Friday, November 16, 2018

Macbeth Effect

The Macbeth Effect is a finding that people engage in cleansing thoughts and even behavior when they experience a threat to their sense of moral purity. The authors, Chen Bo- Zhong and Katie Liljenquist, reported results in a 2006 article in Science titled, "Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing."



The Macbeth Effect was challenged in a 2018 article by Siev, Zuckerman, and Siev. Their meta-analysis did not support a strong effect. They suggested their may be an effect under certain conditions.


The effect was named Macbeth based on a work by Shakespear (link to a summary of Macbeth).

Reference

Siev, J., Zuckerman, S., Sieve, J.J. (2018). The relationship between immorality and cleansing: A meta-analysis of the Macbeth effect. Social Psychology, 49, 303-309. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000349

Zhong, C-B. & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451-1452.


My ad
Buy Creating Surveys on AMAZON available in multiple countries















Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)





Friday, October 12, 2018

Altruism






In common language, we think of altruism as self-less actions that benefit others. In psychology, the concept of altruism has been studied for decades. 


Not surprisingly, researchers have looked at the benefits to the person acting altruistically as if such benefits might undermine the concept of altruism.

One scientist who is known for extensive study of altruism is Batson. Batson was skeptical of the concept of altruism but his experimental work changed his mind. Following is his definition (Batson, 2010).


By altruism I mean a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
another's welfare. Altruism is juxtaposed to egoism, a motivational
state with the ultimate goal of increasing one's own welfare. I use the term
ultimate here to refer to means-end relations, not to a metaphysical first or
final cause. An ultimate goal is an end in itself. In contrast, an instrumental
goal is a stepping stone on the way to reaching an ultimate goal. If a barrier to
reaching an instrumental goal arises, then alternative routes to the ultimate
goal will be sought. Should the ultimate goal be reached while bypassing the
instrumental goal, the motivational force will disappear. If a goal is ultimate,
it cannot be bypassed in this way (Lewin, 1938). Both instrumental and ultimate
goals should be distinguished from unintended consequences, results of
an action—foreseen or unforeseen—that are not the goal of the action. Each
ultimate goal defines a distinct goal-directed motive. Hence, altruism and
egoism are distinct motives, even though they can co-occur (p. 16).

 Not all scholars agree with Batson. There is a problem of understanding human motivation thus, some have focused on helping behavior. A value of Batson's approach is the focus on motivation and the psychological understanding of goal-directed behavior. I appreciate his understanding of self-benefits, which may be due to unintended consequences or even the possibility that altruism and egoism may both be present.

Finally, I should point out that altruism research overlaps with studies of generosity. You will see online sources where generosity and altruism are synonyms (e.g., Oxford, 2018).

Read more about generosity and altruism in Chapter 3 of Living Well 10 BIG IDEAS of FAITH and a MEANINGFUL LIFE available on AMAZON.

















Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON





Reference


Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-001 



Connections



My Page    www.suttong.com


My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE


FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Psychology’s Toxic Triad (Narcissism, Psychopathy, Machiavellianism)



The toxic triad is commonly known as the Dark Triad. The triad consists of three sets of personality traits representing features of Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Machiavellian personality clusters.




People with high levels of these traits can cause interpersonal difficulties but, when several traits are added together, they can be considerably toxic by which I mean, such people can impact the mental health and well-being of those within their sphere of influence.

To understand the level of toxicity, we need to examine the key features of each personality grouping. 

Narcissistic traits were apparently observed by the Greeks in the classic myth. The key features of narcissism are excessive self-praise and self-admiration, which doesn’t fit well with those who do not share the same opinions of the narcissist. Some people with narcissistic traits become political, business, and religious leaders. They can be difficult to work for and with. Failure to provide praise and show admiration can be seen as disloyalty by narcissistic leaders.

Psychopathic traits include antisocial behavior patterns, low emotional empathy, low to no remorse for harming others, few inhibitions, and sometimes a capacity to charm others upon initial contact. Leaders with psychopathic traits can wreak havoc in relationships, groups, and nations. In severe cases, psychopaths leave a trail of death and destruction.


