نظریۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری در ایران: اعتباریابی نسخۀ فارسی پرسشنامۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه روانشناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران، تهران (نویسنده مسئول).

2 کارشناسی ارشد، روانشناسی عمومی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران، تهران.

چکیده

نظریۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری ارزش‌‌های اخلاقی را مشتمل بر هفت حوزه می‌‌داند که عبارت از خانواده، گروه، مقابله‌‌به‌‌مثل، قهرمان‌‌گرایی، تسلیم، انصاف و مالکیت هستند. نظر به اخیر بودن این نظریه و کم بودن داده‌‌های تجربی آزمون‌‌کنندۀ آن از کشورهای غیر از محل تولد آن، این مطالعه با هدف بررسی پایایی و روایی نسخۀ فارسی پرسشنامۀ مرتبط با این نظریه، یعنی پرسشنامۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری، در نمونه‌‌ای 552 نفره از ایرانیان انجام شد. به منظور ارزیابی روایی همگرا و واگرای این پرسشنامه، از مجموعه‌‌ای از مقیاس‌‌های بیرونی با موضوع ارزش‌‌ها استفاده شد. براساس یافته‌‌های تحلیل عاملی تأییدی، مدل هفت عاملی همبسته و نیز مدل دوعاملی سلسله‌‌مراتبی فردگرایانه-پیوندگرایانه از برازش خوبی برخوردار بودند، بخصوص به طور مجزا برای بخش‌‌های ارتباط و قضاوت پرسشنامه. ضرایب آلفای کرونباخ در خرده‌‌مقیاس‌‌های بخش ارتباط پرسشنامه بالاتر از بخش قضاوت آن بود. اکثر خرده‌‌مقیاس‌‌های پرسشنامه، بخصوص در بخش قضاوت، به طور معنادار و قوی‌‌ترین با مقیاس‌‌های بیرونی مرتبط با خودشان همبستگی داشتند که بیانگر روایی همگرای مطلوب این پرسشنامه است. به علاوه، پرسشنامۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری، بخصوص بخش قضاوت آن، اکثر مقیاس‌‌های بیرونی مرتبط را ورای پرسشنامۀ بنیادهای اخلاقی پیش‌‌بینی نمود که بیانگر روایی پیش‌‌بین و افزایشی مطلوب این پرسشنامه است. مقالۀ حاضر با مشخص نمودن خرده‌‌مقیاس‌‌های پرسشنامۀ اخلاق به مثابه همکاری که بیشترین نیاز را به بهبود همسانی درونی یا اصلاح محتوا دارند و نیز ارائۀ پیشنهادهایی در این راستا به پایان می‌‌رسد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Morality-as-Cooperation Theory in Iran: Validation of the Persian Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pegah Nejat 1
  • Mahsa Hazrati 2
1 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).
2 Master of General Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Moral psychologists have long sought to formulate moral values and assess individuals’ and groups’ moral profiles. To this end, following criticisms to the Moral Foundations Theory and its questionnaire (Graham et al., 2011, 2013), Curry (2016) proposed Morality-as-Cooperation (MAC) Theory based on biological evolution and by centralizing cooperation in defining morality. This theory views moral values in terms of seven distinct domains, i.e., Family, Group, Reciprocity, Heroism, Deference, Fairness, and Property. The corresponding scale is Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire (MAC-Q; Curry et al., 2019) which is composed of separate sections, namely, Relevance and Judgement. Given the recency of this theory and the paucity of empirical data putting it to the test from countries other than its birthplace, this study aimed to examine reliability (internal consistency) and validity (convergent, divergent, predictive, and incremental) of the Persian version of MAC-Q among Iranians.
Method: The final sample consisted of 552 Iranians above 18 years of age (58.9% female, mean age 31.03, SD = 10.24 years) for the initial MAC-Q structural analyses, and 370 Iranians (51.6% female, mean age 32.65, SD = 10.33 years) for the analyses aimed at convergent, divergent, and predictive validity. Materials included the Persian translation
of 42-item MAC-Q (Curry et al., 2019) and the MFQ-20 (Graham et al., 2011; Nejat & Hatami, 2019), along with a set of external scales relating to the moral values represented in the MAC Theory. Among these scales were Schwartz’s Basic Values Scale, Family Values Scale, Virtues in Action Scale, and Social Dominance Orientation scale. The scales were made available online to respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis, correlation, and hierarchical regression analysis were used for data analysis.
Findings: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Relevance section were higher than .70 except Fairness (.66). For Judgement, Heroism, Fairness, and Property had low internal consistency (below .60) while alphas for the rest of domains were higher than .60. In general, alpha coefficient were higher for the Relevance than the Judgement section. The correlated seven-factor and the hierarchical individualizing-binding two-factor model had good fit in confirmatory factor analysis, especially separately for Relevance and Judgement sections. The majority of MAC-Q subscales, particularly those of Judgement, were significantly and most strongly correlated with their corresponding external scales, suggesting a satisfactory convergent validity for the questionnaire. MAC-Q, especially the Judgement section of it, predicted the majority of the value-related external scales above and beyond Moral Foundations Questionnaire, a finding which indicates good predictive and incremental validity of the Persian MAC-Q.
Discussion: The internal consistency of Judgement Property was similar to Yilmaz et al. (2021) but lower than Curry et al. (2019), while that of Judgement Fairness and Heroism tended to be lower than both. Findings supported the distinctiveness of the MAC theory’s seven moral values among Iranians. Second, similar to prior findings on moral foundations, these seven moral concerns were found to be categorized under two broader individualizing (Fairness, Property, and Reciprocity) and binding (Group, Family, and Heroism) categories. The present study replicated former findings regarding better model fit in separate sections of the questionnaire than the whole of it, with slightly better fit for the Relevance than the Judgement section. However, the Judgement section fared better
than Relevance in convergent and incremental validity. Therefore, while echoing the recommendation to use Relevance and Judgement sections separately, similar to Curry et al., one section could not be strictly preferred to the other in the Persian scale.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • moral psychology
  • Morality-as-Cooperation Theory
  • MAC-Q
  • validation
  • Persian

