scholarly journals Spanish Adaptation of the Self- and Other-Interest Inventory in Academic Settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raimundo Aguayo-Estremera ◽  
Cristina Miragaya-Casillas ◽  
Manuel Correa ◽  
Alberto Ruiz-Villaverde
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Interest Inventory ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Forward Translation ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Academic Settings ◽  
Analytical Procedures ◽  
Adequate Reliability

Abstract In the study of human motivations, self-interest is often seen as a determining factor and opposed to other-interest. Recently a new conceptualization has been proposed in which both interests can occur at the same time. In order to measure these constructs, the Self-and Other-Interest Inventory (SOII; Gerbasi & Prentice, 2013) was created, which has one version for adults and one for students. Due to the absence of similar measurement instruments in Spain, the aim of this work is to adapt the SOII to Spanish university students. Several studies were conducted. First, the construct was analyzed through rational-analytical procedures. Second, the items were translated following an iterative forward-translation design. Finally, evidence of validity was obtained through analytical procedures. Specifically, two pilot studies were carried out in which two independent samples of Spanish students participated (N1 = 119; N2 = 165). In both studies descriptive analyzes of the items were performed, reliability was estimated and the factor structure of the SOII was explored from an exploratory factor analysis. The results showed adequate reliability and a two-factor solution consistent with the original.

The Self- and Other-Interest Inventory.

2013 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret E. Gerbasi ◽  
Deborah A. Prentice
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Interest Inventory ◽  
Self And Other

Beyond Self and Other

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Moral Theory ◽  
Moral Worth ◽  
The Self ◽  
Bernard Williams ◽  
Philo Of Alexandria ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Difference

Today there is a tendency to do ethics on the basis of what I should like to call the “self-other model.” On this view, an action has no moral worth unless it benefits others–and not even then, unless it is motivated by altruism rather than selfishness. This radical rift between self-interest and virtue traces back at least to Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 b.c.–50 a.d.), according to whom, “lovers of self, when they have stripped and prepared for conflict with those who value virtue, keep up the boxing and wrestling until they have either forced their opponents to give in, or have completely destroyed them.” More recently, the distinction between those who value themselves and those who “value virtue” has been drawn sharply by Bernard Williams: “[I]n moral theory … it is not the Kantian leap from the particular and the affective to the rational and universal that makes all the difference; it is rather the Humean step–that is to say, the first Humean step–from the self to someone else.”

scholarly journals Balancing of self-interests versus other-interests and five styles of conflict resolution

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 01018
Author(s):  
Bożena Kłusek-Wojciszke ◽  
Jacek Grodzicki
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
The Self ◽  
Classical Analysis ◽  
Interest Inventory ◽  
Self Interest

The classical analysis of conflict management assumes that there are 5 main styles of conflict resolution which originate from various combinations of attainment of the self-interest and other-interest. Cooperation is underlain by joint maximization of both interests, Competition means maximization of self-interest at the expense of other-interest, Accommodation means maximization of other-interest at the expense of self-interest, Avoidance means neglect of both interests, while Compromise means a partial realization of the two interests. Although the five styles of conflict resolution are well-supported by empirical research, there is no research directly showing the assumed role of the two interests in the five styles of conflict resolution. The present paper presents an empirical study of 83 employees showing that the two interests (as measured by The Selfand Other Interest Inventory devised by Gerbasi & Prentice) [1] are systematically and predictably related to the five styles of conflict resolution (as measured by the Questionnaire of Five Styles of Conflict Resolution devised by Kłusek) [2].

Accounts of consent: Orienting to self-other relations regarding motivations to participate in cancer bio-banking

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Shipman ◽  
Srikant Sarangi ◽  
Angus J. Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Reflective Practice ◽  
Extreme Case ◽  
The Self ◽  
Case Formulation ◽  
Contrast Structure ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Clinical Encounters ◽  
Rhetorical Discourse ◽  
Motivation To Participate ◽  
Significant Factors

The motivations of those who give consent to bio-banking research have received a great deal of attention in recent years. Previous work draws upon the notion of altruism, though the self and/or family have been proposed as significant factors. Drawing on 11 interviews with staff responsible for seeking consent to cancer bio-banking and 13 observations of staff asking people to consent in routine clinical encounters, we investigate how potential participants are oriented to, and constructed as oriented to, self and other related concerns (Author 2007). We adopt a rhetorical discourse analytic approach to the data and our perspective can be labelled as ‘ethics-in-interaction’. Using analytic concepts such as repetition, extreme case formulation, typical case formulation and contrast structure, our observations are three-fold. Firstly, we demonstrate that orientation to ‘general others’ in altruistic accounts and to ‘self’ in minimising burden are foregrounded in constructions of motivation to participate in cancer bio-banking across the data corpus. Secondly, we identify complex relational accounts which involve the self as being more prominent in the consent encounter data where the staff have a nursing background whereas ‘general others’ feature more when the staff have a scientific background. Finally, we suggest implications based on the disparities between how participants are oriented in interviews and consent encounters which may have relevance for developing staff’s reflective practice.

Beyond Self-Interest

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua May
Keyword(s):  
Moral Development ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Helping Behavior ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Concern For Others ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Christian Love ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

This chapter introduces the long-standing idea that inappropriate motives, such as self-interest, can militate against virtuous motivation (acting for the right reasons). Some theorists have tried to show that we are universally egoistic by appeal to empirical research, particularly evolutionary theory, moral development, and the neuroscience of learning. However, these efforts fail and instead decades of experiments on helping behavior provide powerful evidence that we are capable of genuine altruism. We can be motivated ultimately by a concern for others for their own sake, especially when empathizing with them. The evidence does not show that empathy blurs the distinction between self and other in a way that makes helping behavior truly egoistic or non-altruistic. Whether grounded in Christian love (agape) or the Buddhist notion of no-self (anātman), such self-other merging proposals run into empirical and conceptual difficulties.

Self–Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn L. Bollich-Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
The Self ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
Self Perceptions ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Knowledge Asymmetry ◽  
Blind Spots

Despite the strong intuition that people know themselves well, much research in self-perception demonstrates the biases present when evaluating one’s own personality traits. What specifically are these blind spots in self-perceptions? Are self-perceptions always disconnected from reality? And under what circumstances might other people actually be more accurate about the self? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model suggests that because individuals and others differ in their susceptibility to biases or motivations and in the information they have access to, self- and other-knowledge will vary by trait. The present chapter outlines when and why other-perceptions are sometimes more accurate than self-perceptions, as well as when self-reports can be most trusted. Also discussed are next steps in the study of self- and other-knowledge, including practical, methodological, and interdisciplinary considerations and extensions. In sum, this chapter illustrates the importance of taking multiple perspectives in order to accurately understand a person.

Levels and types of breaking the maxims: A neo-Gricean account of humor

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila L. Nemesi
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
The Self ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Cooperative Principle ◽  
Pragmatic Theory ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Constant Tension

AbstractOn the basis of examples drawn from seven classic Hungarian film comedies, I argue in this article that the place of humor within the Gricean–Leechian model needs to be revisited and extended towards social psychological pragmatics to account for a wider range of humorous material. Scrutinizing the relevant controversial details of Grice’s conceptual framework, my concern is to find a practical way of fitting the various forms of humor into an adequate (and not an idealistic) pragmatic theory. I propose to differentiate between two levels and five types of breaking the maxims, introducing the Self-interest Principle (SiP) supposed to be in constant tension with, and as rational as, Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Politeness and self-presentational phenomena are subsumed under the operation of the SiP which embraces and coordinates the speaker’s own personal and interpersonal purposes.

Sex Differences in Reward Allocation

1988 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 981-982
Author(s):  
Kerry C. Martin ◽  
Jay Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Work Groups ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
High Productivity ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Reward Allocation

Men and women were presented descriptions of two dyadic work groups. In both groups, one member of the dyad did approximately two-thirds of the work. For one of the groups, subjects were asked to imagine that they were the worker of high productivity while for the other group subjects were asked to imagine that they were impartial observers. Subjects were asked to divide the rewards among the two workers for both groups. Men and women did not differ in allocation of reward when acting as impartial observers. When subjects imagined themselves as the worker of high productivity, men gave themselves a greater share of the reward than did women. It was concluded that the results were consistent with the self-interest explanation of sex differences in allocation of reward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document