Machiavellian traits were those described by the Italian thinker, Niccoló Machiavelli in his 1532 book, Il Principe (The Prince). In today’s language, Machiavellian traits include planned acts that are not governed by common moral rules but by self-interest and personal gain.

*****
Fortunately, people with such toxic traits are rare. Unfortunately, people with many of these traits coupled with above average intelligence and access to power can destroy the lives of millions when they control nations.

Those with less opportunity and somewhat muted traits, may rise in politics, corporations, and even religious organizations leaving behind a trail of people who have been hurt physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually. If they are not removed soon enough, the organization itself may have suffered greatly or even cease to exist.
*****
In a meta-analysis, Muris, Merckelback, Otgaar, and Meijer (2017) reviewed 91 research papers with data on 42,359 research participants. Various personality questionnaires were used by different investigators. The relationship among the three groups indicated a closer relationship between the traits of Machiavellianism and Psychopathy and a related yet more unique set of traits for Narcissism.

There are gender differences. In the 50 studies that included data on gender differences, men were higher in the set of three traits than were women with overall effect sizes as follows: psychopathy (r = .29); Machiavellianism (r = .16), narcissism r = .15). 

When the authors considered the shared variance, the primary difference between men and women was the presence of psychopathic traits.

Several studies compared the Toxic Triad to other personality traits. As you might expect, there was a negative relationship between the presence of the Toxic Triad traits and a group of positive traits known as Honesty-Humility (HEXACO model: sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, modesty).

Comparing the Toxic Triad to Big Five Traits yielded a large number of comparisons. The findings primarily focus on negative relationships with the Big Five trait of agreeableness. (Do see the tables if you wish more details.)


Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your survey projects or students you teach.



Buy Creating Surveys on AMAZON available in multiple countries

*****
Summary and Consideration

The authors (Muris et al., 2017) summarized their findings thus: “psychopathy runs the show.” That is, the negative impact on other people is primarily due to the traits of psychopathy rather than the other two clusters. Some other points are worth noting.

When the traits are measured with existing questionnaires (i.e., scales, tests, or measures), the three concepts overlap.

Some of the shorter questionnaires may not capture sufficient nuances in behavior patterns.

Some have considered adding sadism, which is the enjoyment of cruelty (See Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus, 2013).

When researching the topic, look for the term "Dark Triad" or the individual personality clusters of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

You can find the text to The Prince by Machiavelli at this link:  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm 

References

Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24, 2201–2209.

Muris, P.,  Merckelback, H., Otgaar, H. & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human Nature: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

Related Posts

The Wisdom of Psychopaths

Narcissistic Personality Inventory


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

See my Psychology Posts on FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

 Follow on TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Friday, September 28, 2018

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)





Moral Foundations Theory 
(MFT) was developed by  Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post). A good overview of the theory can be found in the book, 
The Righteous Mind (2012).


 There are five core moral foundations in Moral Foundations Theory.

1 Care-Harm
2 Fairness/cheating (*equality-Fairness)
3 Loyalty-Betrayal
4 Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
5 Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

An additional foundation of liberty has been added to the theory so there are now six foundations.

The core moral foundations

1 Care-Harm: derived from the development of attachment and empathy, people value the moral virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance and abhor causing pain to others.

2 Fairness/cheating: people have developed a sense of reciprocal altruism, which leads to concerns for justice, rights, and autonomy. Equality was dropped in favor of a sense of proportionality.

3 Loyalty-Betrayal: people form groups and tribes and a sense of loyalty to the group, which supports patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice for the group.

4 Authority/subversion: people organize themselves into hierarchies and consider leadership a virtue. Followers are expected to defer to legitimate leaders and show respect for group traditions.

