Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması

Öz

Ahlak felsefesindeki iki temel normatif ahlak görüşü olan faydacılık ve deontoloji, ahlak psikolojisinde de insanların ahlaki yargılarını açıklamakta kullanılan iki ana görüş durumundadır. Klasik ahlaki ikilem senaryoları, 2000’lerin başından itibaren faydacı/deontolojik karar alma eğilimlerinin ayrıştırılmasına ilişkin neredeyse tek ölçüt olarak kullanılmıştır. Buna karşın bir dizi araştırma, anti sosyal kişilik özellikleri olan kişilerin, ilgili ahlaki ikilemlerde faydacı karar alma eğiliminde olduklarını göstermiştir. Psikopati eğiliminin faydacı ahlakın temel mantığıyla taban tabana zıt olmasından dolayı, son on yılda söz konusu ahlaki ikilem senaryolarının etkinliğine dair tartışmalar başlamıştır. Bir eleştiri bu senaryoların faydacılığın sadece araçsal zarar boyutunu ölçtüğü, tarafsız iyilik boyutunu ise tamamen ihmal ettiği yönündedir. Faydacılığın belirtilen her iki boyutunun da ölçülebilmesi için Kahane ve arkadaşları (2018) Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’ni (OFÖ) geliştirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada OFÖ’nün Türkçe uyarlamasının gerçekleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Araştırmaya yaşları 18-66 arasında değişen ve %82.5’i İstanbul’da yaşayan 983 kişi katılmıştır. Araştırma örnekleminin seçkisiz olarak ikiye bölünmesi ile elde edilen alt örneklem gruplarından birinde Temel Bileşenler Faktör Analizi, diğerinde ise Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Temel Bileşenler Faktör Analizi sonuçları, orijinal çalışmaya benzer şekilde toplam varyansın %52.5’ini açıklayan iki faktörlü bir yapıyı göstermiştir. DFA sonuçları da uyarlamanın, orijinal iki faktörlü yapı ile uyumlu olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Birleşen geçerlik çalışmasında, beklentiler ile uyumlu olarak, araçsal zarar faktörü ile psikopati ve Makyavelizm arasında, tarafsız iyilik faktörü ile de empatik düşünce, perspektif alma ve faydacı özgecilik arasında pozitif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Sonuçlara göre, tarafsız iyilik ile psikopati ve Makyavelizm arasında ise negatif korelasyon bulunmaktadır. Orijinal ölçek çalışması ile uyumlu olarak, tarafsız iyilik ve araçsal zarar faktörlerinden yüksek puan alan katılımcıların, ahlaki ikilem senaryolarında da faydacı yönde kararlar aldıkları görülmüştür. Sonuçlar genel olarak OFÖ’nün Türkçe uyarlamasının orijinal çalışma ile uyumlu olduğunu gösterdiğinden, mevcut uyarlamanın ahlak psikolojisiyle ilgili olarak gelecekte yapılacak deneysel ve ilişkisel çalışmalarda kullanılması önerilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği
• tarafsız iyilik
• araçsal zarar

The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale

Öz

Utilitarianism and deontology are the two major normative ethics in moral philosophy extensively used to explain the source of moral judgments in moral psychology. Since 2000, scholars used classical moral dilemmas nearly exclusively to differentiate utilitarian and deontological decision-making tendencies. However, results from a series of studies indicated that these dilemmas tend to elicit utilitarian responses from people with antisocial personality features. The efficiency of these moral dilemmas was the subject of debates in the last 10 years given that antisocial tendencies are the direct opposite of a utilitarian outlook. One of the criticisms was that these dilemmas were limited to the measurement of the instrumental harm dimension of utilitarianism and entirely overlooked the impartial beneficence outlook. The Oxford Utilitarian Scale (OUS) (Kahane et al., 2018) was developed to measure both dimensions of utilitarianism. To fit the context, the study developed the Turkish adaptation of the OUS. The study recruited 983 participants aged 18-65 years and 82.5% living in İstanbul. The respondents were randomly assigned to two sub-groups for principal and confirmatory factor analyses (PFA and CFA), respectively. The PFA results revealed a two-factor structure, which is similar to that of the original study, with an explained total variance of 52.5%. Moreover, the CFA results indicated that the adaptation study is compatible with the original two-factor model. Convergent validity analysis revealed positive correlations of instrumental harm to psychopathy and Machiavellianism as expected. Similarly, the impartial beneficence factor displayed positive relationships with empathic concern, perspective-taking, and altruistic utilitarianism. Moreover, the results demonstrated that impartial beneficence is negatively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism. In line with the original study, participants with high scores in instrumental harm and impartial beneficence endorsed the utilitarian option in response to these dilemmas. In summary, the results confirmed that the Turkish version of the OUS is substantially concordant with the original inventory. Therefore, the authors suggest that the proposed version is advisable for use in future empirical and correlational studies on moral psychology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Oxford Utilitarianism Scale
• instrumental harm
• impartial beneficence

