Morality Website Collaboration

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Ravi (Talk | contribs)
(Defining Question Format)
Ravi (Talk | contribs)
m (Reverted edits by Alifulebiv (talk) to last revision by Jhaidt)
 
(68 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
This is a page where we can collaboratively come up with ideas for a consumer oriented morality website....
+
This is the planning wiki for www.YourMorals.org
-
== Domain name ==
 
-
YourMorals.org (with yourmorals.com redirecting to that site)...
 
-
== Marketing ideas (Getting Traffic) ==
+
== CURRENT SITE CHANGES ==
-
* I think it will be easy to direct traffic to our site. I do a few radio and magazine interviews every month, and can just mention the site once its up. And my happiness hypothesis page gets 60 unique visitors a day, from all over the world. I can put a link on the front page, we should get a few a day from that. And if the site is rewarding, it will spread by word of mouth.--Jon
 
-
* Adwords Campaign?
 
 +
===RAVI'S List ===
 +
* Save 1st time they do survey as special case
 +
* save timing after IRB page
 +
* one single IRB page
 +
===Other Stuff ===
 +
RWA:
 +
* give a link to learn more info
 +
* give more history of the scale; soften the blow to cons
 +
OTHER TOP PRIORITY CHANGES TO MAKE
 +
* change text on intro page (see jon's suggestions)
 +
* MIKE Change “Your score” to “Your score (in blue)” on ALL feedback pages
 +
* [later] Put Pete’s scenario study back up in the “main studies” box on the explore page.
 +
* change date taken to “date you took”
 +
=== Scales in progress ===
 +
* Political issues/moral mandate scale (Koleva & Ditto, in prep; Mullen & Skitka, 2002)
 +
- feedback [Sena/Pete will do]
 +
* Deontology-Utilitarianism scale (Gilovich & Frank, in prep.)
 +
- feedback [Pete will do]
 +
* Locus of control scale (Rotter, 1966) [done]
 +
- feedback [Jon will do]
 +
* Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979) [done]
 +
- feedback [Jesse will do]
 +
* Personal Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1999) [done]
 +
- feedback [Jesse will do]
 +
* Moral Principle Scenarios (Pizarro, Uhlmann, Tannenbaum, & Ditto, under review)
 +
- feedback [Pete will do]
 +
* Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, 2005) [Taryn has draft done]
 +
- feedback [Pete will do]
 +
* Immigration article questionnaire (Iyer, in prep)
 +
- No need to do this right now...Ravi will add to retired or old eventually if he needs more data
 +
* Core Beliefs and Values (Feldman, 1988)
 +
- Ravi will add.
 +
* Questions about Justice (Haidt, for study with John Darley)
 +
* The Threat Index (Epting & Neimeyer, 1984)
 +
- Ravi will add.
 +
* Moral Dilemmas (Greene et al., 2001) josh greene scenarios
 +
- which ones should we do?  Ravi may add trolley personal/impersonal as a start/template...maybe child smothering one too....would be interesting if we include study timings.
 +
== SCALES WE MIGHT POST ==
 +
on 8/17, AFter the 3rd modifcation approved by UVA in July WE  HAVE:
 +
===FEATURED STUDIES===
 +
* MFQ (the MFQ-41, with 30 tested items, 10 alternate items, and 1 catch item).
 +
* Ethics Position Questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980)
 +
* Big Five Personality Inventory (John et al., 1991)
 +
* Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980)
 +
* Right-Wing Authoritarianism - Revised (Zakrisson, 2005)
 +
* Good-Self Scale (Arnold, 1993)
-
== Content - Questions to add somewhere==
+
=== OTHER STUDIES POSTED===
 +
* Moral Identity Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002)
 +
* Psychopathy scale (Levenson, 1995)
 +
* The Disgust Scale - Revised (Haidt, McCauley & Rozin, 1994; Olatunji et al., in press)
 +
* Schwartz values scale (56 items)
-
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WE MIGHT ASK:
+
=== RETIRED STUDIES ===
 +
* Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001)
 +
* Entity/Incremental scale (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995)
-
<br>
+
=== ADDITIONAL SCALES READY TO GO, FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE ===
-
*When we ask about specific policies and issues we might want to add Skitka's questions about moral mandates: "My attitude about abortion [gay marriage, immigration restrictions, etc.] is closely related to my core moral values and convictions.” [Sena]
+
 +
=== ADDITIONAL STUDIES UP BUT NOT FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE: ===
 +
* Moral Scenarios #1(Pizarro, Uhlmann, Tannenbaum, & Ditto; morality conflicts with law)
 +
* Modern and Traditional Justice (Haidt, for study with John Darley)
 +
* Political candidates survey (Sena)
 +
* Political attitudes questionnaire (sena)
 +
* Feelings about social groups (Feeling thermometer, used by ANES)
-
We MIGHT also collect
+
=== OTHER SCALES/STUDIES APPROVED BY IRB BUT NOT YET PUT UP ON MIRROR ===
 +
* FROM FIRST UVA MODIFICATION:
 +
* Deontology-Utilitarianism scale (Gilovich & Frank, in prep.)
 +
* Locus of control scale (Rotter, 1966)
