Research Article


DOI :10.26650/SP2021-852548   IUP :10.26650/SP2021-852548    Full Text (PDF)

Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü

Beyza TepeSena Cüre Acer

Ebeveynlik motivasyonu ile ahlaki hassasiyetin ilişkili olduğunu gösteren birçok çalışma mevcuttur. Mevcut çalışmalara göre yüksek ebeveynlik motivasyonu, yüksek ahlaki hassasiyet ile ilişkilidir, bunun arka planında bireylerin değerleri koruyan ve sürdüren bir topluma çocuk getirmeyi istemesi yatmaktadır. Alan yazındaki çalışmaları temel alan bu çalışmanın amacı ise Tepe ve AydınlıKarakulak’ın (2019) önerdiği meta-ilişkisel tehdit kavramının (bireylerin ahlaki durumları bireysel düzeyde değil, toplumsal düzeyde düşünmeleri), bir kişilik özelliği olarak bu ilişkide aracı rol oynayıp oynamadığını incelemektir. Özellikle aile üyeleri ya da iç grup üyeleriyle kurulan sosyal ilişkiyi bozan (birlik motivasyonu ihlali, örneğin, annenin çocuğu ile ilgilenmemesi ya da iki kardeş arasındaki ensest ilişki) durumlara yönelik ahlaki yargının ebeveynlik motivasyonu yüksek bireylerde, toplumsal düzeyde yüksek meta-ilişkisel tehdit hassasiyeti ile ilişkili olacağı ve bunun da olumsuz ahlaki yargıyı yordayacağı beklenmektedir. Çalışmanın verileri (N =127), İstanbul’da bir vakıf üniversitesindeki öğrencilerden toplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, birlik motivasyonu ihlaline yönelik ahlaki yargı ve ebeveynlik motivasyonu arasında toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit yatkınlığının aracı rolü olduğu tespit edilmiş, fakat bu aracılığın sınırda anlamlılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Bu çalışma, meta-ilişkisel tehdit algısı kavramını bireysel bir ölçüm olarak ahlak psikolojisi alan yazınına kazandırmanın yanı sıra, ebeveynlik motivasyonunun ahlaki yargıyı, toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit eğilimi vasıtasıyla yordayabileceğini önermektedir. Dolayısıyla ebeveyn olma halinin (olunmasa dahi) toplumsal düzeyde ahlak mekanizmasının sürmesindeki rolünü göstererek ahlak ve ebeveynlik ilişkisine yönelik farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırmaktadır. Kısaca kişilerin yüksek ebeveynlik motivasyonuna sahip olmaları, onların ahlaki ihlallerde toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit algılamaları ile ilişkilenmekte ve bu durum da katı ahlaki yargı ile ilişkilenmektedir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, ilişki düzenleme kuramı, ilişki motivasyonları, sosyal muhafazakarlık ve yaşam tarihi stratejisi üzerinden ele alınmış ve tartışılmıştır.

DOI :10.26650/SP2021-852548   IUP :10.26650/SP2021-852548    Full Text (PDF)

The Mediating Role of Meta-Relational Threat Sensitivity on the Relationship between Parental Motivation and Moral Judgments

Beyza TepeSena Cüre Acer

Research shows that parental motivation is associated with moral sensitivity. Previous research also concurs that high levels of parental motivation are associated with high levels of moral sensitivity. This is grounded in the fact that individuals’ needs allow them to bring a child in a society where moral values are preserved and maintained. By extending previous research, the current study aims to examine the mediative role of meta-relational threat sensitivity introduced by Tepe and Aydinli-Karakulak (2019) (evaluating immoral behaviors at the society level) as an individual predisposition on this link. More specifically, individuals’ high levels of parental motivation will be associated with moral wrongness judgments about a violation of social relationships between in-group members such as family or friends (unity violation, e.g., a mother who does not care about her child or an incest relationship between two siblings), through their high levels of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity. Data (N = 127) were collected from university undergraduates in Turkey. Results showed that there are indirect effects of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity on the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments of unity violation despite their marginal significance. In addition to contributing meta-relational threat sensitivity as a measure of individual predisposition to the field of moral psychology, the current study not only suggests a mediative role of meta-relational threat sensitivity on the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments but also emphasizes the role of parental motivation (even among nonparents) on the maintenance of the moral systems at the society level. This highlighted further a different perspective on the link between parenting and morality. In simpler terms, high levels of parental motivation are associated with high levels of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity, which in turn leads to harsher moral wrongness judgments. Moreover, the current study focuses on relationship regulation theory, relational motivations, social conservatism, and life-history strategy to discuss the findings.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Parenting is one of the slow life-history strategies that requires socio-ecological stability where individual selfishness is suppressed and close and cooperative social relationships are supported (Gladden & Cleator, 2018). This adaptive strategy manifests in different types of behaviors such as delayed sexual maturity, higher parental care, longer life expectancy, and higher degrees of altruism (Figueredo et al., 2006; Pianka, 1970; Rushton, 1985). This socioecological stability also requires the preservation and maintenance of moral norms. Hence, parental motivation is found to be related with moral sensitivity (Dunkel et al., 2016; Gladden et al., 2009). Also, Kerry and Murray (2018) showed that parental motivation predicted moral wrongness judgments, even among nonparents.

