Pauwels Cambridge workshop 2018 Testing SAT

Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels
t. +32 9 264 68 37
f. +32 9 264 84 94
Lieven.Pauwels@ugent.be
Exploring possibilities to test the moral
conflict hypothesis in SAT using vignette
studies: Some persistent challenges
The 2018 Cambridge Testing SAT Workshop 23-25 March

research publications consultancy conferences
www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be
1. Introduction & research question
2
“I can resist everything except temptation”. —Oscar Wilde

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• RQ1:
• Is the likelihood of choosing violence highest
in conditions of moral correspondence or
moral conflict?
(G1: high morals, low exposure, G2: high
morals, high exposure, G3: low morals, low
exposure, G4: low morals, high exposure)
 Note: high & low: median dichotomization
3

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• RQ2:
• Is self-control ability related to the
likelihoof of choosing a violent response
in conditions of moral correspondence
and / or moral conflict?
4

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• RQ3:
• Does the interaction between (1) self-
control ability and (2) scenario
criminogeneity depend on levels of
overall moral propensity?
• I.E.: is there a clear amplification or
suppression
5

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• This study focuses on the likelihood of
choosing a violent response (! Perceiving &
choosing are not disentangled empirically!)
setting criminogeneity: PROVOCATION &
MONITORING (presence or absence)
Individual vulneability: Moral propensity +
self-control ability
6

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• SAT distinguishes between the underlying
trait (“executive capabilities ”) and the
situational ability to apply self-control
(Wikström & Treiber, 2007).
• (Situational) effect of self-control ability
“only” in cases of specific moral conflict
(person: high morality & exposure to setting
criminogeneity)
2. Conditional effects of controls
7

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Previous studies
• See thematic issue EJC and Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und
Strafrechtsreform
• Scheepers & Reinecke (218)
• Hirtenlehner & Hardie (2017)
• Mesko, Hirtenlehner, Bertok (2015)
• …?
• This study follows the approach of Schepers and Reinecke
8

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
9

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Propositional statements derived from SAT:
• Proposition one:
• The likelihood of choosing violent response is highest in the
condition of moral correspondence
• What kind of moral correspondence: high moral propensity + high
scenario criminogeneity! Assumption familiarity may trigger
(especially habitual) responses
• Proposition two:
• The likelihood of self-control ability is highest in one condition of
moral conflict (when personal morality is high and scenario
criminogeneity is high, see group pressure example in Breaking
Rules, 2012)
10

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Proposition three:
• Effect of self-control ability on choosing violence is weakest
when moral propensity is high, irrespective of scenario
criminogeneity
• Effect of self-control ability on choosing violence is strongest
when moral propensity is high, and exacerbated by scenario
criminogenity
11

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Factorial design (see Eifler, 2007; Sauer et al, 2009;
Wallander, 2009)
• 2 scenarios per respondent: bus stop scenario & class room
scenario
• Online factorial survey of students, including measures of
personal characteristics (N 1021)
• Data collection March 2015-June 2015).
• E-mail link to online questionnaire (via school principals, universities and university
colleges (1st bachelor year)
• Incentive: iPad
• Online randomization using a randomizer algorithm (Matsumoto & Nishimura, 1998)
4. Data & Methods
12

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• PADS+ (Wikström, Oberwittler, Treiber & Hardy 2012)
• Morality scale (moral beliefs + emotions)
• Self-control ability scale
• SCENARIO: “SETTING CHARACTERISTICS”:
• Provocation & monitoring actors (see Haar & Wikström,
2010; Wikström, Oberwittler, Treiber & Hardy 2012)
5. Measures
13

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
6. Descriptives and (Pauwels 2018, 2017)
14

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
6. Descriptives (Pauwels, 2018, 2017)
15
•The “propensity * scenario exposure interaction” can be reproduced in both
scenarios (Wikström et al, 2012)
•BUT: How does the pattern look like when taking into account the morel detailed
description of moral conflict and correspondence

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7. RESULTS
16

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.A Proportion choosing a violent response
17

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.A Proportion choosing a violent response
18

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.B Self-control ability by MCMC conditions
19
Effect largest in group
“high exposure & poor morals”
= This is moral correspondence
Effect lowest in group
“low exposure & strong morals”
and this is in line with SAT

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
20
Effect largest in group
“high exposure & poor morals”
Effect lowest in group
“low exposure & strong morals”
and this is in line with SAT

