ساخت، اعتباریابی، رواسازی و هنجاریابی مقیاس نگرش اخلاقی در میان نوجوانان
محورهای موضوعی : تکتونواستراتیگرافی
ارزو دلفان بیرانوند
1
(دانشجوی دکتری روانشناسی ترییتی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.)
خسرو رشید
2
(دانشیار، گروه روانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.)
کلید واژه: نگرش, نوجوانان, اخلاق, نگرش اخلاقی, رفتار اخلاقی,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: این پژوهش با هدف ساخت، اعتبار یابی، رواسازی و هنجاریابی مقیاس نگرش اخلاقی در میان نوجوانان انجام شد.
روش: پژوهش در دو مرحله انجام شد. در مرحله نخست (بخش کیفی)، ابتدا منابع و مبانی نظری موجود در زمینه نگرش و نگرش اخلاقی با روش تحلیل محتوا بررسی و مقوله بندی شدند. در مرحله دوم (بخش کمّی)، براساس کدگذاری و تدوین مضامین اطلاعات حاصل از بررسی منابع، یک مقیاس 36 گویه ای برای اندازه گیری 3 عامل شناسایی شده ی شناختی، عاطفی و رفتاری ساخته شد. در این مرحله روش پژوهش توصیفی از نوع همبستگی و جامعه آماری شامل کلیه نوجوانان شهر همدان در سال تحصیلی 1400-1401 بود. اندازه نمونه شامل تعداد 1093 نفر بودند که به شیوه نمونه گیری تصادفی خوشه ای چند مرحله ای انتخاب شدند و مقیاس پژوهشگرساخته را تکمیل کردند. برای بررسی روایی ابزار از روش های تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی، روایی محتوایی، و روایی همزمان و برای بررسی پایایی آن از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ سود برده شد.
یافته‌ها: نتایج تحلیل عامل اکتشافی، مؤلفه‌های شناختی، عاطفی، و رفتاری را به عنوان 3 عامل مقیاس نشان داد. ضریب پایایی ابزار با استفاده از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ برای کل مقیاس 94/0، و برای زیر مقیاس‌های شناختی، عاطفی، و رفتاری به ترتیب 83/0 ،90/0 ، 87/0 به دست آمد. اطلاعات هنجاری این مقیاس گزارش شده است.
نتیجه گیری: بر پایه یافته های پژوهش می توان گفت که مقیاس نگرش اخلاقی از روایی و پایایی مناسبی برخوردار است و می تواند در تمام سازمان ها به کار برده شود.
Introduction: This study was conducted with the aim of developing, validation, reliability, and normalization of moral attitude scale among adolescents.
Materials and Method: The study was carried out in two phases. In the first phase (qualitative part), the existing theoretical foundations of attitude and moral attitude were studied and categorized by the use of the content analysis method. In the second phase (the quantitative part), based on the findings of content analysis, a 36-items scale was developed to measure three identified factors called cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. The research method was descriptive-correlational, and the statistical population included all adolescents of Hamedan in the academic year of 2021-2022. The sample size included 1093 adolescents were randomly selected through multi-stage cluster sampling method, and they completed the researcher-made scale. To examine the validity of the scale, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, content validity method, and concurrent validity, and to investigate the reliability of the scale Cronbach alpha were used.
Results: The results of exploratory factor analysis extracted 3 factors named cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. The estimated Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the whole scale was 0.94, and for cognitive, emotional, and behavioral were 0.83, 0.90, and 0.87 respectively. Normative information of this scale is also reported.
Conclusion: According to the results moral attitude Scale has suitable validity and reliability, and can be used in various organization.
References
1. Bohner G, Wank M. Attitude and attitude change. Psychological Press.2002.
2. Briñol P, Petty RE, Stavraki M. Structure and Function of Attitudes. Social Psychology. 2019. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.320
3. Tezbasaran AA. Likert Type Scale Development Guide. Likert Tipi Olcek Gelistirme Kılavuzu.Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Dernegi. 1997.
4. Ranjbar M, Arani Gh, Jamshidi Rad M S. Villagers’ Religious Attitude Style towards Behavior Management about Water in Two Areas of Fars and Isfahan Provinces (Izadkhast & Ramshe). Environmental Education and Sustainable Development. 2016; 4(4), 17-32.
5. Hester N, Gray K. The Moral Psychology of Race less,
Genderless Strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020; 15(2): 216–230
6. Bairaktarova D, Woodcock A. Engineering Student’s Ethical Awareness and Behavior: A New Motivational Model. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017; 23(4), 1129–1157
7. Carvalho AS, Pereira SM, Jácomo A, et al. Ethical decision making in pain management: a conceptual framework. J Pain Res. 2018; 11:967.
8. Ayala F J. The difference of being human: Morality. PANS. 2010; 107 (2): 9015–9022 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914616107
9. Smith E R, Mackie D M. Social Psychology. Macmillan Education Australia; New Ed edition. 1995.
10. Sparks JR, Hunt SD. Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. J Mark. 1998; 62 (2):92–109.
11. Goolsby JR, Hunt SD. Cognitive moral development and marketing. J Mark. 1992; 56 (1):55–68.
12. Volkema RJ. Demographic, cultural, and economic predictors of perceived ethicality of negotiation behavior: a nine country analysis. J Bus Res. 2004, 57: 69–78.
13. Liu G, Niu X, Lin L. Gender moderates the effect of darkness on ethical behaviors: An explanation of disinhibition. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 130: 96-101. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.036.
14. Baker TL, Hunt TG, Andrews MC. Promoting Ethical Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Influence of Corporate Ethical Values. Journal of Business Research. 2006; 59, 489-857.