 +
* Personal Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1999)
 +
* Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979)
 +
* Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, 2005)
-
* What are the first 3 words that occur to you when you think of political conservatives?___
+
* FROM SECOND UVA MODIFCATION:
-
* What are the first 3 words that occur to you when you think of political liberals___
+
* Immigration article questionnaire (Iyer, in prep)
 +
* Core Beliefs and Values (Feldman, 1988)
 +
* The Threat Index (Epting & Neimeyer, 1984)
 +
* Moral Dilemmas (Greene et al., 2001) josh greene scenarios
-
<br>
+
* FROM THIRD UVA MODIFCATION:
-
*Issues/Policies attitudes:
+
* Activities preference questionnaire (Haidt & Graham, new) [MIKE]
-
*Please indicate the extent to which you support each of the following policies/issues by checking the appropriate option. 1 - strongly oppose  to  7 -strongly support  - I'm adding more policies/issues that I took from a recent Jost et al. study. [Sena]
+
* Sacredness and Moral Foundations Survey (Graham & Haidt, new)[MIKE]
 +
* Need for Cognition scale (Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983). [MIKE]
 +
* Need for Closure scale (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)[MIKE]
 +
* Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener, 1985)[MIKE]
-
*Increased funding of the military                       
+
* Epstein REI (Pacini & Epstein, 1999).
-
*Abortion                     
+
* Self-Righteousness Scale (Lee, 1970).
-
*Stem cell research                     
+
* Religious Commitment Inventory (Worthington, Wade, Ripley et al., 2003, JPSP)
-
*Spending to improve education                     
+
* Experiences in close relationships scale (Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000)
-
*Spending for the poor                     
+
* Uncertainty Avoidance measure, (Sorrentino, Short, and Raynor, 1984).
-
*Spending to improve/protect the environment                     
+
* “All of humanity is my ingroup” scale (McFarland, in prep.)
-
*Capital punishment                     
+
* Heartland Forgiveness Scale, (Thompson, Snyder, Hoffman et al, 2005)
-
*Same-sex marriage (I think "same sex" might be a less threatening way to put it than "gay" for some people)
+
* Preference for the Merit Principle Scale. (Davey, Bobocel, San Hing, Zanna (1999).
 +
* Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz 2004)
 +
* Responsiveness to beauty and excellence scale (Seder & Haidt, new)
 +
* Self-construal scale (Singelis, 1994)
-
*Affirmative Action policies
+
=== FUTURE SCALES/STUDIES, NOT YET APPROVED ===
-
*Stricter sentencing for drug offenders
+
* Epstein rational/intuitive styles
-
*Tighter immigration restrictions
+
* Need for Cognition>
-
*Government-sponsored national health care
+
* Need for Cognitive Closure?
-
*Maintaining tax breaks for large corporations
+
* More traditional Kohlbergian moral reasoning questionnaires (maybe use as DV for Pete's MMR scenarios)
-
*Protecting large budgets for police departments
+
* more dilemmas involving ingroup, authority and purity
 +
* moral dumbfounding scenarios? how to quantify dumbfounding as an online DV? would be interesting to show political differences in dumbfounding
 +
=== SCALES THAT WILL BE ON IDEOLOGY 1.0 (2-YEAR DATA COLLECTION ON PROJECT IMPLICIT - GET DATA FROM JESSE AND BRIAN) ===
 +
1.Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1989)
-
== OTHER SCALES WE MIGHT ADD ==
+
2.Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)
-
Please add any scales/questions that you would like to add here...I'm not familiar with what legal issues there are in using certain scales...
+
-
* 5 Foundation Scale (revised, shortened 30-item version. We put additional items at the end of each section, to test out new items and explore the possible existence of other foundations, such as autonomy)
+
3.Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996; Zakrisson, 2006)
-
* Schwartz values scale
+
-
* Entity/Incremental scale (speaks to the issue of whether people believe that others have fixed character or whether their character changes based on environment)
+
-
* Psychopathy scale (Does psychopathy and the inability to feel the moral emotions correlate with lower values the 5F scales?)
+
-
* More traditional Kohlbergian moral reasoning questionnaires
+
-
* The Disgust Scale - Revised (25 items)
+
-