مراجع

Aghababaei, N., Talaei Pashiri, A.; Kwantes, C. T. (2017). Investigating the relations among personality characteristics, moral foundations, and work ethics in Iranian and Canadian students. Cultural Psychology, 1(2), 1-22. [in Persian] https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.25887211.1396.1.2.1.0
Alfano, M.; Cheong, M., Curry, O. (2022). Moral Universals: A Machine-Reading Analysis of 256 Societies. Heliyon, 10(6), e25940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25940
Atari, M.; Haidt, J. (2023). Ownership is (likely to be) a Moral Foundation. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2300119X
Atari, M.; Haidt, J.; Graham, J.; Koleva, S.; Stevens, S. T.; Dehghani, M. (2023). Morality Beyond the WEIRD: How the Nomological Network of Morality Varies across Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1157–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470
Boggio, P. S.; Nezlek, J. B.; Alfano, M.; Azevedo, F.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; … & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024). A Time for Moral Actions: Moral Identity, Morality-as-Cooperation and Moral Circles Predict Support of Collective Action to Fight the COVID-19 Pandemic in an International Sample. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(1), 178-195.         
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231153800
Boyer, P. (2023). Ownership Psychology as a Cognitive Adaptation: A Minimalist Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002527
Byrne, B. M.; Van de Vijver, F. J. (2014). Factorial Structure of the Family Values Scale from a Multilevel-Multicultural Perspective. International Journal of Testing, 14(2), 168-192.        
https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2013.870903
Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centered Approach. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.). The evolution of morality (pp. 27–51). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2
Curry, O. S.; Chesters, M. J.; Van Lissa, C. J. (2019a). Mapping Morality with a Compass: Testing the Theory of ‘Morality-as-Cooperation’ with a New Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 106-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008
Curry, O. S.; Mullins, D. A.; Whitehouse, H. (2019b). Is it Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69.      
https://doi.org/10.1086/701478
Dogruyol, B.; Velioglu, İ.; Bayrak, F.; Acem, E.; Isler, O.; Yilmaz, O. (2024). Validation of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 in the Turkish Context: Exploring its Relationship with Moral Behavior. Current Psychology, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06097-z
Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S. P.; Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 55-130. Academic Press.           
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
Graham, J.; Nosek, B. A.; Haidt, J.; Iyer, R.; Koleva, S.; Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
Gul, P.; Schuster, I. (2020). Judgments of Marital Rape as a Function of Honor Culture, Masculine Reputation Threat, and Observer Gender: A Cross‐Cultural Comparison between Turkey, Germany, and the UK. Aggressive Behavior, 46(4), 341-353. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21893
Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.             
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1126/science.1137651
Haidt, J.; Graham, J. (2007). When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals May not Recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.           
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Hazrati, M.; Nejat, P. (2024, February). Morality and immigration: Morality-as-Cooperation as predictor
of attitude and tendency towards immigration [Research spotlight]. The SPSP 2024 Annual Convention, San Diego, USA.
Ho, A. K.; Sidanius, J.; Kteily, N.; Sheehy-Skeffington, J.; Pratto, F.; Henkel, K. E.; Foels, R.; Stewart, A. L. (2015). The Nature of Social Dominance Orientation: Theorizing and Measuring Preferences for Intergroup Inequality Using the New SDO7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Iurino, K.; Saucier, G. (2020). Testing Measurement Invariance of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire across 27 Countries. Assessment, 27(2), 365-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118817916
Iyer, R.; Koleva, S.; Graham, J.; Ditto, P.; Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42366-e42366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Janoff-Bulman, R.; Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the Moral Landscape: Moral Motives and Group-Based Moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313480274
Khanipur, H; Pourali M.; Attar, M. (2020). The Relationship among the Sense of Power, the Sense of Status and Status Seeking Styles with Self-beneficial and Other-beneficial Unethical Decision-Making. Cognitive Psychology Journal, 8(3), 38-51. [in Persian]               
