Moral Media? Effects of Morally Ambiguous Media on the Morality of Adolescents Keren Kurlander
Master's Thesis
Research Master’s program Communication Science Supervisor: Dr. Jessica T. Piotrowski
Date of Completion: 03.02.2017
Author Note
Keren Kurlander, Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam This research was supported by the Graduate School of
Communication at the University of Amsterdam.
Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Keren Kurlander, Student number: 10864032, University of Amsterdam. Contact: K.kurlander@uva.nl
Abstract
In recent years, television dramas have increasingly incorporated morally ambiguous content - that is content which portrays villains or immoral characters whom are faced with moral dilemmas as protagonists of the narrative. With this increase, we have also seen an increased interest amongst communication scholars about the potential influence of this content on young adults’ morality. In this study, we expand this line of work to evaluate the potential consequences of such content on adolescents’ morality. Guided by predictions of moral disengagement theory and entertainment-education theory, this research tested the hypotheses that exposure to morally-ambiguous characters (MACs) would lead to a decrease in adolescents’ moral reasoning and judgment, particularly amongst those teens that found the content particularly appealing or transportative. To test these hypotheses, a between-subjects randomized experiment was conducted with 90 adolescents from the Israeli Scouts youth movement (Mage = 15.95, SDage = .81). Results indicated that teens who viewed one 40-minute television drama with MAC content performed similarly to their peers who viewed non-MAC content, suggesting that – at least in the short term – morally ambiguous messages do not affect adolescents’ moral reasoning and judgment. Implications and directions for future work are discussed.
Moral Media? Effects of Morally Ambiguous Media on the Morality of Adolescents Can media shape societal moral values? Are there slow changes in our moral judgment as a result of watching hours of our favorite television series that portray immoral characters as protagonists rather than moral characters? Questions like these should be in the center of attention of media researchers, consumers, and producers of the 21st century, as media content and consumption changes rapidly; from watching television on the screen, to streaming it online through laptops which allows total control on the choice of content, from prime-time one channel media to multiple platforms offering countless choices of content. We live in a media saturated society in which television stories must survive by offering better stories and intense
experiences. Today, more than ever before, we see an abundance of television programs fighting over the hearts and minds of the young audience 2015 was a record breaking year with the production of 409 new scripted series, more than double the amount of 2009 (Koblin, December 2015), and with the promise of big players such as HBO, Netflix, and Showtime to introduce new television content that is richer and deeper (Koblin, December 2015).
Interestingly, we see these narratives increasingly incorporating morally ambiguous characters into their plotlines (Most Popular TV Series Released, 2015). Morally ambiguous characters are characters who behave immorally, yet under the script's narrative, which presents them as human and likable, their acts could be understood by viewers as justified or even moral in an immoral world. Examples for morally ambiguous characters include Tony Soprano - a neurotic head of the mafia who seeks mental help from a psychologist, Walter White - a
chemistry teacher whose only solace after learning he is dying from terminal cancer is to leave his family with enough money by cooking methamphetamines or Dexter - a psychopath who alters his uncontrollable homicidal tendency into murdering serial killers to bring justice. These
are merely a few examples of the morally ambiguous characters (MAC) that are appearing in the popular television content of today. Indeed, it seems that using MACs is one way that television writers are working to ensure that their content provides unique and appealing viewing
experiences to today’s audiences (Plaisier & Konijn, 2013).
While these new forms of dark, immoral, and entertaining narratives may be increasingly commonplace, they bring with them real concerns as to the potential influence of this content on audience members’ moral judgment (defined in this study as the cognitive process in which people assess an act to be moral or immoral under certain situations). For example, the story of two American adolescents that were inspired by the television character Dexter to murder their loved ones in 2009 and 2014 are potent examples of what morally ambiguous narratives might do to people's moral judgment (Friedman, 2009; Teenager obsessed, 2014). And while most scholars would agree that fans of the show Dexter are unlikely to end up as serial killers, there is a reasonable argument to be had that such content could influence their moral judgment. Indeed, a discourse analysis of fans on the official Dexter forum revealed a desire for a real Dexter that will make justice instead of the slow system of law enforcement (Gregoriou, 2012) suggesting that – at least among heavy viewers – there does seem to be some potential relationship between MAC and moral judgment. Dexter is merely one example of a show using MACs. Since then, many more morally ambiguous shows have taken over our screens, including Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Black Mirror, West-world, and House of Cards. Yet, despite this rise in morally-ambiguous content, we know little about how such content may influence the moral judgment of audiences today. Working with a sample of adolescents, this study aims to address this gap by asking how exposure to MAC content may – in the short term – influence moral judgment.
Literature Review
Theoretical approach: How Morally-Ambiguous Characters Influence Audiences Generally speaking, the common denominator binding morally-ambiguous television content together is the portrayal of 'the bad guys' as protagonists from a sympathetic or justified angle and a narrative that wraps the immoral acts with justifications, compassion, or other narrative techniques. Such rationalizations protect the main lead from being hated in the eyes of the audience. This rationalizing behavior is best explained by moral disengagement theory (Bandura, 1999). According to the theory, moral disengagement is the self-convincing process in which an immoral judgment or act is regarded as righteous or just, and in doing so, removes all ethical standards of right and wrong from oneself. This situation can happen when there are moral justifications to an act, use of euphemisms to an act (e.g., freedom fighter instead of a terrorist), diffusion or displacement of a responsibility, dehumanization and more. Viewers who are watching entertaining MACs may develop moral disengagement by feeling empathetic towards MACs. This sort of engagement is also referred to as affective or moral disposition (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977) which, for many media users, is a way of enjoying media. Simply put, when viewers stumble upon an immoral act done by a character they like, they will use their empathetic emotions to continue watching and maintaining enjoyment of the show. But do these empathetic emotions only stay within the boundaries of watching MACs or do they have an extended effect on morality after the viewing time?