* I think moral dilemmas are really engaging for people, and might help draw people into the site.  There are of course the trolley & footbridge problems and Jon's classic ones (sex with a chicken).  I also have a series of scenarios that were developed by Tom Gilovich and Bob Frank at Cornell that are designed as a scale of a propensity toward consequentialist vs. deontological thought.  These kinds of scales can be more than fun diversions of course.  I use dilemmas that then manipulate certain aspects of them to examine how motivations affect moral judgments.  They can be stuck into a series of other scenarios to provide cover.  The other scenarios can also serve as baseline measures (e.g., of a tendency toward consequentialism) or as other dvs.  That is, one of tools we are using now to examine the motivated recruitment of moral principles is to look at "carry-over" effects.  If we induce people to rely a certain kind of principle to support a desired judgment, their reliance on the principle "carries over" to other judgments (e.g., if we induce people to get more consequentialist on one judgment, they are more consequentialist on subsequent judgments as well.  Bottom line -- I think scenarios (in addition to scales) are fun and terribly useful -- Pete
+
-
== Other Ideas ==
+
4.Bayesian Racism (Uhlmann & Banaji, 2002, updated 2006)
-
We don't have to have just simple surveys....we could do some experiments as well and see how 5F and other moral measures correlate with other experiments.  Personally, I'm interested in seeing how they correlate with intergroup and political attitude change.
+
5.Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto & Sidanius, 1994)
-
[jon]Absolutely! Jesse and I are interested in whether political persuasion (support for policies and candidates) can be increased by matching foundations used in an appeal to the foundations endorsed by the listener. We definitely want the ability to do experiments. Perhaps we should have a list of scales, from which we rarely or never remove anything, so that people can always come back and see their scores, and can have the sense that they have completed all the scales. But we also have a page of experiments where we give them a debriefing right after, but otherwise don't tell them their specific results.
+
6.Protestant Work Ethic (Mirels and Garrett, 1971)
-
== Legal details, etc. ==
+
7.Kay/Jost system-justification scale
-
Just to avoid any possible future hassles, we may want to think about who 'owns' or gets to publish whatever data we collect. Is the site open to all morality researchers to collect data?  Perhaps Project Implicit provides a good model for these potentially sticky issues?
+
8.Jost/Thompson economic system justification
-
[jon]For the first year or two, i think it should just be a collaboration among the 5 of us. It will be hard enough to manage, and to get enough traffic to satisfy all our research fantasies. We also don't have a grant, as project implicit does. Perhaps in the future we could look into doing that. And perhaps we could "vote" to admit a few new members into our collaboration. But unless we have a full time programmer and administrator, I think we should just keep it simple.
+
9.Moral Foundations Questionnaire
-
[Jon] As for authorship: I think our general spirit should be (and is likely to be) cooperative without being fully communal. That is, I don't think we should assume that every study run here is a joint venture that all 5 of us would be authors on. But on the other hand, to the extent that any of us make more of a contribution than just offering advice at the early stage, that person would become a co-author. If Ravi is doing most of the work to help us all collect data, then Ravi might be in a position to deserve authorship credit more often, especially for our early projects. I want to be sure that everyone benefits from this collaboration, especially the grad students who have more of a rush need to get authorships. I think what's likely to happen is that we'll each put up a few studies more or less separately, and then find that it makes sense to write a manuscript that combines multiple studies. Or Pete or I will be invited to write a theory paper or review paper, for which it makes sense for us all to work together. So I expect that we'll see many joint-authored projects. But each of us should feel free to put up a simple questionnaire or study without feeling that doing so automatically invites co-authors. What do y'all think?
+
10.Duckitt’s perceptions of a dangerous world scale
-
Jon has it exactly right here I think. I don't think we have to assume that everyone is part of everything that goes on on the site.  Like any other research endeavor, it should depend on whether people contribute to projects, intellectually and/or logistically.  In this sense I also think that Ravi might end up on more things than others, given his crucial technological role.  I don't suspect any of this will be a problem with this group -- and ideally, of course, this kind of joint site will promote a lot of discussion and collaboration.  We will have to figure out a way to pick and choose what is up on the site -- as I suspect it only makes sense to have a small number of project front and center at any one time.  I don't have a good sense for how a website for this works -- how much can be up and available at once to maximize efficient data collection -- but we will have to sort this out -- Pete
+
11.Two separate items for economic and social liberal-conservative
-
Sounds good =) [Sena]
+
12.Multi-item questionnaire with econ/social issues
 +
 
