Research Article


DOI :10.26650/SP2020-0055   IUP :10.26650/SP2020-0055    Full Text (PDF)

The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale

Filiz KumovaHasan Galip Bahçekapılı

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.

DOI :10.26650/SP2020-0055   IUP :10.26650/SP2020-0055    Full Text (PDF)

Oxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması

Filiz KumovaHasan Galip Bahçekapılı

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.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


In moral psychology, two major viewpoints in normative ethics, namely, utilitarianism and deontology, are used to explain moral judgments (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001). Utilitarianism pertains to the view that a morally right action maximizes the well-being of the majority, even if it means hurting the minority (Mill, 1861/1998). Conversely, deontology is the view that a morally right action conforms to universal moral principles, rights, and duties, despite the fact that the action is sub-optimal in promoting the well-being of the majority (Kant, 1785; 1964). To elucidate utilitarian and deontological tendencies, sacrificial moral dilemmas are the most prominent experimental tasks used by scholars in moral psychology. In a typical dilemma, a participant makes a judgment about the appropriateness of an action, which may save five lives at the expense of one. Endorsing or rejecting the action is regarded as a utilitarian or deontological response, respectively. However, scholars criticize the use of sacrificial dilemmas as a measure of utilitarianism on various grounds (e.g., Kahane, 2015; Conway & Gawronsky, 2013). One such ground is a set of recent findings that suggests that the utilitarian response tends to be positively and negatively correlated with psychopathic tendencies and empathic concern for others, respectively (e.g., Bartels & Pizarro, 2011; Conway & Gawronsky, 2013; Kahane, 2015; Koenigs, Kruepke, Zeier, & Newman, 2011). 

Various studies were conducted to supplement these classic dilemmas with new measures or to replace them entirely because such findings are in contrast with the core idea of utilitarianism: unselfish concern for the well-being of humanity (Conway & Gawronsky, 2013; Gawronsky & Beer, 2017). One of such studies proposes a new measure of utilitarianism called the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS), which was developed by Kahane et al. (2018). OUS is a nine-item, two-dimensional measure of utilitarianism that comprises instrumental harm (five items; e.g., “It is permissible to torture an innocent person if this would be necessary to provide information to prevent a bomb going off that would kill hundreds of people”) and impartial beneficence (four items; e.g., “From a moral point of view, we should feel obliged to give one of our kidneys to a person with kidney failure since we do not need two kidneys to survive, but only one to be healthy”). Kahane et al. (2018) claim that classic sacrificial dilemmas only measure the instrumental harm dimension of utilitarianism. Conversely, impartial beneficence denotes the willingness to sacrifice one’s interests for the well-being of the majority.

Method

The present study aimed to develop a new Turkish adaptation of OUS because the previous adaptation (Erzi, 2019) was inconsistent with the original version in several respects. The study recruited 983 participants (714 females and 269 males) aged 18-66 years from various occupational backgrounds who provided online responses to the OUS items and a set of scales. The participants were randomly assigned to two sub-groups for principal and confirmatory factor analyses (PFA and CFA), respectively. For convergent validity analysis, the study employed (a) two subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (empathic concern and perspective-taking; Davis, 1980; adapted by Engeler & Yargıç, 2007), (b) two subscales of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (psychopathy and Machiavellianism; Jonason & Webster, 2010; adapted by Özsoy et al., 2017), (c) cognitive reflection tests 1 and 2 (used by e.g., Aktaş, Yılmaz, & Bahçekapılı, 2017), (d) the impartial donation scenario (Kahane, Everett, Earp, Farias, & Savulescu, 2015), and (e) classical sacrificial dilemmas (Koenigs et al., 2007; adapted by Kumova & Bahçekapılı, 2020).

Results

The PFA results revealed a two-factor structure similar to the original study, which explains 52.5% of the total variance. Moreover, the CFA results were consistent with the two-factor structure. The results of convergent validity analysis indicated that the instrumental harm dimension was positively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism, which is consistent with expectations. Similarly, the impartial beneficence dimension was positively correlated with empathic concern, perspective-taking, and utilitarian altruism and negatively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism. These findings were consistent with those of the original study. Moreover, the results of the cognitive reflection tests indicated that no relationship exists between instrumental harm or impartial beneficence and analytic thinking tendency. In addition, the study investigated the relationship between OUS and classic sacrificial dilemmas.

Discussion

Consistent with the findings of Kahane et al. (2018), the scores for instrumental harm and impartial beneficence were positively correlated with utilitarian responses to classic dilemmas. The results revealed that the Turkish version of the OUS is consistent with the original version and can be used by empirical studies on moral judgment to measure utilitarian tendencies. The facts that participation was on a voluntary basis and that the majority of the respondents were women may be considered the major limitations of the present study, which limited the representativeness of the study. Thus, the study recommends the use of gender-balanced samples and incentives, such as course credits or gift checks, for future studies using the Turkish version of the OUS. 


PDF View

References

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSA Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. google scholar
  • 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
  • Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665-697. google scholar
  • Engeler, A. ve Yargıç, L. İ. (2007). Kişilerarası tepkisellik indeksi: Empatinin çok boyutlu ölçümü. New Symposiun Journal, 45, 119-127. google scholar
  • Engeler, A. (2005). Psikopati ve antisosyal kişilik bozukluğu. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, No: 5. google scholar
  • Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic, 19(4), 25-42. google scholar
  • Gawronski, B. ve Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632. google scholar
  • Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 467. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Kant, I. (1785/1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (H. J. Paton, Çeviri.). New York: Harper & Row. google scholar
  • Klein, R. B. (2011). Hypothesis Testing. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Assessing model fit. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, 3, 23-40. google scholar
  • Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. Review of Child Development Research, 1, 383-431. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Mehrabian, A., ve Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. google scholar
  • 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
  • Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Pala, A. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının empati kurma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 13-23. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Soderstrom, H. (2003). Psychopathy as a disorder of empathy. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12(5), 249. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204-217. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Citations

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


EXPORT



APA

Kumova, F., & Bahçekapılı, H.G. (2021). The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Studies in Psychology, 41(2), 491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


AMA

Kumova F, Bahçekapılı H G. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Studies in Psychology. 2021;41(2):491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


ABNT

Kumova, F.; Bahçekapılı, H.G. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Studies in Psychology, [Publisher Location], v. 41, n. 2, p. 491-520, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Kumova, Filiz, and Hasan Galip Bahçekapılı. 2021. “The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale.” Studies in Psychology 41, no. 2: 491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


Chicago: Humanities Style

Kumova, Filiz, and Hasan Galip Bahçekapılı. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale.” Studies in Psychology 41, no. 2 (Sep. 2021): 491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


Harvard: Australian Style

Kumova, F & Bahçekapılı, HG 2021, 'The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale', Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 491-520, viewed 24 Sep. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Kumova, F. and Bahçekapılı, H.G. (2021) ‘The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale’, Studies in Psychology, 41(2), pp. 491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055 (24 Sep. 2021).


MLA

Kumova, Filiz, and Hasan Galip Bahçekapılı. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale.” Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, 2021, pp. 491-520. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055


Vancouver

Kumova F, Bahçekapılı HG. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Studies in Psychology [Internet]. 24 Sep. 2021 [cited 24 Sep. 2021];41(2):491-520. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055 doi: 10.26650/SP2020-0055


ISNAD

Kumova, Filiz - Bahçekapılı, HasanGalip. The Turkish Adaptation of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale”. Studies in Psychology 41/2 (Sep. 2021): 491-520. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055



TIMELINE


Submitted07.05.2020
Accepted21.12.2020
Published Online31.08.2021

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.