contexts. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-01941-y.

show abstract

Do Changes in Threat Salience Predict Moral Content of Sermons? The Case of Friday Khutbas in Turkey

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders)

A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders)

Deciding between moral priorities and COVID-19 avoiding behaviors: A moral foundations vignette study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About