 +
13.Jost’s acceptance of change and inequality scales
 +
 
 +
14.Disgust Scale - Revised (Olatunji & Haidt, in press)
 +
 
 +
=== Studies pending on USC IRB ===
 +
 
 +
* Justice/Fairness scales (see [[Conceptions of Justice/Fairness Scale]] page here.
 +
* support for All of Humanity is My Ingroup Scale from political psych conference
 +
* Connectedness to Nature scale
 +
* Social Projection Ingroup/Outgroup Threat experiment
 +
* Healthcare moral argument
 +
* Drug War/Legalization moral argument
 +
 
 +
== STUDIES TO DO ==
 +
 
 +
POLITICS STUDIES
 +
* pete's idea:  I think that very soon we should get a page up that asks people to express their feelings about the presidential candidates.  This is something that could be interesting both to scientific audiences and the popular media (how endorsement of the foundations relates to candidate preferences).
 +
* do an open-ended study asking participants to define morality for themselves. [but we should NOT do this on yourmorals, because most will have already taken the MFQ]
 +
* Add a followup link to the MFQ feedback page, inviting Ps to tell us what we left out, what the 5F does not pick up
 +
* Research strategy: let's test conservative and liberal folk theories about the other side. Rather than just testing whether conservatives are high on SDO, we can test the Cons folk idea that libs are low on personal responsibility or that liberals are moral relativists [ravi's idea]
 +
* PETE -- The political stereotypes study is something I think would be great to run -- ideas for stimuls materials are on a google doc that Jon created.  The basic notion is to have democrats and republican rate the typical dem and rep on a series of personality traits.  Some traits will be Fiske warmth-competence traits, others will be related to 5 foundations.  Need more ideas for 5F traits and it is ready to go.
 +
 +
MORAL JUDGMENT EXPERIMENTS
 +
* Pete will come up with the first one
 +
* Jesse wants to compare libs and cons on trolley type dilemmas, to see 1. if there's any relation between politics and likelihood to choose the deont. or consequentialist choice; 2. if liberals would be more likely than cons to change their answers when equality of outcomes is pointed out; 3. if we can replicate our 5 foundations patterns by creating personal/impersonal dilemmas for the other 4 foundations (Greene's are all about harm)
 +
* Jesse (with Jon, Brian and Nicole Lindner) wants to find out what is sacred to libs and cons by presenting Tetlock-type "how much would you need to be paid to do this" items for each of the five foundations; hypothesis is that sacredness for liberals is concentrated in H and F, so that violations of these take on a blasphemous quality not seen by conservatives (possibly related to Ditto and Pizzaro's study on shouting racial epithets in the forest)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
MORALITY INTERVENTIONS
 +
* Jon wants to try studies to make people less moralistic, perhaps the morality log study being tested by Selin
 +
* Ravi wants to convince people that evil is a myth, that "hypermoralism" is dangerous (ie. Loyalty>Fairness/Harm = War/Genocide?)...and make moral arguments for progressive causes that are effective.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
PERSUASION EXPERIMENTS
 +
* Jesse and jon are interested in whether political persuasion (support for policies and candidates) can be increased by matching foundations used in an appeal to the foundations endorsed by the listener.
 +
 
 +
== MISC IDEAS ==
 +
* '''lets solicit ideas for additional foundations''', and critiques of the theory, on the MF webpage, http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mf.html
 +
 
 +
*OUr goal should be to challenge liberals (including us) to generate MFQ items that would show that liberals have additional moral foundations that conservatives lack, or that they have IAP if you ask the questions right. Candidate questions on which liberals might show more breadth (and then we can see if these items end up just correlating with H and F):
 +
 
 +
* INGROUP
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* AUTHORITY
 +
* There is no higher authority than mother nature. [this probably won't correlate with other authority questions]
 +
 
 +
* PURITY
 +
* I think smoking cigarettes is a desecration of one's body
 +
 
 +
* ANTI-AUTHORITY [it might be that libs build on authority as a vice]
 +
* I generally distrust anyone in a position of authority
 +
* I think my country would be a better place if poor people were more rebellious
 +
 