5 Sanctity/degradation: derived from research into the psychology of disgust and contamination, people find certain things and by extension, some people, to be disgusting. There is a separation for that which is unclean. In religion, that which is sacred is set apart from that which is profane. Cleanliness of self and clothing are virtues. The body is a temple in some religious teachings.

The expanded theory includes a consideration of liberty.

6. Liberty/ oppression: people resist oppression and leaders who restrict their liberty. People hate bullies and tyrants.

Researchers usually find support for a two factor model. 
Conservatives view moral issues from 3-5 perspectives with an emphasis on the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Sociopolitical liberals emphasize care and fairness foundations. In A House Divided, you will  find examples of Christians using the same moral foundations in different ways. For example, in abortion arguments conservatives focus on care and harm of the unborn child and liberals emphasize care-harm concerns of the mother.


Notes
*I added the "aka" because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.



Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.


Available on AMAZON in multiple countries


Here are some applications of moral foundations theory:

For applications to Christian views of moral issues see A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality and Christian Cultures.

For a recent study of Moral Foundations Theory, Identity, and Politics, see Sutton, Kelly, and Huber (2019).

Link to learn more about the Moral Foundations Questionnaire



References


Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

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, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.
Sutton, G. W. (2016). A House Divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888
Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H. L., & Huver, M. (2019). Political identities, religious identity, and the pattern of moral foundations among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, xx, pp. xx-xx. Accepted 6 September 2019. ResearchGate Link     Academia Link


Friday, September 21, 2018

Compassion



The behavioral science concept of compassion is similar to the common definition of the term.

Compassion is the feeling people describe when faced with another person’s 
suffering and the motivation to help reduce the impact of the suffering.



Compassion is related to the concepts of empathy and altruism but compassion is not the same as those concepts. Compassion involves emotional and cognitive empathy—the ability to take the perspective of another person and feel similar feelings. Compassion is different because it included the motivation to help improve someone’s situation.

Compassion shares with altruism the giving of oneself or resources to another. But compassion is not the only motive for altruism.

Compassion is related to love. The biology of compassion includes the presence of the hormone oxytocin, which has been called the “love drug” or the “bonding hormone.” In brain studies, the region of the brain linked to caring for others is activated in studies of empathy and caring. During sex, both men and women produce oxytocin. It’s also produced by women during childbirth and lactation.

Ad
Read more about love and compassion in Chapter 10 of Living Well on AMAZON.














One set of items to measure compassion is the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008), which is derived from the longer, 21-item, Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005).






Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON



References
Hwang, J., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology56, 421-428. doi:10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.
Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity33, 212-226. Academia Link     ResearchGate 

Photo credit: I took the photo of Convoy of Hope helping people on the site where the tornado of 2007 destroyed the Assemblies of God church in Greensburg Kansas, USA. The tornado wiped out over 90% of the city.
Related Posts
Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)





Friday, September 7, 2018

Humility


Humility is a characteristic of people who speak and behave as if they truly believe that others are equal in importance to themselves.  Humility involves an accurate appraisal of one’s strengths and weaknesses, culturally defined modesty when sharing with others, and a limited focus on oneself in interpersonal relationships.




We especially recognize humility when people considered important in a society do not act as if other people are less important.  We usually recognize humility by what people say or write but nonverbal actions like ignoring others, pushing people out of the way to grab a better position, or seeking special treatment also reflect a higher sense of self-importance and thus a lack of humility.

Humility as defined by Worthington and Scott (2018) page 4.

Humility has three qualities. Humble people are those who (a) have an
accurate sense of self, know their limitations, and are teachable; (b) present
themselves modestly in ways that do not put others off by arrogance or by
false, insincere modesty or displaying weakness; and (c) are especially oriented
to advancing others—not through groveling weakness but through power
under control, power used to build others up rather than squash them down.

Ev Worthington and Scott Allison (2018) explain that humility can be found in a single act, a temporary state, or identified as a personality trait. A humble act can be as simple as giving up one’s right to a seat or the right to speak. A humble state may be a situational state as in the presence of a respected leader but a state not found in other contexts. A trait is a pattern of behavior, which may be found in various contexts over time.

