Save

Forty-Eight Classical Moral Dilemmas in Persian Language: A Validation and Cultural Adaptation Study

In: Journal of Cognition and Culture
Authors:
Sajad Sojoudi Master’s Student, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive Sciences Studies Tehran Iran

Search for other papers by Sajad Sojoudi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2350-0564
,
Azra Jahanitabesh Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of California Davis, CA USA

Search for other papers by Azra Jahanitabesh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6502-1158
,
Javad Hatami Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Tehran Tehran Iran

Search for other papers by Javad Hatami in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-1487
, and
Julia F. Christensen Senior Researcher, Department for Language and Literature, Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics Frankfurt/M Germany

Search for other papers by Julia F. Christensen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0381-5101
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$34.95

Abstract

Moral dilemmas are a useful tool to investigate empirically, which parameters of a given situation modulate participants’ moral judgment, and in what way.

In an effort to provide moral judgment data from a non-WEIRD culture, we provide the translation and validation of 48 classical moral dilemmas in Persian language. The translated dilemma set was submitted to a validation experiment with N = 82 Iranian participants. The four-factor structure of this dilemma set was confirmed; including Personal Force (Personal, Impersonal), Benefit Recipient (Self, Other), Evitability (Avoidable, Inevitable), and Intentionality (Accidental, Instrumental). When comparing moral judgments of Iranian participants to those of Spanish and Italian participants’ from previous research with the same dilemma set, differences emerged. Iranian participants’ moral judgments were more deontological (i.e., they refrained from harm), than Spanish and Italian participants. Religiosity made participants’ moral judgments more deontological, and also dysphoric mood resulted in a more deontological response style.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 239 239 35
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Views & Downloads 1 1 0