 +
* DIVERSITY [it might be that libs build on ingroup as a vice]
 +
* I think that all schools, offices, and sports teams should be ethnically and racially diverse
== How to submit a scale to the site? ==
== How to submit a scale to the site? ==
Line 154: Line 275:
<?
<?
-
Your INSTRUCTIONS TEXT should be in html if possible.  You can use frontpage, dreamweaver or even microsoft word and cut/paste the relevant parts in if you want.  Or you can write text and then replace all carriage returns with <br> and add "&nbsp;" wherever you want to add a space.  Enclose anything you want bold in <b> and end it with </b>.  I'm happy to clean this up for you or help you with it.
+
Your INSTRUCTIONS TEXT should be in html if possible.  You can use frontpage, dreamweaver or even microsoft word and cut/paste the relevant parts in if you want.  Or you can write text and then replace all carriage returns with &lt;br&gt; and add "&amp;nbsp;" wherever you want to add a space.  Enclose anything you want bold in &lt;b&gt; and end it with &lt;/b&gt;.  I'm happy to clean this up for you or help you with it.
=== Display Questions ===
=== Display Questions ===
Line 172: Line 293:
Replace BUTTON TEXT with whatever you want your submit button to say.  For example, maybe you want it to say "See your results" and have your page go to the feedback page.  Or "Continue" if your page goes to another part of the study.
Replace BUTTON TEXT with whatever you want your submit button to say.  For example, maybe you want it to say "See your results" and have your page go to the feedback page.  Or "Continue" if your page goes to another part of the study.
 +
 +
 +
=== The Feedback Page ===
 +
 +
The feedback page is basically a bunch of HTML/text which describes your survey.  As noted above, it is named "_process.php" and begins with this tag...
 +
 +
<?
 +
include "feedbacktop.php";
 +
?>
 +
 +
After that, it can have almost any form as you can write whatever feedback you wish...However, you'll likely want to give them some visual feedback on their score and want to intersperse graphs with your text.  Add graphs using these tags...
 +
 +
<?
 +
 +
$labels = array("Harm", "Fairness", "Loyalty", "Authority", "Purity");
 +
 +
$vars[0] = array(2, 3, 4,5,22,23,24,25);
 +
 +
$vars[1] = array(6, 7, 8,9,R26,27,28,29);
 +
 +
$vars[2] = array(10, 11, 12,13,30,31,32,33);
 +
 +
$vars[3] = array(14, 15, 16,17,34,35,36,R37);
 +
 +
$vars[4] = array(18, 19, 20,21,38,39,40,41);
 +
 +
showgraph("self", "Graph Title", "Labels Title", $labels, $vars);
 +
 +
?>
 +
 +
*The Labels line defines the labels for each bar on the graph.
 +
*The numbers in each of the "vars" lines corresponds to the questions which contribute to that bar length.  The user will be given a bar length equal to the average of their scores.  An R before a number indicates reverse scoring.
 +
* The showgraph line has a few things that one will want to change.  You can change "self" to "others" if you want to show bars for others on the site.  Eventually, I'll add a type of graph that combines self and others.
 +
* Replace "Graph Title" with whatever title you want for the graph.
 +
* Replace "Labels Title" with whatever you want to call each of the bar labels (ie. Foundations for the 5 foundations scale).
 +
 +
You may want to link to the more information or a paper on the scale.
 +
 +
After you finish with your feedback, add this tag...
 +
 +
<?
 +
include "feedbackfooter.php";
 +
?>
 +
 +
 +
=== Complete Example ===
 +
 +
<pre>
 +
<?
 +
include "studytop.php";
 +
?>
 +
<form action="entitym.php" method=post>
 +
<?
 +
$scalename = 'entitym';
 +
$scaletype = '6pt';
 +
$scalebegin = 'Strongly Agree';
 +
$scaleend = 'Strongly Disagree';
 +
 +
addtoquestions('A person’s moral character is something very basic about them, and it can’t be changed much.');
 +
addtoquestions('Whether a person is responsible or sincere or not is deeply ingrained in their personality. It cannot be changed very much.');
 +
addtoquestions('There is not much that can be done to change a person’s moral traits (e.g., conscientiousness, uprightness, and honesty)');
 +
 +
?>
 +
Please use the scale below to indicate the degree to which each statement describes your thoughts and feelings.
 +
 +
<br><table border=0><tr><td> [1] </td><td> [2]</td><td> [3]</td><td> [4]</td><td> [5]</td><td> [6]</td></tr>
 +
    <tr><td>  Strongly </td><td>    Moderately </td><td>        Slightly</td><td>         Slightly</td><td>     Moderately </td><td>      Strongly</td></tr>
 +
    <tr><td>  disagree   </td><td>    disagree </td><td>        disagree </td><td>        agree</td><td>           agree </td><td>        agree</td></tr>
 +
</table><?
 +
 +
showallquestions(2);
 +
 +
showfooter();
 +
?>
 +
</pre>
 +
 +
 +
== OLD STUFF IS BELOW THIS LINE -- SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS WE NO LONGER NEED ==
 +
 +
Marketing ideas (Getting Traffic)
 +
 +
* I think it will be easy to direct traffic to our site. I do a few radio and magazine interviews every month, and can just mention the site once its up. And my happiness hypothesis page gets 60 unique visitors a day, from all over the world. I can put a link on the front page, we should get a few a day from that. And if the site is rewarding, it will spread by word of mouth.--Jon
 +
* Adwords Campaign?
 +
* Scale-a-thons: we can offer sororities or other groups the opportunity to give us data for money that we would pay to their charitable cause. Such people would simply enter a special word in our open field on the registration page, e.g., "UVA Kappa Kappa Gamma", and then we'd pay them, say $5 if the person does 5 scales. This might be particularly good for getting people to do ALL our scales.
 +
 +
 +
