Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5.
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...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251989 |
id |
doaj-f880a27611d8492c9ad410f57638620c |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-f880a27611d8492c9ad410f57638620c2021-07-04T04:30:19ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01166e025198910.1371/journal.pone.0251989Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5.Ernest H O'BoyleDonelson R ForsythWe 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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251989 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Ernest H O'Boyle Donelson R Forsyth |
spellingShingle |
Ernest H O'Boyle Donelson R Forsyth Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Ernest H O'Boyle Donelson R Forsyth |
author_sort |
Ernest H O'Boyle |
title |
Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. |
title_short |
Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. |
title_full |
Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. |
title_fullStr |
Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. |
title_sort |
individual differences in ethics positions: the epq-5. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2021-01-01 |
description |
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. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251989 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT ernesthoboyle individualdifferencesinethicspositionstheepq5 AT donelsonrforsyth individualdifferencesinethicspositionstheepq5 |
_version_ |
1721320800629293056 |