15. Piff PK, Stancato DM, Cote S, Mendoza- Denton R, Keltner D. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proce National Acad Sci. 2012; 109, 4086-4091.
16. Lupuleac ZL, Lupuleac S, Rusu C. Changing ethical Behavior in Times of Economic Crisis In organizations”. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2012; 3: 921-927.
17. Trevino LT, Weaver G, Reynolds S J. Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management. 2006; 32, 951–990.
18. Ellertson CF. Felt Moral Obligation: An Alternative Foundation for Moral Behavior, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brigham Young University. 2010.
19. Cheng C. The predictive effects of self-esteem, moral self, and moral reasoning on delinquent behaviors of Hong Kong young people. International Journal of
Criminology and Sociology. 2014; 3, 133-145.
20. Armstrong K. Fields of blood: Religion and the history of violence. Random House. 2015.
21. Best H. Environmental Concern and the Adoption of Organic Agriculture. Society & Natural Resources. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178206.
22. Cetin S. The attitude determination scale for value acquisition: a validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Practice. 2017; 8(12).
23. Azarbaijani M. Social psychology with an attitude to Islamic sources. Tehran, Samt Publications. 2003.
24. Ghiasizadeh M. The relationship between mental health and academic performance with the Growth of moral judgment of female students. Journal of Women and Culture. 2012; 3 (10), 122-111.
25. Mahdavi M S, Zarei A. Effective factors in adolescents' tendency towards moral values. Iranian Sociological Studies. 2011; 1(3): 21-2.
26. Kadivar P. Moral psychology. Tehran, Publications: Agah. 2011.
27. Allport D A. Phenomenal simultaneity and the perceptual moment hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology. 1968; 59(4), 395-406.
28. Leonard L N, Cronan TP. Attitude toward ethical behavior in computer use: A shifting model. Industrial Management+ Data Systems. 2005; 105(5): 1150-1171.https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570510633239.
29. Ellemers N, Pagliaro S, Barreto M. Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. European Review of Social Psychology. 2013; 24(1), 160-193.
30. Allphin C. An ethical attitude in the analytic relationship. Journal of Analytical Psychology. 2005; 50(4), 451-468.
31. Starc M. Ethics and the ethical attitude. Jung journal. 2017; 11(1), 47-52. doi: 10.1080/19342039.2017.1262683.
32. Olthuis G J. Who cares? An ethical study of the moral attitude of professionals in palliative care practice. Nijmegen: The Radboud University Nijmegen. 2007.
33. Gastmans C. Care as a moral attitude in nursing. Nursing ethics. 1999; 6(3), 214-223.
34. Solomon H M. Origins of the ethical attitude. Journal of Analytical Psychology. 2001; 46, 3, 443–54.
35. Erlandsson A. Individual Differences in Moral Attitudes: Disgust-Sensitivity Predicts Non-Consequentialistic Responses. Educational studies. 2012; 54 (133).
36. Bartels D M. Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition. 2008; 108(2), 381-417.
37. Thomson J J. The Trolley Problem. Yale Law Journal. 1985; 94(6), 1395-1415.
38. Jafari MT. Ethics and Religion, Qom, Publications: Shia. 1975.
39. Smith ER, Mackie D. M. Social Psychology. Macmillan Education Australia; New Ed edition. 1995.
40. Franke G R, Nadler SS. Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of business research. 2008; 61(3), 254-264.
41. Moosavi S, Borhani F, Mohsenpour M. Ethical attitudes of nursing students at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 2017; 2(1), 14-20.
42. Kantor J, Weisberg J. Ethical attitudes and ethical behavior: are
manager’s role models? International Journal of Manpower. 2002; 23 (8), 687 – 703.
43. Elder R, Price J, Williams G. Differences in ethical attitudes between registered nurses and medical students. Nursing Ethics. 2003; 10(2), 149-164.
44. Tayebi Abolhasani A, Khodabakhshi M, Azizian Khalkhooran Z. Factors Affecting Ethical Attitude toward Business (Case study: Female Students of Shahid Beheshti University). Journal of Applied Sociology. 2019; 30(70), 151-175.
45. Abdollahpour R, Pirani Z, Sarmadi MR, Seifi M. The effect of philosophy program for children (FABAK) on students' moral attitude and explanation of its components from the point of view of Qur'an. Research on issues of Islamic education. 2019; 27 (43), 113-143. http://ensani.ir/fa/article/410292.
46. Hasan Qalipour T, Dehghan Niri Mahmoud, Mir Mahdi S. Affecting Factors on Ethical Attitudes of Business Students. Ethics in Science and Technology. 2012; 6 (4):64-75
47. Green SB. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1991; 26, 499‐510.
48. Cohen BH. Explaining Psychological Statistics (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley Sons, Inc. 2001.
49. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. 1994.
50. Aquino K, Reed AII. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002, 83:1423–1440.
51. Azimpour A, Nisi AK, Shahni Yilagh M, Arshadi N, Bashlideh K. Validation of the "Importance for Moral Identity" scale of personality and individual differences. 2014; 2: 19-38.
52. Delfan Beiranvand A., Rashid Kh. Developing, validation, reliability and normalization of moral behavior scale among adolescents. Quarterly Journal of Transcendent Education. 2022, 2(3):110-127.
53. Preble JF, Reichel A. Attitudes towards Business Ethics of Future Managers. Journal of Business Ethics. 1988; 7 (12): 941-949.
54. Motamed-Jahromi M, Dehghani S. Students' Attitudes toward Principles of medical ethics and matching them with Islamic Ethics in Kerman University of Medical Sciences. JBUMS. 2014; 16 (7):29-35. URL: http://jbums.org/article-1-4826-fa.html.
55. Cetin S. The attitude determination scale for value acquisition: a validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Practice. 2017; 8(12).
