4.6 Article

Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251989

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dale M. Coleman Chair of Management and Indiana University
  2. Leo K. and Gaylee Thorsness Chair in Ethical Leadership
  3. University of Richmond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revised the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure sensitivity to harm and moral standards, validated the questionnaire through three studies, and supported the theory's four-fold classification of individuals into ethics positions.
We revised the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ), which measures variations in sensitivity to harm (idealism) and to moral standards (relativism). Study 1 identified the core components of the measured constructs theoretically and verified those features through confirmatory factor analysis (n = 2,778). Study 2 replicated these findings (n = 10,707), contrasted the theoretically defined two-factor model to alternative models, and tested for invariance of factor covariances and mean structures for men and women. Study 3 examined the relationship between the EPQ and related indicators of ethical thought (values and moral foundations) and the theory's four-fold classification typology of exceptionists, subjectivists, absolutists, and situationists. The three studies substantially reduced the original EPQ's length, clarified the conceptual interpretation of the idealism and relativism scales, affirmed the EPQ's predictive and convergent validity, and supported the four-fold classification of individuals into ethics positions. Implications for previous findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据