Fiske (2011) conceptualized meta-relational threat sensitivity, which suggests that morality is beyond the actors who commit moral violations. Tepe and Aydinli-Karakulak (2019) tested the concept empirically and showed that moral wrongness judgments not only focus on trangressors’ behavior but also consider potential consequences of a morally wrong behavior toward community and future social relationships. In the current research, meta-relational threat sensitivity was measured as an individual predisposition. Simply put, when individuals consider morality at the community level (e.g., if a behavior violates societal harmony, it should not only be the concern of a person who performs this behavior but also be the concern of the society at large), they receive high scores from community based meta-relational threat sensitivity. However, if they consider them as individual cases (e.g., an immoral behavior should be a concern of a person who carries out this behavior), they receive high scores from individual-based meta-relational threat sensitivity.

In conformity with relationship regulation theory (Rai & Fiske, 2011), morality is a mechanism that regulates social relationships, and this mechanism can be maintained with four basic relationship motivations: unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. When one of these motivations is violated, moral wrongness perceptions occur. For instance, a mother does not care for her child, the mother’s behavior here is an example of unity violation. In the current research, community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity is hypothesized as a mediator on the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments of unity violation. Overall, it was assumed that parental motivation will be positively associated with moral wrongness judgments of unity violation (Hypothesis 1) and the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments of unity violation will be mediated by community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Data were collected from 127 (109 women) university undergraduates in Turkey, in return for course credits. Parenting Motivation (PCAT-pn) Questionnaire, State Meta-Relational Threat Scale, eight immoral scenarios, and moral wrongness assessment with three items corresponding to each scenario were used to obtain responses from the participants. Participants completed an online experiment on Qualtrics. Order of the scales was randomized.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis examined the factor structures of the newly developed 10- item meta-relational threat scale. The scale tested in the first stage explains 59.81% of the total variance with its two-factor (community and individual levels) structure. None of the items were removed. The scale with its two-factor structure including 10 items showed good reliability. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were .80 and .85 for community and individual levels, respectively.

Results showed that parental motivation positively correlated with moral condemnation of unity violations (r =. 20, p < .05) but not with moral condemnation of other violations (e.g., hierarchy, equality, and proportionality). Additionally, community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity seems weakly mediate the relationship between parenting motivation and moral judgments, with an overall score of moral wrongness judgments of each relational violation. But as hypothesized, even though there is a marginal significance, there are indirect effects of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity (β = .05, %95 CI [−.00, .16]). Both moral wrongness judgments of unity violation (β = .20, %95 CI [.04, .38]) and community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity (β = .21, %95 CI [.04, .38]) were significantly predicted by parental motivation. When the predictors entered together, while parental motivation (β = .15, %95 CI [−.02, .32], p =. 09) was not a significant predictor of moral wrongness judgments of unity violation, community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity was a significant one, (β = .23, %95 CI [.06, .40], p = .01), R2 = .09, F (2, 124) = 6.13, p < .01. When parental motivation was entered as a single predictor of moral wrongness judgments of unity violation, explanative power of the model reduced, R2 = .04, F (1, 125) = 5.19, p < .05.

Discussion

The results showed that parental motivation and unity motivation positively linked with each other. This study approached meta-relational threat sensitivity, as an individual predisposition, with two factors (i.e., community-based and individual-based metarelational threat sensitivity). Results indicated that community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity mediates the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments of unity violation. However, results showed a weak mediative role of meta-relational threat sensitivity. In addition, the explanative power of the model was only 9%, which suggests that there are variables needed to be explored on this link.  