Entertainment-education theory (E-E; Moyer-Gusé, 2008) argues for the latter, that is, the theory posits that when content is highly engaging and entertaining, viewers may be more
susceptible to the messages and thus more inclined to change their original judgment to align with the media content. E-E theory further posits that there are individual differences which may
increase persuasion and/or decrease counter-argumentation. These include concepts such as appeal (liking the content), identification (or wishful identification; wishing to be like the character; Cohen, 2001), para-social interactions (PSI; emotional attachment to favorite characters that seems or feels real; Cohen, 2004) and transportation into the narrative world (complete absorption in the storyline with high emotional and cognitive involvement, also often referred to as engagement; Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004). While identification and PSI demand long exposure to the content, transportation and liking may occur even after a one-time exposure – with increased transportation and liking leading to a reduction of
counter-argumentation and an increase in adoption of the media messages.
In the health domain, there exists a large body of research that supports the prediction of E-E theory. The meta-analyses of Ayala et al., (2015) and Braddock & Dillard (2016), for example, have shown that the relying on the principles of E-E is an effective way of teaching healthy behaviors. Yet, E-E theory is not exclusive to health messages. Just as an entertaining narrative that embeds health messages may convince audiences to change their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in a healthier direction, an entertaining narrative that relies on morally ambiguous content may similarly alter audiences’ moral judgment – particularly among viewers who find the content highly appealing and who find themselves transported into the content.
Thus far, a handful of studies have investigated appeal and transportation into morally ambiguous content. Tan et al. (in press) showed that viewers who experience high appreciation and sympathy towards the main protagonist (in this case Dexter) are more likely to be
transported into the narrative. Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel (2013) found that one of the elements viewers take into account when deciding how much they like a character is whether the motivation of an immoral act is altruistic or selfish and whether its outcome was good or bad.
Moreover, in follow-up research, Krakowiak and Tsay-Vogel (2015) found that viewers like MACs more than "good" or "bad" characters. In particular, they found that when there is a match between viewers' moral frame (which was primed), viewers identified with the MAC more than with a simple "good" or "bad" character. These findings suggest a higher likelihood for MACs to be liked by the audience and more transported into their narrative. That said, these studies do not examine the influence that MACs might have on the viewers. The very fact that viewers are making an active decision to like MACs or not based on the context of character behavior
suggests that viewers are cognitively engaging with the content. This then begs the question as to what effect does this cognitive engagement have on viewers’ moral judgment outside of the viewing experience. If morally ambiguous content is especially engaging, entertaining, and transportative, the principles of E-E posit that this viewing may lead to less
counter-argumentation of the message and ultimately alter one’s beliefs, attitudes, and/or behaviors to more closely align with the media content at hand – content which, in this case, may lead to changes in viewers’ moral judgment and reasoning.
But just what exactly might these changes look like? How might MACs influence viewers? Although no research has investigated the effects of MACs on moral judgment and reasoning, a small body of research has begun to investigate the effects of moral behavior in media on moral judgment and found inconclusive results. For instance, studies on gaming (Grizzard, Tamborini, Lewis, Wang, & Prabhu, 2014) linked the immoral acts in video games with the tendency of users to become morally sensitive when a moral foundation is violated (e.g. guilt makes gamers intuitively notice when an immoral act is committed). Tamborini, Weber, Eden, Bowman, and Gizzard (2010) examined the moral judgment obtained from viewing several episodes of a soap opera and found that when viewers watch more episodes, they are
more likely to develop 'conventional' moral judgment, meaning that viewers will simplify acts into good and bad in a normative way. Later research that attempted to replicate these results did not yield an increase in moral judgment after repeatedly watching episodes of a different soap opera (Eden et al., 2014). All told, the results of this limited research base seem to suggest that moral behavior in media content can – in some instances – influence moral judgment but the extent to which this translates to MACs remains unknown.
Adolescents as a Target Audience
Thus far, research in the field of media and morality has primarily focused on emerging adults, namely bachelor students in communication science who are, by definition, different from their peers who are not in academia and differ in education level and media literacy (Tamborini et al., 2010; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2014; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015; Eden et al., 2014). In social sciences, this population can be considered WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic population (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010) – a population which is the most represented in science but least represented in the world population. And while this age group might be convenient to work with empirically, it is not necessarily the most important one to study when it comes to morally-ambiguous content. While it is true that emerging adults are certainly an important target audience for such content, there are reasons to believe that
adolescents are also watching this content and, thanks to their developing cognitions, may be particularly influenced by this content.
Even though in many countries morally ambiguous content is restricted and rated as suitable for adults only, adolescents can and do reach this content rather easily via the internet, video-on-demand, and with their personal computers. This content is, unsurprisingly, highly appealing to adolescents as they tend to prefer content that is exciting, risky, and cognitively and
emotionally complex (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). Indeed, as a result of physical and chemical changes in their brain, adolescents often experience deep emotional reactions to risky, thrilling, or otherwise emotionally-complex content (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). Moreover, it is during this time period that adolescents are developing their identity and sense of autonomy – including their sense of morality (Bukakto, 2007). As a result, thanks in part to these ongoing social and physiological developments, adolescents may be more sensitive to morally ambiguous inputs than in any other age group (Bukakto, 2007).
The Current Study
While there is no existing work on how MACs might influence viewers, the combination of moral disengagement theory and E-E theory would suggest that MACs are likely to influence moral judgment of viewers – particularly viewers who find the content highly appealing and/or transportative. Moreover, while there exists no work with adolescents in the field of media and morality, research in developmental psychology would posit that adolescents may be particularly influenced by MAC content by virtue of their heightened sensitivity to such content. As such, we posit:
H1: Adolescents exposed to MACs will experience a decrease in moral judgment in comparison with adolescents exposed to non-morally ambiguous content.
