Research topic on empathy and related coursework

Behavioral Psychology
Name:
Institution:
Assignment One
Developing Research Question
Many studies have tried to examine the relationship between empathy and morality. Some authors have found that the two refer to the same thing while others have established that they are completely different concepts. The debate surrounding the relationship between the two areas of psychological study will be in existence for a long time as no study has conclusively come up with a logical explanation to describe the relationship. Nonetheless, this is an area of interest for any student of psychology. In this regard, the current study tries to confirm that the two cannot be used interchangeably. Therefore, the questions to be answered are:
What is the role of empathy in morality?
Can a person who lacks empathy make a moral decision?
To answer the research questions, the study must focus on the role of empathy and its epistemological necessity in identifying the right course of action in moral dilemmas as well as its role in the psychological motivation of people to make the right decisions.
Response
It is important to note that empathy and morality are two distinct concepts. From the perspectives of Decety & Cowell (2014), the two motives have their unique goals and motivations. Empathy and morality cannot be used interchangeably because of their distinct nature. For empathy, emotions play a big part of empathic decisions. On the other hand, morality is influenced by the standards set by the society concerning what is considered right and wrong.

Therefore, when making empathic decisions, one is driven by their emotional attachment or their ability to put themselves in the similar situations while when making moral decisions, one is driven by what is considered right or wrong by the society.
Assignment Two
Definitions
Informed Consent- it is a voluntary agreement to take part in research. When approaching a subject, he or she does not simply sign the consent form. They must be made to understand the nature and the risks associated with the study. Therefore, it is a process which is essential before a person enrolls as a research subject.
Deception- it occurs when the authors provide incomplete or false information to the participants with the aim of misleading them.
Coercion- it occurs when an implicit or overt threat of injury or harm is deliberately presented to the participant to obtain compliance.
Anonymity- it means that the study does not reveal the subjects of the study or protects the identity of the individual subjects by failing to link their responses with their exact identities.
Risk- the magnitude and probability of discomfort or harm anticipated in a study.
Debriefing Procedures- a procedure carried out in a psychological study with human participants after a study or experiment has been concluded. It simply entails a semi-structured or structured interview between the author and the subjects where all the elements involved in the study are extensively discussed.
Part I
What makes a study easy to conduct?
The study does not require much time
The scope of the study is narrow
The possible sources of data or information are readily available
The research question is articulate and clear.
What makes a study effective?
The results answer WHY questions.
The study has multiple formulations.
The research question is articulated, and the results give clear answers.
The study has a clear and reasonable vision.
A high-quality study environment is developed.
The study result is applicable in real life cases.
What makes a study ethical?
It is non-intrusive.
The investigators obtain informed consent from the subjects.
The anonymity of the subjects is prioritized.
Nature and risks associated with the study are explained to the participants.
Participation is voluntary and free from coercion.
The subjects are not deceived through false information to participate in the study.
Part II
Question 1:
Which type of study would be the easiest to conduct?
Naturalistic observation
Which type of study would be the most effective?
Experimental designs
Which type of study would be the most ethical?
Experimental designs
Question 2:
Which type of study would be the easiest to conduct?
Case studies
Which type of study would be the most effective?
Experimental designs
Which type of study would be the most ethical?
Case studies
Question 3:
Which type of study would be the easiest to conduct?
Survey research and correlation designs
Which type of study would be the most effective?
Case studies
Which type of study would be the most ethical?
Experimental designs
Question 4:
Which type of study would be the easiest to conduct?
Experimental designs
Which type of study would be the most effective?
Experimental designs
Which type of study would be the most ethical?
Case studies
Question 5:
Which type of study would be the easiest to conduct?
Survey research and correlation
Which type of study would be the most effective?
Experimental designs
Which type of study would be the most ethical?
Case studies
Part III
Hypothesis
Lack of parental love during the early developmental stages causes people to be aggressive in future.
Research Design and Rationale
The best research design to test my hypothesis is survey research and correlation designs. I have decided this is the best method to use because it focuses on the personal account of the subjects to understand their childhood experiences. Survey separates the most and the least aggressive individuals and examines the difference in their early childhood experiences.
Sample Description
The sample for the design would be college students, ten girls, and ten boys, with different levels of aggression. The students will be selected from two colleges. For accuracy, the study would use the past disciplinary history of the students to determine their anti-social behaviors. The participants would then be placed in two groups- one group with high level of aggression and the other group with the low level of aggression.
Questionnaire
To test the hypothesis, the subjects would be asked the following questions:
How can you describe your relationship with your parents while growing up?
Were you subject to any abuse in your early childhood?
How can you describe the relationship between your father and mother during your early childhood?
The questions will aim to establish whether early relationships among the subjects’ family members contributed to their current anti-social behavior.
Assignment Three
List of Journal Article in Psychology
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525-537.
Goldman, A. I. (2013). Empathy, mind, and morals. The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series, 79-103.
Hughes, J. S., Sandry, J., & Trafimow, D. (2012). Intentional inferences are not more likely than unintentional ones: Some evidence against the intentionality bias hypothesis. The Journal of social psychology, 152(1), 1-4.
Malti, T., & Krettenauer, T. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and antisocial behavior: A meta‐analysis. Child development, 84(2), 397-412.
Masto, M. (2015). Empathy and its role in morality. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(1), 74-96.