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, B., Yılmaz, O. ve Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2017). Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 297-307. google scholar
2. Ames, D. R., Rose, P. ve Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440-450. google scholar
3. Bartels, D. M. ve Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161. google scholar
4. Bahçekapılı, H. G. ve Yılmaz, O. (2017). The relation between different types of religiosity and analytic cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 267-272. google scholar
5. Benet-Martmez, V ve John, O. P (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729. google scholar
6. Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387-392. google scholar
7. Choe, S. Y. ve Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 580. google scholar
8. Christensen, J. F. ve Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & BiobehavioralReviews, 36(4), 1249-1264. google scholar

9. Christie, R. ve Geis, F. (1970). Implications and speculations. In R. Christie, ve F. Geis (Ed.), Studies in Machiavellianism (s. 339-358). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
10. Conway, P. ve Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216. google scholar
11. Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. ve Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265. google scholar
12. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D. ve Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(40), 17433-17438. google scholar
13. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSA Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. google scholar
14. Dökmen, Ü. (1988). Empatinin yeni bir modele dayanılarak ölçülmesi ve psikodrama ile geliştirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 155-190. google scholar
15. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665-697. google scholar
16. Engeler, A. ve Yargıç, L. İ. (2007). Kişilerarası tepkisellik indeksi: Empatinin çok boyutlu ölçümü. New Symposiun Journal, 45, 119-127. google scholar
17. Engeler, A. (2005). Psikopati ve antisosyal kişilik bozukluğu. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
18. Erzi, S. (2019). Psychometric Properties of Adaptation of The Oxford Utilitarianism Scale to Turkish. Humanitas-Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(13), 132-147. google scholar
19. Feshbach, N. D. ve Feshbach, S. (1969). The relationship between empathy and aggression in two age groups. Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 102-107. google scholar
20. Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Conway, P. ve Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110-120. google scholar
21. Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, No: 5. google scholar
22. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic, 19(4), 25-42. google scholar
23. Gawronski, B. ve Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632. google scholar
24. Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 467. google scholar
25. Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iyer, R., Graham, J. ve Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(7), 497. google scholar
26. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105- 2108. google scholar Hare, R. D. (2003). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, ON, 2003. google scholar
27. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
28. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. google scholar
29. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. google scholar
30. Jonason, P. K. ve Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420. google scholar
31. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J. ve Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131. google scholar
32. Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560. google scholar
33. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. ve Savulescu, J. (2015). Utilitarian judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. google scholar
34. Kant, I. (1785/1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (H. J. Paton, Çeviri.). New York: Harper & Row. google scholar
35. Klein, R. B. (2011). Hypothesis Testing. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.. google scholar
36. Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J. ve Newman, J. P. (2011). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708-714. google scholar
37. Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M. ve Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138), 908. google scholar
38. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Assessing model fit. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, 3, 23-40. google scholar
39. Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of Child Development Research, 1, 383-431. google scholar
40. Kumova, F. ve Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2020). Türk kültüründe yüksek ahlaki ikilem yaratan psikoterapist senaryoları ile klasik senaryolar: Duyguların faydacı/ deontolojik kararlar ile ilişkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 40(2), 385-427. google scholar
41. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A. ve Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151-158. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.68.1.151. google scholar
42. Leistico, A. M. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J. ve Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 28-45. google scholar
43. McFarland, S., Webb, M. ve Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830. google scholar
44. Mehrabian, A., ve Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. google scholar
45. Meyer, A., Zhou, E. ve Shane, F. (2018). The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 246. google scholar
46. Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
47. Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A. ve Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19(6), 549-557. google scholar
48. Özsoy, E., Rauthmann, J. F., Jonason, P. K. ve Ardıç, K. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Turkish versions of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-T), and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T). Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 11-14. google scholar
49. Pala, A. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının empati kurma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 13-23. google scholar
50. Paulhus, D. L. ve Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. google scholar
51. Skeem, J. L., Edens, J. F., Camp, J. ve Colwell, L. H. (2004). Are there ethnic differences in levels of psychopathy? A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 505-527. google scholar
52. Soderstrom, H. (2003). Psychopathy as a disorder of empathy. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12(5), 249. google scholar
53. Stagnaro, M. N., Pennycook, G. ve Rand, D. G. (2018). Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 260. google scholar
54. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898. google scholar
55. Sümer, N., Lajunen, T. ve Özkan, T. (2005). Big five personality traits as the distal predictors of road accident. Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application, 215, 215-227. google scholar
56. Thomson, K. S. ve Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99. google scholar
57. Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204-217. google scholar
58. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. ve Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275-1289. google scholar
59. Yılmaz, O. ve Sarıbay, S. A. (2016). An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(3), 287300. google scholar
60. Yılmaz, O. ve Sarıbay, S. A. (2018). Lower levels of resistance to change (but not opposition to equality) is related to analytic cognitive style. Social Psychology, 49(2), 65-75. google scholar
61. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E. ve Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136. google scholar
62. Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J. ve Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition, 126(3), 364-372. google scholar