'''Issues/Policies attitudes'''
 +
*Please indicate the extent to which you support each of the following policies/issues by checking the appropriate option. 1 - strongly oppose  to  7 -strongly support  - I'm adding more policies/issues that I took from a recent Jost et al. study. [Sena]
 +
 +
*Increased funding of the military                       
 +
*Abortion                     
 +
*Stem cell research                     
 +
*Spending to improve education                     
 +
*Spending for the poor                     
 +
*Spending to improve/protect the environment                     
 +
*Capital punishment                     
 +
*Same-sex marriage (I think "same sex" might be a less threatening way to put it than "gay" for some people)
 +
 +
*Affirmative Action policies
 +
*Stricter sentencing for drug offenders
 +
*Tighter immigration restrictions
 +
*Government-sponsored national health care
 +
*Maintaining tax breaks for large corporations
 +
*Protecting large budgets for police departments
 +
 +
Pete's thoughts on picking issues: I suggest we basically pick the key contemporary culture war issues, but with an eye toward finding issues that map onto each of the 5 foundations.  We can confirm these relationships empirically later, but try to cover the bases up front.  Re the format of the questions and response options, I favor ones with an affective flavor — get people to respond to how they “feel” about abortion, immigration, etc.  Lots of evidence suggest that these items are better in a lot of ways, and it actually makes the items simpler to respond to -- don’t need complicated items were you construct nuanced versions of the abortion or immigration issue — just get people to respond in a straightforward pro-con, like it-don’t like it way.  Again, we want to use standard items/response options whenever possible, but I favor this basic approach. Another good resources for these items besides ANES, etc. is Linda Skitka.
 +
 +
'''Legal details, etc.'''
 +
 +
Just to avoid any possible future hassles, we may want to think about who 'owns' or gets to publish whatever data we collect.  Is the site open to all morality researchers to collect data?  Perhaps Project Implicit provides a good model for these potentially sticky issues?
 +
 +
[jon]For the first year or two, i think it should just be a collaboration among the 5 of us. It will be hard enough to manage, and to get enough traffic to satisfy all our research fantasies. We also don't have a grant, as project implicit does. Perhaps in the future we could look into doing that. And perhaps we could "vote" to admit a few new members into our collaboration. But unless we have a full time programmer and administrator, I think we should just keep it simple.
 +
 +
[Jon] As for authorship: I think our general spirit should be (and is likely to be) cooperative without being fully communal. That is, I don't think we should assume that every study run here is a joint venture that all 5 of us would be authors on. But on the other hand, to the extent that any of us make more of a contribution than just offering advice at the early stage, that person would become a co-author. If Ravi is doing most of the work to help us all collect data, then Ravi might be in a position to deserve authorship credit more often, especially for our early projects. I want to be sure that everyone benefits from this collaboration, especially the grad students who have more of a rush need to get authorships. I think what's likely to happen is that we'll each put up a few studies more or less separately, and then find that it makes sense to write a manuscript that combines multiple studies. Or Pete or I will be invited to write a theory paper or review paper, for which it makes sense for us all to work together. So I expect that we'll see many joint-authored projects. But each of us should feel free to put up a simple questionnaire or study without feeling that doing so automatically invites co-authors. What do y'all think?
 +
 +
Jon has it exactly right here I think.  I don't think we have to assume that everyone is part of everything that goes on on the site.  Like any other research endeavor, it should depend on whether people contribute to projects, intellectually and/or logistically.  In this sense I also think that Ravi might end up on more things than others, given his crucial technological role.  I don't suspect any of this will be a problem with this group -- and ideally, of course, this kind of joint site will promote a lot of discussion and collaboration.  We will have to figure out a way to pick and choose what is up on the site -- as I suspect it only makes sense to have a small number of project front and center at any one time.  I don't have a good sense for how a website for this works -- how much can be up and available at once to maximize efficient data collection -- but we will have to sort this out -- Pete
 +
 +
Sounds good =) [Sena]
 +
 +
== OLD CHANGES TO MAKE TO SITE ==
 +
Changes to make to MIRROR site, 6/24/07
 +
 +
 +
 +
SCALES TO FORMAT AND ADD
 +
*  Entity/Incremental scale (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
* Right-Wing Authoritarianism - Revised (Zakrisson, 2005) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
* Big Five Personality Inventory (John et al., 1991) [done]
 +
- feedback [Jon will do]
 +
* Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
* Moral Identity Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
* Ethics Position Questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
 +
* Psychopathy scale (Levenson, 1995) [done]
 +
- feedback [done]
 +
 +
* Good-Self Scale (Arnold, 1993) [Mike has draft done]
 +
- feedback [done]

