Meta-synthesis of factors that affect adults’ ethical decision making to identify the role creative morality plays in it
Subject Areas : Creativity and innovation from psychological, epistemological, educational and pedagogical
Mostafa Rastgar Agah
1
,
Jalil Younesi
2
*
,
Ali Delavar
3
,
Peyman Hassani Abharian
4
,
Ahmad Borjali
5
1 - assessment and evaluation department, faculty of psychology and educational sciences, AllamehTtabatabai' university, Tehran, Iran
2 - associate professor of assessment and evaluation at Allameh Tabatabaei University,Tehran, Iran
3 - Full professor of assessment and evaluation at Allameh Tabatabaei University,Tehran.Iran
4 - assistant professor at Institute for Cognitive Science Studies,Tehran,Iran
5 - Full professor of clinical psychology at Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: ethical dilemma, Ethical Judgment, Ethical Decision Making, Creative morality,
Abstract :
Objective: This study was conducted in order to identify the factors contributing to the ethical decision-making of adults, and to understand the role that creative morality plays in it. Method: To identify the factors affecting the moral decision-making of adults, a meta-synthesis of scientific researches in the field of ethical decision-making was performed. The articles used in this meta-synthesis were published in the 1990s in Iran. Actually, fifty-four articles were used in this meta-synthesis, all of which were published in scientific journals. Findings: The result of this meta-synthesis shows the following seven factors to be the main influences on adults’ ethical decision making: one’s external environment, attitude, personality traits, learning abilities, mental and cognitive capabilities, demographic characteristics, and the specific conditions/circumstances of the moral issue at hand. Conclusion: four of these factors, namely one’s environment, attitude, learning abilities, and the circumstances surrounding the moral issue signify the central role that creativity plays in moral decision making; through/using which a solution to various moral dilemmas could be found/through which a general scheme for solving ethical dilemmas can be devised.
منابع
جعفرلو، غلام.، شریفی، نسترن.، شریفی، حسنپاشا. (1398). ارائه مدلی جهت پیشبیتی خلاقیت بر اساس سخترویی، خودکارآمدی، کمالگرایی، تحصیلات والدین، سوابق کارهای خلاقانه، افراد خانواده و خویشاوندان نزدیک با میانجی انگیزش پیشرفت در دانشآموزان. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی، 9 (1). 153-184.
سپهوند، رضا.، عارفنژاد، محسن.، فتحی چگنی، فریبرز.، سپهوند، مهدیه. (1399). نقش میانجی سکوت سازمانی در رابطه بین طردشدگی در محل کار و خلاقیت کارکنان (مورد مطالعه: کارکنان دانشگاه لرستان). ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی، 10 (2). 209-240.
گولومبوک، سوزان.، فیوش، رابین. (1994). رشد جنسیت. ترجمه مهرناز شهرآرای (1377). تهران: ققنوس.
مکنیون، دان. (1993). اخلاق خلاق درآمدی بر اخلاق نظری و عملی. ترجمه ادیب فروتن (1395). تهران: ققنوس.
مهدوینور، سیدحاتم،. قربانی، محمدحسین،. ثمری، داود. (1398). زیرساختهای حقوقی و اخلاقی نظام نوآوری و خلاقیت. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی. 8 (4). 63-96.
Baggini, J., & Southwell, G. (2016). Philosophy: Key Themes. Springer.
Crain, W. (2015). Theories of development: Concepts and applications: Concepts and applications. Psychology Press.
Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 186-200.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.
Kleinman, P. (2013). Philosophy 101: From Plato and Socrates to ethics and metaphysics, an essential primer on the history of thought. Simon and Schuster.
Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: an original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 269.
Li, Q., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Moral creativity and creative morality. In The ethics of creativity (pp. 75-91). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Martin, M. W. (1993). Moral creativity. R&D Innovator, 10(2), 421-433.
Martin, M. W. (2006). Moral creativity in science and engineering. Science and engineering ethics, 12(3), 421-433.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pettigrove, & Glen. (2016). Virtue ethics (tanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue
Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2016). Cengage advantage ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Cengage Learning.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2018). The elements of moral philosophy (p. 9). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (2003). Creativity in the moral domain: Integration and implications. Creativity Research Journal, 15(1), 91-105.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Limited.
Sayre-McCord, & Geoff. (2007). Metaethics. Retrieved from https:// tanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/wi n2018/entries/metaethics/
Sinnott-Armstrong, & Walter. (2019). Consequentialism (tanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialis
Warburton, N. (1999). Philosophy: the basics. Psychology Press.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of management review, 27(1), 77-97.
Williams, S. G. (2012). The ethics of Internet research. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI), 16(2), 1-12.
_||_