Koolen, S., Poorthuis, A., & van Aken, M. A. (2012). Cognitive distortions and self-regulatory personality traits associated with proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence. Cognitive therapy and research, 36(6), 776-787.
Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M. A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathic: Do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 391-398.
Assignment Four
Article Summary
Masto, M. (2015). Empathy and its role in morality. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(1), 74-96.
The article focuses on the role of empathy in morality. The main purpose is to demonstrate that empathy is a vital component of a person’s moral life to provide evidence against the idea that empathy and morality can be used interchangeably. The investigators in the study felt there was a need to carry out the research because of the debate surrounding the relationship between empathy and morality. For instance, Decety & Cowell (2014) suggest that empathy and morality can be used interchangeably- the article tries to argue against this stance.
The author addresses the research question giving a detailed explanation of empathy. Further, he addressed problems associated with the concept and the reasons people think of the two concepts interchangeably. Lastly, he discusses the role of empathy to answer the research question.
The author simply used past studies and improved the arguments. He explained the reasons some of the studies were wrong by providing a detailed argument supporting the role of empathy in morality. He also provided his insight regarding the subject matter. In his discussion, he establishes that empathy has an important role in morality which is contrary to the previous studies done by other authors on the topic.
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525-537.
The major purpose of the article was to establish whether empathy and morality refer to the same concept. The need to carry out this study stems from the recent debate surrounding the relationship between the two concepts. To support their claim, the authors relied on past studies to explain why empathy is necessary for moral behavior. The discussion entailed the scope of empathy and the evolution and development of the concept of morality. The two discussions were then linked to establishing a common ground for empathy and morality. Based on the discussion, the study established that empathy is necessary for moral behavior in humans.
Hughes, J. S., Sandry, J., & Trafimow, D. (2012). Intentional inferences are not more likely than unintentional ones: Some evidence against the intentionality bias hypothesis. The Journal of social psychology, 152(1), 1-4.
The major purpose of the study was to test the supposition that conjectures about intentionality are inclined toward an intentional understanding. To test the hypothesis, the authors recruited 18 males and 35 female students where they were taken through five practice trials with sentences presented in random order. After the practice trials, the authors calculated their intentionality endorsement (IE) score and defined as the number of intentional responses divided by the number of total responses. The study provided evidence against the intentionality bias hypothesis developed by the previous studies. Therefore, the findings of the study confirmed the bias that the inferences based on intentionality have against the intentional understanding.
Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M. A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathic: Do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 391-398.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between cyberbullying and reactive and proactive aggression, affective and cognitive empathy, as well as moral disengagement among Italian adolescents. The need for the study was created by the emergence of cyberbullying as a new form of bullying among adolescents as opposed to the traditional forms such as face-to-face bullying. The study focused on 819 adolescents in high-school who were administered with a battery of standardized tools, together with cyberties- an instrument the assesses the prevalence of different forms of cyber assaults. According to the findings, students who identified themselves as cyberbully victims or cyberbullies showed considerably higher level of moral disconnection and of both forms of aggression. Also, cyberbullies portrayed a lack of empathy.
Koolen, S., Poorthuis, A., & van Aken, M. A. (2012). Cognitive distortions and self-regulatory personality traits associated with proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence. Cognitive therapy and research, 36(6), 776-787.
The study sought to examine the relationship between proactive and reactive aggression during adolescence and pro-social and anti-social behaviors during young adulthood. The need was created by the limited research focusing on the area. The authors used peer nominations and self-questionnaires method administered to 173 children aged 10-13 years in sixth grade in public elementary institutions in the Netherlands. The depressing binomial regression study showed that positive aggression was envisaged by disagreeable and self-centered tendencies, while reactive aggression was envisaged by the misattribution of putting blame on others. In essence, the findings highlighted the need to distinguish reactive and proactive aggression in order to correctly identify, prevent, and treat aggression in adolescents.
Goldman, A. I. (2013). Empathy, mind, and morals. The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series, 79-103.
The article focuses on how the mental state of a person influences how they perceive the society. The author tries to make the reader understand that an ethical decision is a product of empathy and the mind. In essence, a moral person is that who empathizes when making any decision and thinks about the consequences of that particular decision. Therefore, moral decisions come from empathy and appropriate use of the mind.
Malti, T., & Krettenauer, T. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and antisocial behavior: A meta‐analysis. Child development, 84(2), 397-412.
The article reviews 42 studies with 8,009 subjects aged between 4-20 years to investigate the relationship moral emotion has with antisocial and prosocial behavior. The study establishes significant association between the moral emotions and antisocial and prosocial behavior. Despite the difference in effect sizes of the studies investigated, the discussion of the results is based on the probable moral emotion for the social behavior in adolescents.
References
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525-537.
Goldman, A. I. (2013). Empathy, mind, and morals. The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series, 79-103.
Hughes, J. S., Sandry, J., & Trafimow, D. (2012). Intentional inferences are not more likely than unintentional ones: Some evidence against the intentionality bias hypothesis. The Journal of social psychology, 152(1), 1-4.
Malti, T., & Krettenauer, T. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and antisocial behavior: A meta‐analysis. Child development, 84(2), 397-412.
Masto, M. (2015). Empathy and its role in morality. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(1), 74-96.
Koolen, S., Poorthuis, A., & van Aken, M. A. (2012). Cognitive distortions and self-regulatory personality traits associated with proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence. Cognitive therapy and research, 36(6), 776-787.
Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M. A. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathic: Do cyberbullies fit these definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 391-398.