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
21

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
22

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.C Maturation by MCMC conditions
23

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.C Maturation by MCMC conditions
24

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
7.D Self-control ability by scenario
criminogeneity & overal morality
25

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
criminogeneity & overall morality
26

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
criminogeneity
27

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
criminogeneity
28

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• H1: 100% corroboration in both scenarios
• H2 + H3: partial corroboration
• How to explain the findings (alternative explanations):
• (1) The strong negative effect of self-control ability
actually may be suggestive for the fact that people’s
level of deliberation increases with self-control ability
(see Ariely, 2012)
• (2) We measure the trait, or the maturation gap
(Steinberg et al., 2009)
• Replicability: other typese of rule-breaking !
• SAT requires offence-specific testing
8. Conclusion & discussion
29

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Key challenges scenario studies:
• Scenario level
• Realism: provocation, temptation, informal
or formal control
• Setting criminogenity is more than the sum
of its parts, but people do not perceive
everything (provocation > presence or
absence of agents of control)
30

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Other ways to test moral conflict and moral
correspondence?
• Have conventional research methods reached their
limits? Experimental designs?
• Possibility of testing “situational theories” with
non-situational measures of individual
characteristics?
• Unknown sources of measurement error?
31

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Some empirical challenges for future research:
 Scenario studies have their restrictions, but at least self-
control ability is measured simultaneous with the scenario
choice (note: this is NOT the case in SRD-studies)
 Scenario criminogeneity needs further exploration
(temptations, …).
 Increasing complexity of design! Keep realistic.
 A setting is more than its parts, but selective perception and
priming may disturb “statistical findings”(see provocation,
much more salient than presence or absence of controls).
 Self-control ability (i.e. the situational aspect) is in need for
improved measurement. The measure is at best in line with
trait-like characteristic or with the maturation gap
Conclusions & discussion
32

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Conclusion & discussion
33
Inspired by (1) Lakatos and his “research programmes”, (2) Quine and (3) Laudan
SAT= very promising research program, but as with all research programs, some
(empirical) anomalies might pop up. Theorizing and new empirical studies may shed new
light, but theory comparison can also be a fruitful avenue, by looking at problems in light
of different angles

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
That’s all for today!
34

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Measures: see Wikström et al (2012)
Appendices
35

INTRODUCTION Louise is waiting for the bus at a bus stop. She is listening to her iPod
DIMENSION LEVEL WORDING
Provocation Pushed and ignored Suddenly a girl who walks by pushes her.
When Louise asks her why she pushed her
the girl just ignores her.
Pushed twice and iPad broken Suddenly a girl who walks by pushes her
so she drops her iPod to the ground and it
breaks. When Louise asks her why she
pushed her the girl pushes her once again
Monitoring Police officers There are two police officers walking on
the other side of the street
None There are no other people at the bus stop
OUTCOME Violence If you were Louise, how likely do you
think it is that you would hit or push the
girl that pushed you?
JUDGEMENT Very likely
Likely.
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Scenario Universe Monitoring
Police officers No-one
Provocation Pushed and ignored A B
Pushed twice and iPod broken C D
36
Source: Wikström et al. (2012)

37
INTRODUCTION It is break between two lessons. David is standing in the school
corridor together with a group of other pupils
DIMENSION LEVEL WORDING
Provocation False accusation Steve comes up to David and falsely
accuses him of having stolen some money
False accusation and push Steve comes up to David and falsely
accuses him of having stolen some money
and pushes him to the ground so that he
hurts his back.
Monitoring Teachers There are several teachers around who
can see what is going on.
No teachers There are no teachers or other adults
around who can see what is going on.
OUTCOME Violence What would you do if you were David?
Would you hit Steve?
JUDGEMENT Yes, I would hit Steve.
No, I would just tell Steve he is an idiot.
No, I would tell a teacher about it.
No, I would do nothing.
Scenario Universe Monitoring
Teachers No teachers
Provocation False accusation A B
False accusation and push C D

www.ircp.org
Contact
t. +32 9 264 68 37
f. +32 9 264 84 94
IRCP
Ghent University
Universiteitstraat 4
B – 9000 Ghent

Pauwels Cambridge workshop 2018 Testing SAT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Pauwels Cambridge workshop 2018 Testing SAT

Similar to Pauwels Cambridge workshop 2018 Testing SAT (20)

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Pauwels Cambridge workshop 2018 Testing SAT