Latest revision as of 02:12, 24 November 2010

This is the planning wiki for www.YourMorals.org


Contents

CURRENT SITE CHANGES

RAVI'S List

Other Stuff

RWA:

OTHER TOP PRIORITY CHANGES TO MAKE

Scales in progress

- feedback [Sena/Pete will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- feedback [Jon will do]

- feedback [Jesse will do]

- feedback [Jesse will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- No need to do this right now...Ravi will add to retired or old eventually if he needs more data

- Ravi will add.

- Ravi will add.

- which ones should we do? Ravi may add trolley personal/impersonal as a start/template...maybe child smothering one too....would be interesting if we include study timings.

SCALES WE MIGHT POST

on 8/17, AFter the 3rd modifcation approved by UVA in July WE HAVE:

FEATURED STUDIES

OTHER STUDIES POSTED

RETIRED STUDIES

ADDITIONAL SCALES READY TO GO, FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE

ADDITIONAL STUDIES UP BUT NOT FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE:

OTHER SCALES/STUDIES APPROVED BY IRB BUT NOT YET PUT UP ON MIRROR

FUTURE SCALES/STUDIES, NOT YET APPROVED


SCALES THAT WILL BE ON IDEOLOGY 1.0 (2-YEAR DATA COLLECTION ON PROJECT IMPLICIT - GET DATA FROM JESSE AND BRIAN)

1.Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1989)

2.Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

3.Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996; Zakrisson, 2006)

4.Bayesian Racism (Uhlmann & Banaji, 2002, updated 2006)

5.Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto & Sidanius, 1994)

6.Protestant Work Ethic (Mirels and Garrett, 1971)

7.Kay/Jost system-justification scale

8.Jost/Thompson economic system justification

9.Moral Foundations Questionnaire

10.Duckitt’s perceptions of a dangerous world scale

11.Two separate items for economic and social liberal-conservative

12.Multi-item questionnaire with econ/social issues

13.Jost’s acceptance of change and inequality scales

14.Disgust Scale - Revised (Olatunji & Haidt, in press)

Studies pending on USC IRB

STUDIES TO DO

POLITICS STUDIES

MORAL JUDGMENT EXPERIMENTS


MORALITY INTERVENTIONS


PERSUASION EXPERIMENTS

MISC IDEAS


How to submit a scale to the site?

So that you guys have a bit more control and I don't have to be so much of a gatekeeper to adding your studies, here are some guidelines for submitting your own surveys/studies....

The Basics

Your survey/study will be a collection of text files that you'll email me. It could be as few as 2 files for a single survey and feedback page...or it could be more if you want to have participants go through multiple pages.

Filenames

Make your filename relatively unique and descriptive. Your feedback page should be the name of your firstpage plus "_process". In addition all filenames should end in ".php". So for example, the Schwartz scale has 2 files, "schwartz.php" and "schwartz_process.php".

Headers

At the top of every study page should be this snippet of text which will take care of validating the user, collecting any data submitted from previous pages, etc...

<? include "studytop.php"; ?>

At the top of your final feedback page should be this snippet.... <? include "feedbacktop.php"; ?>

The Form Tag

After the header for study pages (not the feedback page) should be this form tag...

<form action="NEXTPAGE.php" method=post><?

NEXTPAGE should be the page that you want to go to next. For single page studies/surveys, make that page the name of your feedback page. If you are doing a mutiple page study, each page should name the successive page in place of NEXTPAGE.

Defining Question Format

You need to add the following 4 lines to define your scale.

$scalename = 'SCALENAME';

$scaletype = '7pt';

$scalebegin = 'not at all relevant';

$scaleend = 'extremely relevant';

The first line name of your scale...it will show up in your SPSS data file..it should be different for each page The second line defines how many points your questions scale will have. The third line defines the text for the beginning scale endpoint. The fourth line defines the text for the bend scale endpoint.

Defining Questions

For each question, add a line like this to your file...

addtoquestions('Whether or not someone believed in astrology');

If you want, you can define custom endpoints for a particular column by adding more information to this line...

An example... addtoquestions('Whether or not someone believed in astrology', 'Not Relevant!', 'Extremely Relevant!');

Add as many questions as you wish.

Display Instructions

Add this next to your file...

?> INSTRUCTIONS TEXT <?

Your INSTRUCTIONS TEXT should be in html if possible. You can use frontpage, dreamweaver or even microsoft word and cut/paste the relevant parts in if you want. Or you can write text and then replace all carriage returns with <br> and add "&nbsp;" wherever you want to add a space. Enclose anything you want bold in <b> and end it with </b>. I'm happy to clean this up for you or help you with it.

Display Questions

Add this to display questions

showallquestions(1);

The number 1 in parentheses will display questions in the order you put them in the file. If you put a "0" in the parentheses, the code will randomize the order of questions.

Page Footer

Add this to finish your page....

showfooter("BUTTON TEXT"); ?>

Replace BUTTON TEXT with whatever you want your submit button to say. For example, maybe you want it to say "See your results" and have your page go to the feedback page. Or "Continue" if your page goes to another part of the study.


The Feedback Page

The feedback page is basically a bunch of HTML/text which describes your survey. As noted above, it is named "_process.php" and begins with this tag...

<? include "feedbacktop.php"; ?>

After that, it can have almost any form as you can write whatever feedback you wish...However, you'll likely want to give them some visual feedback on their score and want to intersperse graphs with your text. Add graphs using these tags...

<?

