Personality factors of moral conformity in solving moral dilemmas under virtual group pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of a study on personality factors of moral conformity in solving moral dilemmas under virtual group pressure. The author examined the relationship of personality traits and ethical positions with the solution of moral dilemmas both under virtual group pressure and without it. The study involved 242 university students (females = 74%, males = 26%). At the first stage, 223 respondents were asked to solve a series of ethical dilemmas and fill out personality questionnaires (the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) adapted by A.Yu. Kalugin et al., the Dirty Dozen Questionnaire adapted by T.V. Kornilova et al., and the Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ) adapted by A.A. Fedorov and I.V. Badiev). At the second stage, 66 respondents were asked to solve the same dilemmas, but they were shown how the other participants had solved them at the previous stage. Virtual group pressure was implemented by presenting the participants with pie charts indicating the percentages of “permissible” and “impermissible” responses to a given dilemma. For dilemmas that received the majority of “acceptable” responses at the first stage, it was indicated that the majority of responses were “unacceptable” and vice versa. At this stage, the Solomon four-group design was implemented with two experimental and two control groups. The study yielded data on the relationship of personality characteristics and ethical positions with the nature of moral dilemma decisions. The effect of moral conformity under virtual group pressure was confirmed. Three types of reactions to virtual pressure were identified: conforming, nonconforming, and counterconforming. Conforming responses were observed under virtual pressure both towards deontological and consequentialist decisions. Counterconforming responses showed asymmetry: no counterconforming reactions occurred under consequentialist virtual pressure; however, they were present under deontological virtual pressure. The study has not revealed any significant relationship between moral conformity and the personality traits or ethical positions of the respondents, which suggests that moral conformity is a universal phenomenon depending more on situational factors (such as the content of dilemmas and the form and direction of pressure) than on the respondent’s personality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".