The Effect of Benevolence Values and Implicit Theories of Values on Other-Focused behaviors Who are the people who engage in other-focused behaviors? The goal of the current research is to better understand one aspect of this broad question, concerning with the personal values of prosocial individuals. Previous research found that self-transcendence values (i.e. benevolence and universalism) can predict prosocial behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003); however, the correlations were rather weak, especially for benevolence. The aim of the present study is to test the influence of a moderator of the relations between benevolence values and other-focused behaviors – the implicit self-theory of whether or not values can change.
Member checking may be used as it offers researchers with the ability to ensure accuracy of transcripts used for coding (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Limitations include existing biases and assumptions. The researchers includes diverse participants from two regions broadening the responses to limit their biases. Another limitation is in the methodology. Responses were obtained from a focus group versus individual interviews, limiting the extent of observation during the study.
Because the underlying reason of learning disabilities is related to genetics or with the brain, therefore, trying to challenge the thought of a client with this disability would be inappropriate. Furthermore, CBT emphasizes on assertiveness, independence, verbal ability, rationality, cognition and behavioural change of an individual and this might limit its usage on certain cultures which has different values and core beliefs (Corey, 2005). This can be a challenging task for therapist unless the therapist has dealt with a client of a same culture and has already have some understanding of the culture background and learned to be sensitive to their struggles. Besides that, people have different coping mechanism such as they cope either using emotions or cognitive. For client who uses emotional-focused coping mechanism, they would feel that CBT is not suitable for them as they are always being talked out of their emotions and are being forced to deal with problems in a more structured problem-focused way.
This is notice in programs who are seeking to obtain positive outcomes in various communities. Another issue with the evidence-base program is with the randomized control trial (RCT). The used of the randomized control trial is usefulness but not value. According to Tanenbaum (2005), the effectiveness is due to the methods used can be difficult to understand and can have biases associated with the program (p. 165). It is important to understand the concept of evidence-base programs as it is vital to know the quality of the program and how it will best serve the community.
Therefore, it could be argued when comparing and contrasting the two approaches, it is crucial to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the two. The main advantages of the experimental method is the ability to control what each participant experiences and this allows researchers to test precise and accurate hypotheses and draw conclusions about how one variable affects another. The main disadvantage of is that it cannot replicate or reproduce the complexity of real life and it can miss social rules and other factors that could establish whether a bystander intervenes or not. The discourse analysis, on the other hand can capture a richer and more varied picture of people’s experiences and looks at people’s actual experiences. However, it cannot provide general rules about human behaviour that could be applied to more than one
The label of the task is an important consideration, as participants should not know the effect of what we are trying to prime. The label provides a cover story for the actual task and it allows participants to know that this is a meaningful task. The label should not be related to what we are trying to prime and it has to make sense and be believable to participants. If participants are provided with a label that is not believable, they will question the study and the
Nozick’s theory cannot be applied without starting from a just beginning; a different theory of justice might have to be created that is not sensitive to past injustices that we cannot correct. Thus the historical nature of Nozick’s theory could be described as a weakness in his theory. Nozick’s theory embraces an idea that individuals should lead their lives as autonomously as possible. It gives a great amount of liberty to an individual, and it acknowledges a past of injustices. However, objections are that it might not be as good in practice as in theory as Nozick fails to clearly tell us how it should work and it prefers protecting interference of rights and not on the possible consequences of the
Because our thought processes are different then it is unlikely that we can agree on a decision and unlikely that we would change our mind. However, if we are not quite sure either way what the best way forward would be then the decision maker will be more likely to persuade persons to change their mind towards their idea (William L Benoit, 1999). In the social judgement theory, people are likely to be persuaded strongly by messages which are at a reasonably moderate distance from the person’s latitude and attitude (Siero, F.W et al., 1993). Social judgement theory uses the power of persuasion to influence another person’s decision depending on where the anchor point lies. Decision making using the social justice theory can be influenced by moving ones ‘anchor point’ along the
Such criteria and order of different priorities are also needed to compare the less just societies in reality. Because without a concrete standard, we cannot make decisions among societies that are specialized on different aspects of "justice". Only if we know the ranking of these aspects can we decide which society is more desirable. In other words, the theory of justice is valuable for it provides us an order that enables us to make judgments between non-perfect society during its exploration of a perfect
Therefore, from the forgoing discussions, there is need for greater inclusion of qualitative and mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences moving forward. The comparison and contrast between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods will undoubtedly be more pronounced as researchers challenge new frontiers such as the social and digital medias. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology (April 2006) attested to the growing interest with respect to design methodologies in the social sciences. As a result, several factors can be accredited to this