首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Moral Education >Analysis of the relationships between sensitivity to injustice, principles of justice and belief in a just world
【24h】

Analysis of the relationships between sensitivity to injustice, principles of justice and belief in a just world

机译:分析对不公正的敏感性,正义原则和正义世界中信仰之间的关系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Injustice appears to be a major variable in the analysis of transgressive behaviour. Theories and studies of injustice differ according to how injustice is conceptualised: contextually or personally. In the first case, the judgement of injustice results from an evaluation of situational characteristics (inequity, inequality, arbitrariness etc.). In the second case, factors related to personality (belief in a just world, sensitivity to injustice) are assumed to modify perceptions of justice or injustice and reactions to it. Although at first glance these approaches seem to be opposed, morality may be a point in common. This study of high school students aimed to identify the relationships between the variables of contextual injustice (principles of equity, equality or need operating in the evaluation of a situation) and those of personal injustice (sensitivity to injustice and belief in a just world), with reference to the literature on morality. Ten volunteers participated in semi-structured interviews. An interview guide was developed to identify the preferred principles used to assess the injustice of a situation, the intensity of sensitivity to injustice, and the strength of the belief in a just world. The analysis showed that the equity principle was highly associated with high sensitivity to injustice on the victim dimension and a strong belief in a just world. This profile indicated a focus on personal interests and characterised self-centred morality. In contrast, equality and need principles were related to high sensitivity to injustice on the observer and beneficiary dimensions and a weak belief in a just world. These factors indicated capacities for selflessness and empathy and reflected altruistic morality.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2011.627142
机译:在对违规行为进行分析时,不公正似乎是一个主要变量。不公正的理论和研究根据不公正的概念化方式而有所不同:在上下文上还是个人上。在第一种情况下,对不公正的判断源于对情境特征(不平等,不平等,任意性等)的评估。在第二种情况下,与人格有关的因素(对正义世界的信仰,对不公正的敏感性)被认为会改变对正义或不公正的看法以及对正义或不公正的反应。尽管乍看之下这些方法似乎是对立的,但道德可能是一个共同点。这项针对高中生的研究旨在确定背景不公正的变量(在评估情况时的公平,平等或需要的原则)与个人不公正的变量(对不公正和对公正世界的信念的敏感性)之间的关系,参考有关道德的文献。十名志愿者参加了半结构化访谈。制定了采访指南,以识别用于评估局势不公正性的首选原则,对不公正性的敏感程度以及对公正世界的信念的强度。分析表明,公平原则与在受害者方面对不公正行为的高度敏感性以及对公正世界的坚定信念高度相关。此个人资料表明关注个人利益并表现出以自我为中心的道德。相反,平等和需要原则与观察者和受益人对不公正现象的高度敏感性以及对公正世界的薄弱信念有关。这些因素表明了无私和同情的能力,反映了利他的道德。查看全文下载全文digg,google,more“,发布号:” ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2011.627142

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号