The Turkish adaptation of the Oxford utilitarianism scale
CitationKumova, F. ve Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2021). The Turkish adaptation of the Oxford utilitarianism scale. Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi, 41(2), 491-520. https://dx.doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0055
Utilitarianism and deontology are the two major normative ethics in moral philosophy extensively used to explain the source of moral judgments in moral psychology. Since 2000, scholars used classical moral dilemmas nearly exclusively to differentiate utilitarian and deontological decision-making tendencies. However, results from a series of studies indicated that these dilemmas tend to elicit utilitarian responses from people with antisocial personality features. The efficiency of these moral dilemmas was the subject of debates in the last 10 years eiven that antisocial tendencies are the direct opposite of a utilitarian outlook. One of the criticisms was that these dilemmas were limited to the measurement of the instrumental hann dimension of utilitarianism and entirely overlooked the impartial beneficence outlook. The Oxford Utilitarian Scale (OUS) (Kahane et al., 2018) was developed to measure both dimensions of utilitarianism. To lit the context. the study developed the Turkish adaptation of the OUS. The study recruited 983 participants aged 18-65 years and 82.5% living in Istanbul. The respondents were randomly assigned to two sub-groups for principal and confirmatory factor analyses (PFA and CFA). respectively. The PFA results revealed a two-factor structure, which is similar to that of the original study, with an explained total variance of 52.5%. Moreover, the CFA results indicated that the adaptation study is compatible with the original two-factor model. Convergent validity analysis revealed positive correlations of instrumental hann to psychopathy and Machiavellianism as expected. Similarly, the impartial beneficence factor displayed positive relationships with empathic concern, perspective-taking, and altruistic utilitarianism. Moreover, the results demonstrated that impartial beneficence is negatively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism. In line with the original study, participants with high scores in instrumental harm and impartial beneficence endorsed the utilitarian option in response to these dilemmas. In summary, the mutts confirmed that the Turkish version of the OUS is substantially concordant with the original inventory. Therefore, the authors suggest that the proposed version is advisable for use in future empirical and correlational studies on moral psychology.