PDF View

References

  • Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systmes. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. google scholar
  • Chakroff, A. ve Young, L. (2015). Harmful situations, impure people: An attribution asymmetry across moral domains. Cognition, 136, 30-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.034 google scholar
  • Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A problem-centred approach. T.K. Shackelford ve R. D. google scholar
  • Hansen (Ed.). The evolution of morality (s. 27-51) içinde. Springer International Publishing. google scholar
  • de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Doğruyol, B., Alper, S. ve Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109547. google scholar
  • Dungan, J. A., Chakroff, A. ve Young, L. (2017). The relevance of moral norms in distinct relational contexts: Purity versus harm norms regulate self-directed actions. PLoS One, 12, e0173405. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173405 google scholar
  • Dunkel, C. S., Gladden, P. R. ve Mathes, E. W. (2016). Sex differences in moral reasoning: The role of intelligence and life history strategy. Hum Ethol Bull, 31, 5-16. google scholar
  • Eibach, R. P. ve Mock, S. E. (2011). The vigilant parent: Parental role salience affects parents’ risk perceptions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 694-697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.jesp.2010.12.009. google scholar
  • Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K. ve Ehrlinger, J. (2009). Priming family values: How being a parent affects moral evaluations of harmless but offensive acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1160-1163. google scholar
  • Fessler, D. M. T. ve Haley, K. J. (2003). The strategy of affect: Emotions in human cooperation. P. Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (s. 7-36) içinde. Cambrigde: MIT Press google scholar
  • Figueredo, A. J., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B.H., Schneider, S.M., Sefcek, J.A., Tal, I., Hill, D., Wenner, C.J. ve Jacobs, W.J. (2006). Consilience and Life History Theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243- 275. google scholar
  • Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689 google scholar
  • Fiske, A. P. (2011). Metarelational models: Configurations of social relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.847 google scholar
  • Gilead, M. ve Liberman, N. (2014). We take care of our own: Caregiving salience increases out-group bias in response to out-group threat. Psychological Science, 25, 1380-1387. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0956797614531439. google scholar
  • Giner-Sorolla, R. ve Chapman, H. A. (2016). Beyond purity: Moral disgust toward bad character. Psychological Science, 28, 80-91. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616673193 google scholar
  • Gladden, P. R. ve Cleator, A. M. (2018). Slow life history strategy predicts six moral foundations. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 9, 43-63. google scholar
  • Gladden, P. R., Welch, J., Figueredo, A. J. ve Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Moral intuitions and religiosity as spuriously correlated life history traits. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 167-184. google scholar
  • Graham. J., Haidt. J., Koleva. S., Motyl. M., Iyer. R., Wojcik. S. ve Ditto. P. H. (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 47, 55-130. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4 google scholar
  • Graham, J., Haidt, J. ve Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0015141 google scholar
  • Haidt, J., Koller, S. H. ve Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628. http.//dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613 google scholar
  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. http://afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-process-analysis.html adresinden alınmıştır. google scholar
  • Hofer, M. K., Buckels, E. E., White, C. J., Beall, A. T. ve Schaller, M. (2018). Individual differences in activation of the parental care motivational system: An empirical distinction between protection and nurturance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 907-916. google scholar
  • Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D. ve Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 97, 963-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017423 google scholar
  • Kenny, D. A. (2017). MedPower: An interactive tool for the estimation of power in tests of mediation [Computer software]. https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/MedPower/ adresinden alınmıştır. google scholar
  • Kerry, N. ve Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 88-96. google scholar
  • Nesse, R. M. (2001). Evolution and the capacity for commitment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
  • Parkinson, M. ve Byrne, M. J. R. (2017). Judgments of moral responsibility and wrongness for intentional and accidental harm and purity violations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(3), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1276942 google scholar
  • Pianka, E. R. (1970). On r- and K-selection. American Naturalist, 104, 592-596. google scholar
  • Rai, T. S. ve Fiske. A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review. 118, 57-75. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0021867 google scholar
  • Rai, T. S. ve Fiske, A. P. (2012). Beyond harm, intention, and dyads: Relationship regulation, virtuous violence, and metarelational morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 189-193.https://dx.doi. org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.670782 google scholar
  • Rottman, J., Kelemen, D. ve Young, L. (2014). Purity matters more than harm in moral judgments of suicide: Response to Gray (2014). Cognition, 133, 332-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2014.06.008 google scholar
  • Rushton, J. P. (1985). Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 441-452. google scholar
  • Sabo, J. S. ve Giner-Sorolla, R. (2017). Imagining wrong: Fictitious contexts mitigate condemnation of harm more than impurity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 134-153. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000251 google scholar
  • Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C, Mahapatra, M. ve Park, L. (1997). The “Big Three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. A. Brandt ve P. Rozin (Ed.), Morality and health (s. 119-169) içinde. New York: Routledge. google scholar
  • Simpson, A. ve Laham, S. M. (2015a). Different relational models underlie prototypical left and right positions on social issues. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 204-217. https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.2074 google scholar
  • Simpson, A. ve Laham, S. M. (2015b). Individual differences in relational construal are associated with variability in moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 49-54. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.044 google scholar
  • Simpson, A., Laham, S. M. ve Fiske, A. P. (2016). Wrongness in different relationships: Relational context effects on moral judgment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 594-609. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1140118 google scholar
  • Sunar, D. (2009). Suggestions for a new integration in the psychology of morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 447-474. google scholar
  • Sunar, D., Cesur, S., Piyale, Z. E., Tepe, B., Biten, A. F., Hill, C. T. ve Koç, Y. (2020). People respond with different moral emotions to violations in different relational models: A cross-cultural comparison. Emotion, 21(4), 693-706. google scholar
  • Tepe. B. ve Aydinli-Karakulak. A. (2019). Beyond harmfulness and impurity: Moral wrongness as a violation of relational motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 310-337. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000169 google scholar
  • Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A. ve Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81. google scholar
  • Vezzali, L., Brambilla, M., Giovannini, D. ve Colucci F. P. (2017). Strengthening purity: Moral purity as a mediator of direct and extended cross-group friendships on sexual prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 716-730. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1196998 google scholar
  • Vonasch, A. J., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B. M. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Death before dishonor: Incurring costs to protect moral reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5) 604-613,, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720271. google scholar
  • Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J. ve Zeelenberg, M. (2018). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion, 18, 277-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000359 google scholar
  • Yalçındağ, B., Özkan, T., Cesur, S., Yilmaz, O., Tepe, B., Piyale, Z. E., Biten, A. F. ve Sunar, D. (2017). An investigation of moral foundations theory in Turkey using different measures. Current Psychology, 38(2), 440-457. google scholar
  • Yilmaz, O., Harma, M., Bahçekapili, H. G. ve Cesur, S. (2016). Validation of the moral foundations questionnaire in Turkey and its relation to cultural schemas of individualism and collectivism. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 149-154. google scholar
  • Young, L. ve Saxe, R. (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120, 202-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.005 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Tepe, B., & Cüre Acer, S. (2022). Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü. Studies in Psychology, 42(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


