Remember to respond to two peers while being respectful of and sensitive to their viewpoints. Consider advancing the discussion by answering the following questions:
• Did your peers do a good job of translating the findings of their chosen study to a lay audience?
• Did your peers relate their chosen study to current and emerging issues in psychological research?
• Did your peers describe how the findings of their chosen study could be used personally or professionally?
To complete this assignment, review the Psychology Undergraduate Discussion Rubric. You will also need:
• Norms of Practice for Online Discussion
• Ethical Usage Practices
PEER1-NG
The title of this study is, “ Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior” (Galinsky, Lammers, & Stapel, 2010). The purpose of this study was to find whether or not having power increases hypocrisy and if it affects moral reasoning and judgment upon others. It was an experimental type of research and they did over 5 studies with multiple different experiments to ensure data literacy. Their main hypothesis was “ we propose that power increases hypocrisy. It makes people stricter in moral judgment of others, but less strict in their own behaviors” (Galinsky, Lammers, & Stapel, 2010). They came to the conclusion that “ we found strong evidence that the powerful are more likely to engage in moral hypocrisy than people who lack power” (Galinsky, Lammers, & Stapel, 2010). They used over a 100 dutch students per each experiment, all ages average around 20.
I think this study relates to current and emerging issues by the fact that we are seeing now a days a lot of people in higher power like politics, social media, religion, culture, that have a lot of power and they tend to lose their minds or become very hypocritical of others and cant see the speck in their own high. For example, we see many politicians act a certain way and say to follow CDC guidelines, yet we find out that they themselves are caught not following the same rules, and it shows this sense of entitlement. Also, you can see it in any movie or story where a person comes from nothing, works their way up to be very successful over others, and then loses themselves in the money and power and it gets to their head and it all falls apart.
I’d say this study relates to the programmatic theme of ethics, and self-care. It relates to ethics because we need to make sure we stay ethical in our culture and we need to treat others with respect, no matter what position they are in, and we need to be ethically sound. It relates to self- care because we need to check ourselves if we ever get in a position of power over others, that we don’t let the power get to our heads and become hypocritical, judge-mental, and think too highly of ourselves.
The findings of this study can be used by people in their work, personal lives, because they can understand that power can change someone, and to watch out for those who do change because of power in the workplace, friendships, and more.
Data literacy is very important when evaluating sources of evidence from a study because you need to make sure that the sources are actually reliable, reputable, and quality sources. Without good sources, then the whole research goes out the window. Essentially, The sources are the foundation of the data and the entire research study.
References:
G, Adam, L, Joris, & S. Diederik. (2010). Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior. Association for Psychological Science. https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797610368810
PEER2-TH
The study that I chose is, The Reasons Young Children Give to Peers When Explaining Their Judgments of Moral and Conventional Rules (Mammen, M., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M., 2018). The purpose of the peer-reviewed journal article was to show that even 3- and 5-year old’s can distinguish between moral and social transgressions and judge what is and is not in their cultural common ground. There were 76 3-year-olds and 72 5-year-olds broken into dyads. Each dyad was then randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (Mammen, M., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M., 2018). Each experiment would be acting out a moral norm violation or a social rules condition and then observing what either the target child or naïve child said or did. Each dyad had a recorder that observed the children’s conversations to submit the results of the study.
This study can relate to current and emerging issues in psychological to help provide research on how to properly teach and guide children in daycare or preschool settings. Daycares have been at the forefront of the country’s needs the last two years due to the pandemic and parents having to work from home or lose their jobs. I have been involved administratively at a daycare and have found these children have not been able to properly develop the social tools because of having to be isolated from others. The results of this study can provide helpful information for all involved, parents, teachers, administrators, and child.
This study relates to the programmatic themes of career connections and ethics. Career connections applies because it provides tools to help their program more efficient based off the results found in the study. A person needs to be open to as why children behave the way they do to be able to work with them more effectively. Ethics applies because the participants(recorders) and researchers need to be morally and ethical to make sure no biases occur in the research. The recorders of this study are observing not leading the children in any way to make sure the true reflection of the experiments occurs.
The findings of this study could be used in each aspect – work, personal lives, and helping others. The study observed 3-year-olds and 5-year-olds and the results showed more consistent, distinguished between moral norms and social rules (Mammen, M., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M., 2018). This helps the teacher to see the difference between a 3-year-old classroom versus a 5-year-old classroom of what may or may not work.
Data literacy is important when evaluating sources of evidence from a study because it is the backbone of a research study. Data literacy is needed to communicate and comprehend the results effectively to others. It allows the individuals reading the study to comprehend or the ability to replicate it as well. A research study that doesn’t have a good foundation of sources cannot present a well effective study and results.
References
Mammen, M., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M. (2018). The Reasons Young Children Give to Peers When Explaining Their Judgments of Moral and Conventional Rules. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 254–262.
——-
Remember to respond to two peers with respect and sensitivity to their points of view. Consider answering the following questions to further the discussion:
• Did your classmates do a good job of explaining their chosen study’s conclusions to a lay audience?
• Did your classmates link the study they chose to current and developing concerns in psychological research?
• Did your classmates explain how the results of their chosen study could be applied to their personal or professional lives?
Review the Psychology Undergraduate Discussion Rubric to finish this assignment. You’ll also require:
• Norms of Practice for Online Discussion
• Ethical Usage Practices
PEER1-NG
The title of this study is, “ Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior” (Galinsky, Lammers, & Stapel, 2010). The purpose of this study was to
Reply to Thread