Three Types of Humility

1. People with cultural humility are open to the ideas, values, and cultures of people in different cultures as well as a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own culture.

2. Intellectual humility appears as an appreciation of one’s own abilities and respect for the thoughts and capabilities of others. This contrasts with braggarts, know-it-alls, and those who overclaim their skills.

3. Spiritual humility entails a sense of awe and respect for God or gods and sacred practices such as prayer, baptism, and ceremonies, or sacred objects like altars, writings, and crosses.

Humility is a gateway virtue.


You might be interested -- Humility is Chapter One in Living Well on AMAZON.














Advertisement: Are you planning a survey?

Creating Surveys on AMAZON






References

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., McAnnally-Linz, R., Choe, E., & Placeres, V. (2017). Humility, religion, and spirituality: A review of the literature. Psychology of Religion And Spirituality9(3), 242-253. doi:10.1037/rel0000111

McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E. L., & Hook, J. N. (2018). Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, doi:10.1080/17439760.2018.1460686

Worthington, E. J., & Allison, S. T. (2018). Heroic humility: What the science of humility can say to people raised on self-focus (pp. 91-103). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0000079-006



Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Race and Racism

There is one human race, known as homo sapiens. Humans are identified by their DNA. Humans share about 99% of their DNA (Chou, 2017).





The concept of race in psychology has been problematic because the word race has come to mean different things to different people. Scientists do not think about race the way the word is used in the general population.

Race is a social construct. A social construct is a generally accepted idea. Race is an idea based on variations in skin color and a few other visible features such as hair and the shape of noses and eyes. Such physical characteristics were associated with humans from different geographic regions known as the "five races:" African, European, Asian, Oceanian, and Native American. The observable physical differences have been associated with different mental abilities and behavioral characteristics.

At a genetic level, the variations in people within a geographic region show a great diversity compared with variations between people from different geographic regions. In reality, humans are physically similar.

Scientists do not completely agree on the definition of race, but the American Anthropological Association (AAA), has a position statement on race. A 2012 survey of anthropologists revealed a consensus that there are no human biological races (Wagner et al., 2017).

Humans did interbreed with other beings. Recent discoveries identified shared DNA in some humans with two other species--Neanderthals and Denisovans (Worrall, 2017).

Racism

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, and hostility toward people identified as members of a different race. The idea of race is usually based on superficial differences in appearance such as skin color as mentioned above. Racists assume that the observed physical differences mean that people with similar observable differences are also similar in other ways like intelligence and behavior. The supposed differences are described in insulting language describing one racial group as inferior to another group.

Racism is a long-standing problem that has been used to justify killing, slavery, and all sorts of horrific treatment of those considered inferior to others based on observable differences and having ancestors who were considered to be of an inferior racial group.

Race and Ethnicity in Surveys

Asking identifying information in a survey is a problem because many people use the words race and ethnicity in imprecise ways. See chapter 8, "Assessing Social Context" in Creating Surveys for suggestions on asking about race and ethnicity and other traits in surveys. Researchers will need to rely on how the terms are used in their local cultures if such identities are relevant to understanding survey results.

ad
See Creating Surveys on AMAZON 



Race and Ethnicity in History

Some have argued that race and racial prejudices were not present in the ethnically diverse Roman empire. Cambridge professor, Mary Beard sums up her thoughts on the subject in an interview related to a television documentary on the Roman Empire (Telegraph, 2016): 

"Romans were as xenophobic and ethnocentric as any people there’s ever been."

In a PBS series on race, the authors make the point that race is a modern concept. They provide a useful history of the concept of race and the concept of slavery related to race.

Although some report the lack of race based on limited or no findings about discrimination based on skin color in ancient literature, the argument is no reason to suspect that the people in Roman times or in other cultures were free from prejudices that relegated some people to groups considered inferior or undesirable.

Measuring race and racism

Following are links to scales measuring racism.






Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton



Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)