AMA

Tepe B, Cüre Acer S. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü. Studies in Psychology. 2022;42(1):105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


ABNT

Tepe, B.; Cüre Acer, S. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü. Studies in Psychology, [Publisher Location], v. 42, n. 1, p. 105-131, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Tepe, Beyza, and Sena Cüre Acer. 2022. “Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü.” Studies in Psychology 42, no. 1: 105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


Chicago: Humanities Style

Tepe, Beyza, and Sena Cüre Acer. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü.” Studies in Psychology 42, no. 1 (May. 2022): 105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


Harvard: Australian Style

Tepe, B & Cüre Acer, S 2022, 'Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü', Studies in Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 105-131, viewed 24 May. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Tepe, B. and Cüre Acer, S. (2022) ‘Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü’, Studies in Psychology, 42(1), pp. 105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548 (24 May. 2022).


MLA

Tepe, Beyza, and Sena Cüre Acer. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü.” Studies in Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, 2022, pp. 105-131. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548


Vancouver

Tepe B, Cüre Acer S. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü. Studies in Psychology [Internet]. 24 May. 2022 [cited 24 May. 2022];42(1):105-131. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548 doi: 10.26650/SP2021-852548


ISNAD

Tepe, Beyza - Cüre Acer, Sena. Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü”. Studies in Psychology 42/1 (May. 2022): 105-131. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-852548



TIMELINE


Submitted02.01.2021
Accepted21.12.2021
Published Online15.04.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.