H2: The effect of exposure to MACs on moral judgment will be more pronounced for adolescents who are more transported into the morally ambiguous content than for adolescents who are less transported into the morally ambiguous content [moderation hypothesis].
H3: The effect of exposure to MACs on moral judgment will be more pronounced for adolescents who like the morally ambiguous content than for adolescents who dislike the morally ambiguous content [moderation hypothesis].
Beyond moral judgement (i.e., decision of good or bad, moral or immoral), it is equally likely that MACs may also influence viewers’ moral reasoning (i.e., the explanation of why a particular judgement is made). It is important to understand if MACs influence the process of moral reasoning because morality does not exist in a vacuum, but rather, it exists in context of weighing the reasons for an act to be moral or immoral. It was only until recently, that research in this field has begun to look at the phenomenon of moral reasoning as separated from moral judgment (Krcmar & Cingel, 2016). As moral disengagement theory explains, some mechanisms have to be involved in order for individuals to believe that a bad behavior is not immoral and there has to be context in which moral justifications arise. In other words, it is likely that viewers of MACs practice moral reasoning while watching MACs when they are presented with immoral act alongside moral justifications. Thus, while previous empirical scholarship on media and morality has focused exclusively on moral judgements, it seems an important next step to also investigate moral reasoning. Research on the field, while being scarce, tells us that moral reasoning occurs while playing video games (Krcmar & Cingel, 2016), however we don't yet know if this process happens while watching MACs as well. Given that it is hypothesized that viewing MACs will lead to decreased moral judgement, and given that theory argues that moral reasoning is a precursor to moral judgement (Krcmar & Cingel, 2016), it seems fair to expect that viewing MACs may also decrease moral reasoning amongst adolescents – particularly for those adolescents who find the content appealing and/or particularly transportative. As such, we posit:
H4: Adolescents exposed to MACs will experience a decrease in moral reasoning in comparison with adolescents exposed to non-morally ambiguous content.
H5: The effect of exposure to MACs on moral reasoning will be more pronounced for adolescents who are more transported into the morally ambiguous content than for adolescents who are less transported into the morally ambiguous content [moderation hypothesis].
H6: The effect of exposure to MACs on moral reasoning will be more pronounced for adolescents who like the morally ambiguous content than for adolescents who dislike the morally ambiguous content [moderation hypothesis].
Considering MAC content is increasingly popular worldwide, and considering the fact that teens are viewing this content regardless of the policies in place to restrict such viewing, it is imperative to investigate whether MAC content may influence the moral judgment and moral reasoning of teen viewers. In doing so, this study offers an important theoretical contribution as to the process of MAC effects as well as offers findings relevant to society at large.
Method Participants and Procedure
Study hypotheses were tested using a one factor (program type: MAC vs. no MAC) between-subjects design with narrative transportation and liking as moderating variables. The no MAC condition served as control condition in this study. Participants were recruited in
cooperation with Ramat Hasharon Scouts1 in Israel, age ranged between 15 to 18 years old (N = 90, Mage = 15.95, SDage = 0.81, 56.8% female) and were randomly assigned to manipulation or control group. The experiment was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Amsterdam. The Scouts' tribe was approached by the researcher and the chief director received full disclosure on the details of the study before approving participation. Parents were notified and received fact sheets and passive consent forms a week prior to the study via the Scouts' emailing list.
The experiment took place in the Scouts' facility and both conditions occurred in the same time. The entire project (both stimuli exposure and assessment) lasted for approximately one hour. In order to encourage participation, miscellaneous snacks and soft drinks were provided to the participants. No further reward was provided for participation. The experiment began with an introduction which included participants' voluntary informed consent, emphasis on anonymity, and an explanation about the content and duration. The manipulation group received a brief explanation about the violent acts that are in the program to ensure safe viewing (see Appendix A). Then, participants watched a 45-minute program followed by a fifteen-minute pen and paper questionnaire. After exposure to the stimulus, participants were required to answer narrative transportation and liking questions, three moral dilemmas2 testing moral reasoning, morality questions and demographic questions. Upon completion participants were thanked and were debriefed about the materials watched - including an explanation about the real intention of the study. To prevent an influence of the violent materials in the manipulation group, a brief explanation was added stressing that the University of Amsterdam, the researcher, and the Scouts do not promote violent behavior or support it.
Stimulus Material
To ensure understanding and ecological validity, the chosen stimuli were current ongoing Israeli television programs in Hebrew. The control group watched a prime time television show called Aharoni and Gidi, a series about a chef and a former comedian on a journey around the world after tasty food. It was broadcasted on a widely popular channel and marked as an all family show and was broadcasted every evening (during data collection) after the news.
The manipulation group watched an Israeli program in Hebrew that was broadcasted while collecting the data called Ptzuim Barosh3. The program tells the story of four people whose
beloveds were killed by murderers who went unpunished and for this reason become vigilantes. The first two episodes of the series were edited into one to ensure best condition for immersion in the narrative. The first episode served mainly an exposition to the series and its main story portrayed a rich man that murders a young bartender after she did not adhere to his sexual desires. Her father is presented with the choice to revenge her death, with the help of the vigilantes. After he chooses to kill him, the vigilantes make it look like an accident. The second episode portrayed the murder of a 50-year old couple that was murdered by a drunk who wanted money. Their daughter, 16-years old, must decide between revenge and turning the murderer in.
The stimulus material was chosen after discussing viewing preferences with two adolescents from the target age group. In addition, the stimuli and the questionnaire were pre-tested by two other adolescents that are also members of other Scouts' tribes and similar in background to the final sample of participants.
Measures
Exposure to MAC. The manipulation of MAC was measured by asking the participants to indicate whether they noticed moral issues in the program (yes/no). If participants answered yes, they were requested to indicate on a 10-point scale how central to the narrative they felt the moral issues were (1 – not central at all, 10 – very central). In the manipulation group, MAC was considered rather central to the plot (M = 6.75, SD = 2.47).
Morality. The concept of morality was operationalized in two levels: the procedure of elaborating on a moral dilemma referred in this study as moral reasoning, and as moral decision making referred in this study as moral judgment.
Moral reasoning. To measure level of moral reasoning, Kohlberg's Heinz' dilemma was used (Kohlberg & Power, 1981) as well as the second dilemma shown in Ptzuim Barosh when a
16-year old daughter who lost both parents must decide whether to revenge her parents' death or not. Answers were coded by the researcher according to Kolberg's scheme (i.e., 1 = Obedience, 2 = Self-interest, 3 = Conformity, 4 = Law and Order, 5 = Human Interest, 6 = Human Ethics; M = 3.33, SD = 1.95). See Appendix B for the full coding scheme.
Moral judgment. To measure moral judgment, pre-validated items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) were used. A reliability test indicated low reliability of the scale with all items included (Cronbach’s α =.59). Three items were dropped to increase reliability ("Stand behind my actions"; "Try to fool others"; "Stick to the rules"). The first and second items were found unclear during the pre-test of the questionnaire and thus their formulation changed into "I feel responsible for my actions" and "I sometimes fool or trick others". The remaining items were averaged into one measure for moral judgment (Cronbach’s α =.78, M = 3.69, SD = 0.51).
Narrative transportation. To measure narrative transportation, a seven-point scale by Bushelled and Bilandzic (2009) was used. This scale was translated to Hebrew by a certified translator and adapted after piloting to fit adolescents' level of understanding (e.g., "The program created a new world, and then that world suddenly disappeared when the program ended" was changed into "The program brought me into a new world"). The items were averaged into one measure for narrative transportation (Cronbach’s α =.85, M = 4.61, SD = 0.98).
Liking. Liking was measured with a single item of "how much did you like the program you watched" ranging from 1 (I liked the program a lot) to 5 (I did not like the program at all; M = 3.79, SD = 0.95).
Control variables. Four potential control variables were measured: Age, gender, socio-economic status, and previous exposure to the manipulation stimulus. The participants were
asked to indicate their date of birth in order to calculate accurately their age. Gender was measured asking "what is your gender". To measure socio-economic status, participants were asked to indicate their neighborhood. Adolescents often do not know their socio-economic status, or their family income however they often know in which neighborhood in the city they live. Neighborhoods are a good indication of income because it is more expensive to buy and rent a property given the value of the ground and area. The neighborhoods were categorized into three groups (14.4% middle class, 58.9% upper-middle class, and 21.1% upper class). Previous exposure to the manipulation stimulus was measured by asking 'have you ever watched Ptzuim Barosh?' (13.3% have watched it before the experiment).
Results Manipulation check
A chi-square test was used to check for mean differences across conditions for presence of MAC between the programs (χ2 = 56.41, p < .001). This result indicated that the manipulation stimulus was considered to have significantly more morally ambiguous content then the control stimulus and therefore that the manipulation was successful.
Randomization checks
To test for equal distribution across the conditions randomization checks of age, social status, previous exposure, and gender to the manipulation stimuli were performed. To test distribution of age across conditions an independent-sample t-test was performed. The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the distribution of age between the manipulation (M = 15.93, SD = 0.77) and the control (M = 15.98, SD = 0.85) conditions t (85) = -0.27, p = .566. To test distribution of social status, previous exposure to stimuli, and gender a chi-square difference test was used. The results indicate no significant difference in social status distribution
across conditions (χ2 = 0.558, p = .757), no significant difference in previous exposure to stimulus between the groups (χ2 = 0.56, p = .448), however a significant difference in gender distribution across conditions (χ2 = 9.08, p = .003). For this reason, all analyses controlled for gender.
Preliminary analysis
For the main analysis, PROCESS procedure for SPSS (2.16.3; Hayes, 2013) was used. However, PROCESS does not include analyses for simple effects. For this reason, preliminary analysis of mean differences in narrative transportation and liking between conditions was performed with an independent-samples t-test. Results indicate that there was a significant difference in level of narrative transportation between the manipulation (M = 5.26, SD = 0.74) and the control (M = 3.95, SD = 0.72) conditions t (88) = 8.45, p < .001 such that the
manipulation condition was deemed more transporting. Results also indicate that there was a significant difference in level of liking the stimuli between the manipulation (M = 4.25, SD = 0.75) and the control (M = 3.33, SD = 0.92) conditions t (85) = 5.14, p < .001 with the
manipulation stimuli deemed significantly more appealing. Following this, all variables were tested for normal distribution, heteroscedasticity, linearity and residual normality to ensure they met the assumptions of the planned parametric analyses. No problems were detected in the data. Effects of MAC on Moral Judgment
To test the first three hypotheses which assumed that exposure to MAC will result in a decrease of moral judgment (H1), which will be more pronounced for participants who are more transported into the narrative (H2), or liked the narrative more (H3), two moderation models of PROCESS macro were used (model 1; Hayes, 2013). The models were constructed using a binary independent variable (control vs manipulation condition), with moral judgment as a
continuous dependent variable. In model A, transportation served as a continuous moderating variable while gender served as a covariate (see Figure 1).
Model A
Figure 1. Direct effect of MAC and moderation effect of narrative transportation on moral judgment controlling for gender.
The results showed non-significant effects of MAC on moral judgment F (4, 83) = 1.00, p = .411, r2 = .05, b = -.09, SE = .18, t (83) = -.48, p = .631 95% CI [-.44, .27], thus H1 was rejected. The results also showed non-significant moderation effects of transportation on moral judgment, b = 0.11, SE = 0.10, t (83) = 1.06, p = .292, 95% CI [-.09, .31], rejecting H2.
In model B, liking served as a continuous moderating variable while gender served as a covariate (see Figure 2).
Model B
Figure 2. Direct effect of MAC and moderation effect of liking on moral judgment controlling for gender. Condition Narrative Transportation Moral Judgment Condition Liking Moral Judgment
As with transportation, the results showed non-significant moderating effect of liking on moral judgment, F (4, 81) = 1.08, p = .373, r2 = .22, b = 0.05, SE = 0.10, t (81) = .51, p = .607, 95% CI [-.14, .25]. Thus H3 was rejected.
Effects on Moral Reasoning
To test last three hypotheses which hypothesized a direct effect on the level of moral reasoning after exposure to MAC (H4), that would be more pronounced for participants who are more transported into the narrative (H5), or liked the narrative more (H6), two moderation models of PROCESS macro were used (model1; Hayes, 2013). The models were constructed using a binary independent variable (control vs manipulation condition), with moral reasoning as a continuous dependent variable. In Model C, transportation served as a continuous moderating variable while gender served as a covariate (see Figure 3). The results showed non-significant effects of MAC on moral reasoning F (4, 81) = 2.12, p = , r2 = .09, b = 0.34, SE = 0.62, t (81) = 0.12, p = .897, 95% CI [-4.88, 5.56], thus H4 was rejected. The results also showed
non-significant moderation effects of transportation on moral reasoning, b = 0.33, SE = 0.40, t (81) = 0.83, p = .407 95% CI [-0.46, 1.13], rejecting H5.
Model C
Figure 3. Direct effect of MAC and moderation effect of narrative transportation on moral reasoning controlling for gender.
Condition
Narrative Transportation
Moral Reasoning
Lastly, in model D, liking served as a continuous moderating variable while gender served as a covariate (see Figure 4).
Model D
Figure 4. Direct effect of MAC and moderation effect of liking on moral reasoning controlling for gender.
The results, as with transportation, showed non-significant moderating effect of liking on moral reasoning F (4, 79) = 2.14, r2 = .10, p = .082, b = 0.35, SE = 0.32, t (79) = 1.08, p = .283, 95% CI [-.29, .99]. Thus H6 was rejected. See Table 1 for a summary of variables' means and standard deviations.
Table 1
Means and Standard deviations of dependent variables and moderators per group. Group Moral judgment (M, SD) Moral reasoning (M, SD) Transportation (M, SD) Liking (M, SD) Manipulation 3.67, 0.56 3.52, 0.87 5.26, 0.74 4.25, 0.75 Control 3.70, 0.47 3.12, 2.03 3.95, 0.72 3.33, 0.92 Condition Liking Moral Reasoning
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the effects of morally ambiguous characters in television programs on adolescents' morality, and the role of narrative transportation and liking of the program in this relationship. The study conceptualized morality as dual-concept consisting of both moral judgment and moral reasoning. Based on literature in entertainment
communication alongside contemporary theorizing of moral engagement, it was expected that exposure to morally ambiguous characters in a popular television drama would negatively affect morality. Furthermore, it was expected that these effects would be even more pronounced among teens who found the television drama to be particularly transportative and appealing. Counter to these expectations, the results of this study did not find support for these hypotheses, implying that short-term exposure to morally ambiguous characters neither bolsters nor weakens teens’ existing morality.
Effects of Morally Ambiguous Characters
Morally ambiguous characters were defined in this study as protagonists who do the wrong thing for a plausible reason, "bad guys" whose actions are justified in the narrative storyline. Based on the predictions of moral disengagement theory (Bandura, 1999), H1 posited that adolescents exposed to televised morally ambiguous characters would experience a decrease in their moral judgment. The current study could not find support for this assumption. Although studies on exposure to narrative entertainment (Eden et al., 2014) did find such effects on morality on adults, these results could not be replicated to adolescents in the current study.
Although this finding is certainly counter to existing theory, one explanation for this finding may lie within the sample of this study – adolescents. Adolescents are at a stage in their life where their moral judgment is still developing. On the one hand, this could mean that
adolescents are particularly susceptible to influences on this development (as argued thus far). However, on the other hand, it may simply be too early to measure media’s influence on
morality. This would be in line with neuroscientific research (Decety & Michalska, 2010) which found that while adolescents react to moral stimuli in empathetic and sympathetic areas of the brain, their reactions are noticeably weaker because these areas of the brain are not yet fully developed. In future work, it would be interesting to expand the age range of the sample (e.g., working with preadolescents through emerging adulthood) in order to potentially trace if and when morally ambiguous content may influence morality among youth.
Beyond development, it may also be the case that the measurement employed in this study was insufficiently able to tap into teens’ morality. Specifically, the morality measurement scale that was employed in this study has only been validated with adult samples (IPIP;
Bushelled & Bilandzic, 2009). While an effort was made to reasonably adjust the items to ensure they were interpretable by teens, and while the items did demonstrate acceptable internal
consistency, it is possible that adolescents understand morality differently than adults and therefore have responded to the questions differently. Follow-up work which seeks to create a developmentally-appropriate morality scale for use with teens would offer a valuable
contribution to the field of communication science and related interdisciplinary fields. Lastly, the fact that effects on morality were previously found amongst young adults (Eden et. Al, 2014) but not replicated to adolescents could simply reflect differential
susceptibility to media effects between adolescents and young adults (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Unfortunately, in the scope, time, and means of the current research it was impossible to test both age groups on the same stimuli. However, as noted above, a sample consisting of a broader age range could be quite informative in identifying the boundary conditions of effects.
The Role of Transportation and Appeal
Based on entertainment education theory, it was expected that narrative transportation (i.e., narrative engagement, being absorbed in the storyline; hypothesis 2) and program liking (hypothesis 3) would moderate the effect of exposure to morally ambiguous characters on the moral judgments of adolescent. These hypotheses were not supported. Preliminary results
showed a difference in narrative transportation and liking between the groups, indicating that the morally ambiguous program was more engaging and appealing than the non-morally ambiguous program for the participants. This unexpected main effect points to the potential appeal of morally ambiguous content among teens and highlights the need for greater research which investigates the potential consequences of such exposure, as well as research which seeks to identify why this content is particularly appealing.
That said, it is important to recognize that this main effect of content types was not intended, and suggests that a replication of this study where the control and treatment stimuli do not vary on these characteristics would be a reasonable next step. This is often a risk of using existing media content. While the external validity can be improved, the internal validity can suffer at its expense. In future work, it may be worthwhile to create content that differs only in its use of morally ambiguous characters in order to better isolate the effect of this variable
(although, in practice, creating such content may be quite challenging).
It is also important to note that the short-term design of this study may also explain these null-findings. It is quite possible that the treatment dosage was simply too brief and the
hypothesized effect on morality can only be expected after repeated exposure to the morally ambiguous stimuli, as previously found by Eden et al. (2014). Very recent research also suggests that media marathoning (also known as media binging; the consumption of multiple episodes of
book-series and/or television series) may be the key to immersion in narratives' morality (Smith-Frigerio, 2016). In the context of the current research, it could be that the levels of narrative transportation and appeal needed to activate the viewers' moral sensors lies within media binging, an experience which allows deeper connection to characters' moral mechanisms and ways of thinking. Such a perspective aligns with predictions of E-E theory which posits that narrative transportation, liking the characters, and creation of para-social interactions are likely to be enhanced after repeated exposure, which according to entertainment education theory (Moyer‐Gusé, 2008), should increase the acceptance of messages in the narrative.
Finally, entertainment education theory suggests many other variables that help reduce reactance to the messages and allow the message to be accepted more easily (namely para-social interactions, identification, and perceived similarity with an efficacious character; Moyer‐Gusé, 2008). In this research, the focus was only on two key elements – transporation and liking. Future research which expands this work to identify other potential moderators of effects would be a welcomed addition to the field.
Limitations & Future Research
There are several limitations that are important to keep in mind while considering the results of this study. First, a primary limitation of this study is the convenience sample that was employed. Specifically, all participants in this study were from the Scouts youth movement. One of the core goals of this youth movement is to develop youth into being better citizens, and this is done mainly by means of discussing issues about personal and societal values, morality and justice (Zofim, 2017). While all students were Scouts’ (and thus differential effects by condition would not be a concern), it is possible that the morality of this population was less malleable than
that of traditionally-developing adolescents that do not partake in such morally-focused youth movement groups. As such, replication with another sample of adolescents is advisable.
Relatedly, it is also important to recognize that most studies in the field of morally ambiguous characters (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel 2013; 2015) and of moral salience (Tamborini et al., 2010; Eden et al., 2014) have been conducted with American WEIRD populations
(Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). The population in this study, although coming from rich background, is Mediterranean and Jewish, and could differ in values and morality (e.g., family values in Judaism could play more central role than in other populations, as observed in several participants' answers who indicated family related reasons to act in the moral dilemmas) that may interfere with media effects. To that end, cross-cultural work which investigates these difference would be an interesting direction for the field.
Beyond sample limitations, there are also two related methodological limitations that may have influenced the null-findings in this study. First, the study lacked a second coder for the moral dilemmas. It would have been most appropriate to have relied on a second coder to code a portion of the moral dilemmas in order to ensure a valid coding scheme, yet financial constraints proved to be insurmountable and a second coder was not possible. In replication and extension of this work, it is crucial to plan for secondary coding in order to ensure the validity of this measure with this target audience. Secondly, and related to this point, it is also important to recognize that the measurement of morality in and of itself was challenging and likely requires refinement when conducted with teens. Morality is an elusive construct which has been defined over the history in many ways. Although it generally deals with right and wrong deeds, it is highly dependent on context and thus incredibly complicated to measure. While scholars have attempted to get a handle on the measurement of morality with adults, such a measure has not yet been validated
with teens. Future work which seeks to create a developmentally-sensitive measurement of morality for work with teens would be a worthwhile contribution to the field.
Implications
All told, despite the null-effects in this study, there are still several theoretical and practical implications which can be explicated. From a theoretical standpoint, this study was the first to investigate the effects of morally ambiguous content on adolescents' morality. The fact that this study did not uncover effects on adolescents' morality in and of itself is a contribution to our understanding of the boundary conditions of potential MAC effects. Follow-up qualitative research could reveal mechanisms and variables that take part in adolescents'
moral-understanding of morally ambiguous narratives, and thus lead to new lines of research in moderating and mediating this process.
Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the current study provides implications for legislators, educators, and parents regarding the consequences of media use for teens. Previous research (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017) tells us that adolescents could potentially find particular interest in immorally or morally ambiguous content because of the risky nature it presents. However, one main implication of the current research is that this "forbidden fruit" seems not too harmful after all, and that there are other external factors (e.g., environmental, influential role models in educational groups, youth movements) that might be more central and influential to the creation and development of adolescents' moral compass. We know from literature (Bukakto, 2007) that adolescents are critically thinking and analyzing the information they receive constantly as a part of their cognitive development. It may simply be the case that morally ambiguous content is very entertaining for them but they do not integrate these messages as given. Instead, they make their own meaning of it – choosing to be guided by their own moral
compasses – compasses which are concurrently being developed and supported by the
environment around them. While the limitations and short-term exposure of this study make it impossible to conclude whether morally ambiguous content is harmful in the long term, it seems that – for now – the occasional exposure to such content may simply be one of many entertaining experience that teens seek out and, as such, be of minimal concern to parents and caregivers – particularly for those teens growing up in environments in which strong moral values are encouraged, valued, and supported.
Acknowledgments
A debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Jessica Taylor Piotrowski, for her powerful feedback, unwavering support, and drive for perfection. I deeply cherish this learning opportunity, allowing me to stand on the shoulders of a giant. I thank the graduate school of communication for
financially supporting my study, which could not have been possible otherwise. I sincerely thank Erik Weijers, who is more than a study advisor; he has been a true supporter and helped me throughout this entire process. Two special individuals have supported me with this project and throughout my master's degree: I am very grateful to Nelleke Keuper for her strengthening spirit and Zeph van Berlo for his insightful feedback and for sharing his knowledge in statistics. Last but not least, a special recognition is owed to Tomas, the love of my life, my parents, my family, and my friends who were always there to support me, in particular Yael Cohen for always being there when I needed her most.
Bibliography
Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. (1986). Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning development intervention for high-risk behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 208.
Ayala, G. X., Ibarra, L., Horton, L., Arredondo, E. M., Slymen, D. J., Engelberg, M., ... & Elder, J. P. (2015). Evidence supporting a promotora-delivered entertainment education
intervention for improving mothers' dietary intake: The Entre Familia: Reflejos de Salud study. Journal of health communication, 20(2), 165-176.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209.
Bar-Zohar, H. (2011, May 300). 78% of teens: television shows influence our behavior. The Marker. Retrieved from http://www.themarker.com/advertising/1.648796
Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication
Monographs, 83(4), 446-467.
Bukatko, D. (2007). Child and adolescent development: A chronological approach. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Busselle. R., & Bilandzic. H. (2009) Measuring narrative engagement, Media Psychology, 12(4), 321-347.
Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2000). Cultivation revisited: Some genres have some effects on some viewers. Communication Reports, 13(2), 99-114.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245-264.
Decety, J., & Michalska, K. J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental changes in the circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood. Developmental Science, 13(6), 886 899.
Eden, A., Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Lewis, R., Weber, R., & Prabhu, S. (2014). Repeated exposure to narrative entertainment and the salience of moral intuitions. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 501-520.
Gregoriou, C. (2012). ‘Times like these, I wish there was a real Dexter’: Unpacking serial murder ideologies and metaphors from TV’s Dexter internet forum. Language and Literature, 21(3), 274-285.
Grizzard, M., Tamborini, R., Lewis, R. J., Wang, L., & Prabhu, S. (2014). Being bad in a video game can make us morally sensitive. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(8), 499-504.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of personality and social psychology,101(2), 366. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UflzHkc8g5ohW_MIKGzbrGH5bIPiJoWcSvfu q7OsoYc/edit#gid=11
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29.
Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Boy_and_Girl_Scouts_Federation
game play: using real-life morality in a game context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 87-103.
Kohlberg, L., & Power, C. (1981). Moral development, religious thinking, and the question of a seventh stage. Zygon, 16(3), 203-259.
Krakowiak, K. M. (2015). Some like it morally ambiguous: The effects of individual differences on the enjoyment of different character types. Western Journal of Communication, 79(4), 472-491.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2013). What makes characters’ bad behaviors acceptable? The effects of character motivation and outcome on perceptions, character liking, and moral disengagement. Mass Communication and Society, 16(2), 179-199.
Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay‐Vogel, M. (2015). The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 390-411.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment‐education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425. Ron, B. (2016, April 16). Youth 2016: the full survey. Israel Today. Retrieved from
http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/373577
Tamborini, R. (2011). Moral intuition and media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(1), 39–45.
Tamborini. R., Weber, R., Eden A., Bowman, N. D, & Grizzard, M., (2010). Repeated exposure to daytime soap opera and shifts in moral judgment toward social convention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 54(4), 621-640. Teenager obsessed with TV killer Dexter stabbed and dismembered girlfriend. (2014,
October 2). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/teenager-steven-miles-murdered-girlfriend
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sarah Smith-Frigerio (2016) Media marathoning as meaningful experience, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(2), 364-366.
Zillmann, D., and Cantor, J. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155–165.
Zofim. (2017). Who are we zofim – The Israeli Scouts Movement. Retrieved from
Footnotes
1The Scouts is the largest youth movement in Israel with about 100,000 members in the
ages of 9 to19. The Scouts serves as an after school social and informal educational activity for both boys and girls (Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation, 2016).
2The third dilemma was omitted due to several cases in which the participants felt
uncomfortable to answer it, and various missing cases in the analysis. This dilemma is widely known as the trolley problem, in which a trolley is running loose and in order to save its passengers one must lift a handle to change tracks and kill an innocent person on the rails.
Appendix A Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Order:
1. Narrative Transportation scale 2. Moral dilemmas (moral reasoning) 3. Moral perceptions scale
4. Randomization checks (demographics, gender, age)
General:
1. This questionnaire will be translated fully into Hebrew only after final approval. 2. This questionnaire will be taken in the form of pen and paper, because there are no
computers in the experiment location.
3. There will be a verbal introduction before and debrief after the viewing by the researcher (Keren Kurlander) so that if the participants have questions they may ask. During the introduction the plan of the experiment will be explained including timeline and assent to take part in the experiment.
4. The informed consent form will be given separately from the questionnaire itself to allow anonymity.
5. Elements in " [] " will be dropped out and are serving as explanation to the questionnaire reviewer.
Informed consent for participation in Adolescents' Attention to Media
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described by the researcher. My questions have been answered satisfactorily. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific
publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Keren Kurlander (+31-643927846; K.Kurlander@uva.nl; New Achtergracht Postbus 15791, 1001 NG Amsterdam). Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, New Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
______________ Signature
I have provided an explanation of the research. I declare that I am prepared to answer any additional questions about the research to the best of my ability.
Adolescents' Attention to Media Dear participant,
Thank you very much for taking the time and participating in my study about Adolescents' Attention to Media. You have just watched an episode of an Israeli television series. In the following questionnaire I would like you to tell me what you think in each question according to your feelings, beliefs and ideas. There are no right or wrong answers and it is important to me to know exactly what you think about the topic. Keep in mind that your details and this
questionnaire are anonymous, meaning that no one can tell you answered this specific questionnaire or participated.
There are four parts to the questionnaire checking different elements of your opinions. All parts are very important for the success of this research and so I would personally very much appreciate it if you could finish the questionnaire without skipping parts of it. However, at any time you want you may stop answering the questionnaire and you will not have to give any reason for that. If you marked your answer and then changed your mind, please erase it clearly and mark your question where you feel is most suitable. This questionnaire will take about 15 minutes to fill out.
Thank you very much Keren
Part 1
In this part you will be asked to provide your honest thoughts about the episode you have just watched. Try to concentrate and answer truthfully. Put an X in the cell that best represents your view.
[Narrative Transportation] [Narrative Understanding]
1. At points, I had a hard time making sense of what was going on in the program
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Disagreed Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I don't understand the characters' perspectives Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I had a hard time recognizing the theme of the story.
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [Attentional Focus]
4. I found my mind wandering while the program was on.
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagreed Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. While the program was on I found myself thinking about other things.
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I had a hard time keeping my mind on the program.
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [Narrative Presence)
7. During the program, my body was in the room, but my mind was inside the world created by the story. Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. The program created a new world, and then that world suddenly disappeared when the program ended. Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. At times during the program, the story world was closer to me than the real world. Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [Emotional Engagement]
10. The story affected me emotionally
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. During the program, when the main characters succeeded with their plans, I felt happy.
Completely disagree disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagreed Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I felt sorry for some of the characters in the program.
Completely disagree Disagreed Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. On a scale of 1-5, 5= you really liked the program and 1= you really disliked the program, how much did you like the program you watched?
I didn't like the program at all I didn't like the program I didn't particularly liked or disliked the program I liked the program I liked the program very much 1 2 3 4 5
Part 2
[Moral Reasoning]In this part of the questionnaire you will be facing various dilemmas. Please read the text carefully and make a judgement call how to respond to it. There are no right or wrong answers, and what is most important is your elaborated explanation for them. Try to write in a clear handwriting. In total you will be presented with 3 dilemmas.
Dilemma 1 – Heinz' dilemma
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________.
Dilemma 2 – The Trolley problem
Dan decides to go for a walk when suddenly he hears a trolley behind him, and immediately steps away from the tracks. But as the trolley gets closer, he hears the sounds of panic – there are five people on board shouting for help. The trolley's brakes have gone out, and it's gathering speed. Dan just happens to be standing next to a side track that veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the trolley's five passengers. All Dan has to do is pull a hand lever to switch the tracks, and the five people will be saved. The problem is that along this offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the action that Dan is considering. Dan has no time to warn him. So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety, Dan will save the five passengers but he will kill the man. Dan needs your advice on what to do – what do you recommend him? Please explain why you come to the decision.
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________.
Dilema3 – The vigilantes
Danielle's parents have been brutally murdered last night during a mug in the street. The police report says they gave the money without a fight and that they were murdered by drunk searching for another drink. The murder was violent and brutal, and Danielle's parents were only in their 40's. A group of vigilantes has secretly offered her to take revenge in the killer which they can verify for 100% that this is the murderer indeed. The group of vigilantes requires the immediate respond of Danielle if she wants them to kill him, because later the police might figure it out and then they cannot take revenge anymore. There is no death penalty where Danielle comes from and it is not certain if the murderer will be found guilty what will be his punishment.
What should Danielle do?
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________
Why would you recommend her to choose this way or another?
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________.
**You are half way through with finishing the questionnaire**
Part 3
In the following Questions you are required to answer about yourself. Kindly indicate the answer that best suits you with an X. If you choose to change your answer, kindly erase it clearly put an X in your new answer.
How accurate are each of the following statements about you?
1 Listen to my conscience Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 2 I Return extra change when a cashier makes a mistake. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 3 I feel accountable for my actions and take full responsibility Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 4 I Act according to my conscience Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 5 I care about justice. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 6 I sometimes fool or trick others. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 7 I Believe that the end justifies the means. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 8 I believe that sometimes it's
OK to misuse power. not true about me true about me
sometimes not true about me
true about me true about me
9 I sometimes do the opposite of what is asked. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 10 I Stick to the rules. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 11 I sometimes use flattery to get ahead. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 12 I sometimes use others for my own ends. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 13 I know how to get around the rules. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 14 Sometimes I cheat to get ahead. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 15 Sometimes I pretend to be concerned for others. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 16 Sometimes I take advantage of others. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me Somewhat true about me Completely true about me 17 Sometimes I Obstruct others' plans. Completely not true about me Not so true about me
Sometimes true and sometimes not true about me
Somewhat true about me
Completely true about me