$labels = array("Harm", "Fairness", "Loyalty", "Authority", "Purity");

$vars[0] = array(2, 3, 4,5,22,23,24,25);

$vars[1] = array(6, 7, 8,9,R26,27,28,29);

$vars[2] = array(10, 11, 12,13,30,31,32,33);

$vars[3] = array(14, 15, 16,17,34,35,36,R37);

$vars[4] = array(18, 19, 20,21,38,39,40,41);

showgraph("self", "Graph Title", "Labels Title", $labels, $vars);

?>

You may want to link to the more information or a paper on the scale.

After you finish with your feedback, add this tag...

<? include "feedbackfooter.php"; ?>


Complete Example

<?
include "studytop.php";
?>
<form action="entitym.php" method=post>
<?
$scalename = 'entitym';
$scaletype = '6pt';
$scalebegin = 'Strongly Agree';
$scaleend = 'Strongly Disagree';

addtoquestions('A person’s moral character is something very basic about them, and it can’t be changed much.');
addtoquestions('Whether a person is responsible or sincere or not is deeply ingrained in their personality. It cannot be changed very much.');
addtoquestions('There is not much that can be done to change a person’s moral traits (e.g., conscientiousness, uprightness, and honesty)');

?>
Please use the scale below to indicate the degree to which each statement describes your thoughts and feelings. 

<br><table border=0><tr><td>	[1] </td><td>	[2]</td><td>		[3]</td><td>		[4]</td><td>		[5]</td><td>		[6]</td></tr>
    <tr><td>   Strongly	 </td><td>    Moderately	</td><td>        Slightly</td><td>	        Slightly</td><td>	     Moderately	</td><td>      Strongly</td></tr>
    <tr><td>   disagree	  </td><td>     disagree	</td><td>        disagree	 </td><td>         agree</td><td>	          agree	</td><td>        agree</td></tr>
</table><?

showallquestions(2);

showfooter();
?>


OLD STUFF IS BELOW THIS LINE -- SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS WE NO LONGER NEED

Marketing ideas (Getting Traffic)


Issues/Policies attitudes

Pete's thoughts on picking issues: I suggest we basically pick the key contemporary culture war issues, but with an eye toward finding issues that map onto each of the 5 foundations. We can confirm these relationships empirically later, but try to cover the bases up front. Re the format of the questions and response options, I favor ones with an affective flavor — get people to respond to how they “feel” about abortion, immigration, etc. Lots of evidence suggest that these items are better in a lot of ways, and it actually makes the items simpler to respond to -- don’t need complicated items were you construct nuanced versions of the abortion or immigration issue — just get people to respond in a straightforward pro-con, like it-don’t like it way. Again, we want to use standard items/response options whenever possible, but I favor this basic approach. Another good resources for these items besides ANES, etc. is Linda Skitka.

Legal details, etc.

Just to avoid any possible future hassles, we may want to think about who 'owns' or gets to publish whatever data we collect. Is the site open to all morality researchers to collect data? Perhaps Project Implicit provides a good model for these potentially sticky issues?

[jon]For the first year or two, i think it should just be a collaboration among the 5 of us. It will be hard enough to manage, and to get enough traffic to satisfy all our research fantasies. We also don't have a grant, as project implicit does. Perhaps in the future we could look into doing that. And perhaps we could "vote" to admit a few new members into our collaboration. But unless we have a full time programmer and administrator, I think we should just keep it simple.

[Jon] As for authorship: I think our general spirit should be (and is likely to be) cooperative without being fully communal. That is, I don't think we should assume that every study run here is a joint venture that all 5 of us would be authors on. But on the other hand, to the extent that any of us make more of a contribution than just offering advice at the early stage, that person would become a co-author. If Ravi is doing most of the work to help us all collect data, then Ravi might be in a position to deserve authorship credit more often, especially for our early projects. I want to be sure that everyone benefits from this collaboration, especially the grad students who have more of a rush need to get authorships. I think what's likely to happen is that we'll each put up a few studies more or less separately, and then find that it makes sense to write a manuscript that combines multiple studies. Or Pete or I will be invited to write a theory paper or review paper, for which it makes sense for us all to work together. So I expect that we'll see many joint-authored projects. But each of us should feel free to put up a simple questionnaire or study without feeling that doing so automatically invites co-authors. What do y'all think?

Jon has it exactly right here I think. I don't think we have to assume that everyone is part of everything that goes on on the site. Like any other research endeavor, it should depend on whether people contribute to projects, intellectually and/or logistically. In this sense I also think that Ravi might end up on more things than others, given his crucial technological role. I don't suspect any of this will be a problem with this group -- and ideally, of course, this kind of joint site will promote a lot of discussion and collaboration. We will have to figure out a way to pick and choose what is up on the site -- as I suspect it only makes sense to have a small number of project front and center at any one time. I don't have a good sense for how a website for this works -- how much can be up and available at once to maximize efficient data collection -- but we will have to sort this out -- Pete

Sounds good =) [Sena]

OLD CHANGES TO MAKE TO SITE

Changes to make to MIRROR site, 6/24/07


SCALES TO FORMAT AND ADD

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [Jon will do]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox