Morality Website Collaboration

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Jgraha25 (Talk | contribs)
(SCALES WE MIGHT POST)
Ravi (Talk | contribs)
(SCALES WE MIGHT POST)
Line 64: Line 64:
* RWA (which version? Jesse's used the 30-item version but it's VERY dated-sounding; PI just switched to a newer 15-item short form; I'd say let's use the shorter one, unless we're interested in the more extreme statements and dated aspects)
* RWA (which version? Jesse's used the 30-item version but it's VERY dated-sounding; PI just switched to a newer 15-item short form; I'd say let's use the shorter one, unless we're interested in the more extreme statements and dated aspects)
* Interpersonal Reactivity Index (28 items; reference?)
* Interpersonal Reactivity Index (28 items; reference?)
-
* Pers. Belief in a Just World (7 items)
+
** Pers. Belief in a Just World (7 items)
* Levenson's Psychopathy scale (26 items; reference?)
* Levenson's Psychopathy scale (26 items; reference?)
* Rest's Defining Issues Scale (17 items on Heinz dilemma - isn't there an updated DIT?)
* Rest's Defining Issues Scale (17 items on Heinz dilemma - isn't there an updated DIT?)
Line 72: Line 72:
* More traditional Kohlbergian moral reasoning questionnaires
* More traditional Kohlbergian moral reasoning questionnaires
* 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
* 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
 +
 +
C) Scale ideas from Jesse's IAT ppt.
 +
* Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) – full or Jost’s 4-item version?
 +
* Protestant Work Ethic (Mirels and Garrett, 1971) – 11
 +
* Kay/Jost system-justification scale – 8
 +
* Jost/Thompson economic system justification – 17
 +
* Duckitt’s perceptions of a dangerous world scale
 +
* Jost’s acceptance of change and inequality scales
== MISC IDEAS ==
== MISC IDEAS ==

Revision as of 00:07, 19 April 2007

This is a page where we can collaboratively come up with ideas for a consumer oriented morality website....

Contents

Domain name

YourMorals.org (with yourmorals.com redirecting to that site)...

Marketing ideas (Getting Traffic)

Content - Questions to add somewhere

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WE MIGHT ASK:



We MIGHT also collect




SCALES WE MIGHT POST

Here is our master list of scales that are candidates for posting (along with comments/justifications) Inlcude citations for each scale, so we know which version to use

A)FIRST BATCH, SUBMITTED TO UVA IRB

B) SECOND BATCH, IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE

C) Scale ideas from Jesse's IAT ppt.

MISC IDEAS

[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.

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]

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();
?>


Changes to be done

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox