According to Atkinson (1985, p. 136), this term refers to a “regulative principle which underlies various message systems, especially curriculum and pedagogy”. In 1962 Bernstein developed a code theory which he introduced through the concepts of restricted and elaborated codes. His sociolinguistic code theory was developed into a social theory that examined the relationships between social class, family, and the reproduction of meaning systems (Class, Codes, and Control, Volume 1, 1973a). According to Bernstein there were social class differences in the communication codes of working-class and middle-class children. These differences reflected class and power relations in the division of family, social labor, and schools.
Information is first received to identify all possible response to a dilemma. An individual recognizes and examines whether the choices are unethical or not and then evaluate the possible benefits to be gained and the possible costs to be paid. Ethical dilemma arises when there is conflict between personal ethics and social ethics. For instance, ethical dilemma exists in situations that a wrong decision is likely to produce a positive outcome or that a right decision is likely to produce a negative outcome (Fletcher, n.d.). Ethical decision-making can only be justified in the notion that the individual is ethically sensitive and rational because a person is unable to acknowledge the responsibility of certain behaviors without awareness of morality and
This means that one should act accordingly in the work place by putting their values aside and doing what is right by the profession and not as personal ethics would imply, where one would do whatever seems fitting or pleasing to them. Authors such as Kenneth Kipnis and David B. South exemplifies why personal values are not relevant issues in professional ethics and that personal and professional life matters in the shaping of an individual. Kenneth Kipnis and David B. South also believes that when resolving the conflicts, it is important to distinguish between personal values and core professional
The two ideas from this chapter that caught my interest are the relationship between Ethical egoism and utilitarianism. Ethical egoism is when individuals act in their own self-interests and crate situations in a way that pertain to one’s own benefit. There are three different types of egoisms, Individual, personal and universal ethical egoism. Individual egoism states that everyone ought to act in my own best self-interest which focuses on how other people treat them and will appear in a sort of way to get what they desire. Personal ethical egoism states that one ought to act in their own self-interests yet make no claims on what others should do.
General expectations of a future return on the social level cannot be bargained or judged upon from either the employee’s or the employer’s side (Blau, 1964). Therefore, reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) is the norm that individuals indulge to react positively to favorable treatment by the organization, or vice versa (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). According to Rousseau (1995, p. 9), a psychological contract is defined as “individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization”. It describes the mutual obligations between an employee and its organization (Rousseau, 1995). These mutual and independent obligations refer to the promises an individual employee has made to their organization, and what they believe the organization has
Another perspective proposes that stereotypes are biased perceptions of social contexts. People use stereotypes as shortcuts to know their social contexts, therefore people understand their world less cognitively demanding. -Social categorization: In the following situations, the comprehensive purpose of stereotyping is for people to use positive light and put their collective self (their ingroup membership) in this positive light. 1-when explaining social events by stereotypes. 2-when justifying activities of one 's ingroup to another group (outgroup) by stereotypes.
The personality characteristic of the individual 's personality structure (voluntarism) focuses on the obligation to conform in this pattern of behavior. In this sense, moral considerations push the individual to act rather than instrumental considerations. From an objective point of view, only the institution
They say that when the theory of neutralization is applied to ethical consumption (Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007) it rationalizes that people find a number of excuses for the behavior that is not consistent with their attitude. They further bring in a dynamic vision and describes that individuals who are highly committed to the cause or their choice voluntarily reduce the neutralization effect whereas individuals less committed succumb to the effects of neutralization and are not able to reduce its effect. Sykes and Matza (1957) explain that the neutralization effect is used for self-defense for more rationalized individuals as they are more likely to behave far from their attitudes without damaging their self-
Self-efficacy is based in a great theoretical framework known as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), in which there are bidirectional communications between the cognitive, behavioral and environmental or situational contexts (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy beliefs are not a stable attribute of an individual, but they are an active and learned system of beliefs held in context. The thought of self-efficacy is interested with judgments of one’s ability to produce a given pattern of behavior (Schunk, 1981). Social cognitive hypothesis is developed from the view of human agency. In this view, individuals are measured as factors who are contained in their own progression and, by means of their actions, they are able to make things happens.
As previously discussed, one of these aspects might be the perception of the social progress as being stable versus being reversible. Those who believe that social progress is stable consider that society is unlikely to lose existing achievements. They believe that it could not be reversed and therefore, there is no need to protect it. On the other hand, those who consider social progress as reversible believe that the loss of existing achievements is very likely to happen. We predict that those who believe that social progress is reversible and unstable would be more likely to engage in actions to protect existing achievements.