https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23455780.1399.8.3.5.4
Milesi, P.; Süssenbach, P.; Bohner, G.; Megías, J. L. (2020). The Interplay of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression and Moral Foundations in the Blaming of Rape Victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2622
Miraghaie, A. M.; Pouretemad, H.; Villa, A. E. P.; Mazaheri, M. A.; Khosrowabadi, R.; Lintas, A. (2022). Electrophysiological Markers of Fairness and Selfishness Revealed by a Combination of Dictator and Ultimatum Games. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 16:765720.          
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.765720
Nejat, P.; Bagherian, F.; Hatami, J. (2020). Do Perceptions of Warmth and Competence Explain Moral Norms Regarding Different Social Roles? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20(1),
613-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12217
Nejat, P.; Heirani-Tabas, A. (2024). Disease, Death, Morality, and Politics: Pathogen Prevalence, Terror Management, and Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2024.2402296
Nejat, P.; Heirani-Tabas, A.; Nazarpour, M. M. (2023). Moral Foundations are Better Predictors of Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories than the Big Five Personality Traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1201695
Nejat, P.; Bagherian, F.; Hatami, J.; Shokri, O. (2015). Examining Social-Cognitive Characteristics of the Mental Representation of Moral Concerns: Grouping, Motivational Orientation and Relational Context of Moral Foundations. Social Cognition, 4(1), 109-126. [in Persian]             
https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23223782.1394.4.1.8.1
Nejat, P.; Bagherian, F.; Shokri, O.; Hatami, J. (2016). The Pattern of Reliance on Moral Foundations Within Mental Representations of Ideal Society, and Moral and Immoral Behaviors in an Iranian Sample. Advances in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (3), 27-39. [in Persian] http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-502-fa.html
Nejat, P.; Hatami, J. (2019). Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Moral Foundations Questionnaire in Three Iranian Samples. Bi-quarterly Journal of Social Cognition, 8(1), 107-124. [in Persian]. https://doi.org/10.30473/sc.2019.40617.2204
Nilsson, A.; Erlandsson, A. (2015). The Moral Foundations Taxonomy: Structural Validity and Relation to Political Ideology in Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 28-32.              
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.049
Piaget, J. (1965). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: The Free Press. (Original work published 1932).
Peterson, C.; Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-0624
Schein, C.; Gray, K. (2018). The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25, pp. 1-65. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Turner, S. (2025). Shaping Morality: Psychological Predictors of Morality as Cooperation. Doctoral dissertation, University of East London. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8y89x
van Leeuwen, F.; Van Lissa, C. J.; Papakonstantinou, T.; Petersen, M. B.; Curry, O. S. (2024). Morality as Cooperation, Politics as Conflict. Social Psychological Bulletin, 19, 1-22.               
https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.10157
Vissers, G. W. J.; Vranjes, I. (2021). Do We Understand Morality? Testing the Morality-as-Cooperation Framework. (Publication No. U1267216), University of Tilburg.
Yalçındağ, B.; Özkan, T.; Cesur, S.; Yilmaz, O.; Tepe, B.; Piyale, Z. E.; ... & Sunar, D. (2019). An Investigation of Moral Foundations Theory in Turkey Using Different Measures. Current Psychology, 38, 440-457. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12144-017-9618-4
Yilmaz, O.; Harma, M.; Doğruyol, B. (2021). Validation of Morality as Cooperation Questionnaire in Turkey, and its Telation to Prosociality, Ideology, and Resource Scarcity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(2), 149-160. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1015-5759/a000627
Ziaei, M., Pouretemad, H. R.; Togha, M. (2010). Moral Judgments among Patients with Right Prefrontal Cortex Lesion. Advances in Cognitive Sciences, 12(3), 1-8. [in Persian]              
http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-118-fa.html
دوفصلنامه مطالعات میان رشته ای اخلاق
دوره 1، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 1
فروردین 1404
صفحه 113-144

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 18 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 04 مرداد 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 12 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 02 مهر 1404
  • تاریخ انتشار: 01 آذر 1404

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار