Cilt 9 Sayı 60 (2021)

Araştırma Makalesi

Psikoterapistlerin Etik Kararları ile Duyguların ve Kişilik Eğilimlerinin İlişkisi

Yayımlandı 30.05.2021

  • Filiz Kumova Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi image/svg+xml
  • Hasan G. Bahçekapılı İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi
Cilt 9 Sayı 60 kapak

Öz

Klinik psikoloji literatüründe, psikoterapistlerin etik karar ve yargıları üzerine yapılan çalışma sayısı kısıtlıdır. Bu çalışmalar ise yurtiçi istisnai bir araştırma dışında, mesleki etik standartlar bulunduğu hâlde psikoterapistlerin ikilem yaşadığı alanların tespitine yönelik betimleyici çalışmalardır. Psikoterapistlerin etik karar ve yargıları ile ilişkili olabilecek faktörlerden ise sadece yaş, cinsiyet, deneyim vb. demografik özellikler incelenmiş, ancak söz konusu özellikler açısından tutarlı ve anlamlı farklılaşmalar ortaya konulamamıştır. Bu araştırma ile psikoterapistlerin etik kararlarının duygular ve kişilik eğilimleri ile ilişkisinin incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Psikoterapistlerin, psikoterapist etik ikilemlerindeki faydacı/deontolojik karar alma eğilimleri psikoloji lisans öğrencilerininki ile karşılaştırılmış, katılımcıların negatif duygu durumlarının deontolojik karar alma eğilimleri ile ilişkisinin yanı sıra, sıkça yurtdışı ahlak psikolojisi araştırmalarına konu olan empati, psikopati, analitik düşünme ve özgeci faydacılık gibi kişilik eğilimlerinin de faydacı/deontolojik karar alma eğilimleri ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre iki grubun hiçbirinde, katılımcıların duygu durumları ile gerek geleneksel yöntem ile gerekse süreç ayrıştırma yöntemi ile hesaplanan faydacı ve deontolojik karar alma eğilimleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunamamıştır. Hem geleneksel hem de süreç ayrıştırma analizinde, psikoterapistlerin deontolojik karar alma eğilimleri psikoloji lisans öğrencilerine göre daha yüksektir. Grupların empati düzeyleri birbirinden farklılaşmamıştır. Psikoloji lisans öğrencilerinin Makyavelist ve psikopatik kişilik eğilimlerinin psikoterapist grubundan daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Her iki grupta da araştırmaya konu kişilik eğilimlerinin, hesaplama yönteminden bağımsız olarak, faydacı/deontolojik karar alma ile ilişkili olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Söz konusu bulgular, bu senaryo tipindeki ahlaki kararlar ile ilişkili kişilik eğilimlerinin klasik ikilemlerdekinden farklı olduğuna ve gelecekte bunların neler olduğunu tespit etmeye dair farklı araştırmalar yapılmasının faydalı olacağına işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler Psikoterapist etik ikilem senaryoları, deontoloji, faydacılık, süreç ayrıştırma metodu

Abstract

The Relationship Between Psychotherapist’s Moral Decisions and Emotions, Personality Features

In clinical psychology literature, the topic of ethical decisions is limited to a couple of descriptive studies, with an exception of a single local study, exploring the conflicting issues that arise despite the existence of a professional moral code. Moreover, these studies investigated only demographic factors such as age, gender, experience etc., as possible correlates of these ethical decisions, but failed to propose consistent and meaningful results. The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between psychotherapists’ ethical decisions – emotions and personal tendencies. The deontological/utilitarian decision-making tendencies of psychotherapists in psychotherapist moral dilemmas were compared with those of undergraduate psychology students. The relationship between deontological/utilitarian decision-making tendencies and frequently used personality features in international moral psychology studies such as empathic concern, psychopathy, analytical thinking and altruistic utilitarianism was explored as well as the correlation between negative mood of the participants and deontological decision-making tendencies. Regarding both conventional and process dissociation analyses, research results revealed that there wasn’t a significant relationship between mood of the participants in both groups and their deontological/utilitarian decision- making tendencies. Psychotherapists’ deontological decision-making tendency was found to be higher than that of the students. Two groups were not differentiated on the basis of empathic concern but psychology students’ both Machiavellist and antisocial tendencies were higher those the psychotherapists. Furthermore, the results indicated that investigated personality variables were not correlated with utilitarian/deontological decision-making tendencies in general independent of the calculation method used. These results seemed to indicate that the personality features related to moral decisions in these scenarios would be different than those of the classical moral dilemmas and further research is needed to explore these personality features.

Keywords Psychotherapist moral dilemmas, deontology, utilitarianism, process dissociation analysis

PDF

Kaynakça

  1. Aktas, B., Yilmaz, O. ve Bahçekapili, H. G. (2017). Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 297-307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005891
  2. Arslan, K. (2002). Üniversiteli Gençlerde Mesleki Tercihler ve Girişimcilik Eğilimleri, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6, 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31671/dogus.2019.333
  3. Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C. ve Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 179-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.019
  4. Avramova, Y. R. ve Inbar, Y. (2013). Emotion and moral judgment. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 169-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1216
  5. Aydemir, L. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin meslek tercihlerini belirleyen faktörlere yönelik bir inceleme. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(5), 713-723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.378084
  6. Bahçekapili, H. G. ve Yilmaz, O. (2017). The relation between different types of religiosity and analytic cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 267-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.013
  7. Baltacı, F., Üngüren, E., Avsallı, H. ve Demirel, O. N. (2012). Turizm eğitimi alan öğrencilerin eğitim memnuniyetlerinin ve geleceğe yönelik bakış açıların belirlemesine yönelik bir araştırma. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 17-25.
  8. Bartels, D. M. ve Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
  9. Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive–behavior therapy: Basics and Beyond (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  10. Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961-981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.961
  11. Blanchette, I. ve Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903132496
  12. Burns DD, Nolen-Hoeksema S (1992) Therapeutic empathy and recovery from depression in cognitive-behavioral therapy: A structural equation model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 441– 449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.60.3.441
  13. Choe, S. Y. ve Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000262X
  14. Christensen, J. F. ve Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1249–1264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008
  15. Clemente, M., Espinosa, P. ve Urra, J. (2011). Ethical issues in psychologists' professional practice: Agreement over problematic professional behaviors among Spanish psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 21(1), 13-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.537568
  16. Concato, J., Peduzzi, P., Holford, T. R. ve Feinstein, A. R. (1995). Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis I. Background, goals, and general strategy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(12), 1495-1501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00510-2
  17. Conley, J. A. (2013). An exploratory study: Perceptions of ethical behaviors among psychologists practicing in the Caribbean. Ethics & Behavior, 23(5), 396-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.789966
  18. Conte, H. R., Plutchik, R., Picard, S. ve Karasu, T. B. (1989). Ethics in the practice of psychotherapy: A survey. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 43(1), 32-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1989.43.1.32
  19. Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
  20. Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. ve Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
  21. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D. ve Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(40), 17433-17438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009396107
  22. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSA Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
  23. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
  24. Egan, G. (2013). Student Workbook Exercises for Egan's The Skilled Helper, (10th. ed). Monteray: Cengage Learning.
  25. Engeler, A. ve Yargıç, L. İ. (2007). Kişiler arası tepkisellik indeksi: Empatinin çok boyutlu ölçümü. New Symposiun Journal, 45, 119-127.
  26. Fennig, S., Secker, A., Treves, I., Ben Yakar, M., Farina, J., Roe, D. ve Fennig, S. (2005). Ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy: Comparison between patients, therapists and laypersons. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 42(4), 251-257.
  27. Ferencz-Kaddari, M., Shifman, A. ve Koslowsky, M. (2016). Modeling psychologists’ ethical intention: Application of an expanded theory of planned behavior. Psychological Reports, 118(3), 691-709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116647691
  28. Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Conway, P. ve Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617744022
  29. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39
  30. Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632.
  31. Gençöz T. Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 2000; 15(46), 19-26.
  32. Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iyer, R., Graham, J. ve Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(7), 497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500001662
  33. Gibson, W. T. ve Pope, K. S. (1993). The ethics of counseling: A national survey of certified counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(3), 330-336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.tb02222.x
  34. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105– 2108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
  35. Grenyer, B. F. ve Lewis, K. L. (2012). Prevalence, prediction, and prevention of psychologist misconduct. Australian Psychologist, 47(2), 68-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2010.00019.x
  36. Haarhoff, B. A. (2006). The importance of identifying and understanding therapist schema in cognitive therapy training and supervision. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35(3), 126-131.
  37. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
  38. Harmon-Jones, E. ve Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.797
  39. Hassenstab, J., Dziobek, I., Rogers, K., Wolf, O. T. ve Convit, A. (2007). Knowing what others know, feeling what others feel: a controlled study of empathy in psychotherapists. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(4), 277-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000253794.74540.2d
  40. Howitt, D. ve Cramer, D. (2014). Introduction to SPSS in Psychology, (6th ed). Edinburgh: Pearson.
  41. Isen, A. M. ve Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 194-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4
  42. Isen, A. M. ve Geva, N. (1987). The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: The person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 145-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90034-3
  43. Jonason, P. K. ve Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
  44. Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400
  45. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. ve Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
  46. Kant, I. (1785/1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Paton, Trans.). NewYork: Harper & Row.
  47. Keijsers, G. P. J., Schaap, C. P. D. R. ve Hoogduin, C. A. L. (2000). The impact of interpersonal patient and therapist behavior on outcome in cognitive-behavior therapy: A review of empirical studies. Behavior Modification, 24(2), 264-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500242006
  48. Kıyak, S. (2006). Genel lise öğrencilerinin meslek seçimi yaparken temel aldığıkriterler. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  49. Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M. ve Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138), 908-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05631
  50. Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J. ve Newman, J. P. (2011). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708-714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr048
  51. Kohlberg, L. ve Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development. Human Development, 12(2), 93-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000270857
  52. Kumova, F. ve Bahçekapılı, H.G. (2020). Türk kültüründe yüksek ahlaki ikilem yaratan psikoterapist senaryoları ile klasik senaryolar: Duyguların faydacı/deontolojik kararlar ile ilişkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2019-0068
  53. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
  54. Lee, J. J. ve Gino, F. (2015). Poker-faced morality: Concealing emotions leads to utilitarian decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 49-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.006
  55. Lerner, J. S. ve Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146
  56. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P. ve Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
  57. Li, Z., Xia, S., Wu, X. ve Chen, Z. (2018). Analytical thinking style leads to more utilitarian moral judgments: An exploration with a process-dissociation approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 180-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.046
  58. Machado, P. P., Beutler, L. E. ve Greenberg, L. S. (1999). Emotion recognition in psychotherapy: Impact of therapist level of experience and emotional awareness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 39-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199901)55:1<39::AID-JCLP4>3.0.CO;2-V
  59. Maner, J. K. ve Gerend, M. A. (2007). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 256-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.08.002
  60. McAuliffe, W. H. (2019). Do emotions play an essential role in moral judgments? Thinking & Reasoning, 25(2), 207-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1499552
  61. McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W. ve Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.192
  62. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(3), 523-541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00039595
  63. Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.910
  64. Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K. ve Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00455.x
  65. Meyer, A., Zhou, E. ve Shane, F. (2018). The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007683
  66. Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  67. Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A. ve Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19(6), 549-557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x
  68. Özsoy, E., Rauthmann, J. F., Jonason, P. K. ve Ardıç, K. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Turkish versions of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-T), and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T). Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 11-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.019
  69. Pammi, V. C., Bandyopadhyay, D. ve Srinivasan, N. (2013). Role of affect in decision making. In Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 202, pp. 37-53). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62604-2.00003-4
  70. Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L. ve Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x
  71. Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calò, M. ve Cushman, F. (2020). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281
  72. Paulhus, D. L. ve Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
  73. Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R. ve Holford, T. R. (1995). Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(12), 1503-1510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00048-8
  74. Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R. ve Feinstein, A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373-1379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3
  75. Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G. ve Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist, 42(11), 993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.993
  76. Raghunathan, R. ve Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 56-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2838
  77. Reynolds, C. J. ve Conway, P. (2018). Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contribute to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas. Emotion, 18(7), 1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000413
  78. Rogers, C. (1992). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 827–832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.60.6.827
  79. Royzman, E. B., Landy, J. F. ve Leeman, R. F. (2015). Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science, 39(2), 325-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12136
  80. Schwarz, N. ve Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
  81. Stagnaro, M. N., Pennycook, G. ve Rand, D. G. (2018). Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test is stable across time. Judgment and Decision making, 13(3), 260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007695
  82. Strohminger, N., Lewis, R. L. ve Meyer, D. E. (2011). Divergent effects of different positive emotions on moral judgment. Cognition, 119(2), 295-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.012
  83. Sullivan, K. (2002). Ethical beliefs and behaviours among Australian psychologists. Australian Psychologist, 37(2),135-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060210001706786
  84. Thomson, K. S. ve Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007622
  85. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. ve Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275–1289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
  86. Tubbs, P. ve Pomerantz, A. M. (2001). Ethical behaviors of psychologists: Changes since 1987. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(3), 395-399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1021
  87. Valdesolo, P. ve DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science-Cambridge, 17(6), 476-477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x
  88. Västfjäll, D., Peters, E. ve Slovic, P. (2008). Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 64-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000176
  89. Venkatesh, S. ve Lovibond, P. (2019). Is the unexamined professional life worthpracticing? Factors influencing ethical practice in psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1620611
  90. Vyskocilova, J. ve Prasko, J. (2013). Ethical questions and dilemmas in psychotherapy. Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva, 55(1-2), 4-11.
  91. Yelken, K. (2008). Orta öğretim son sınıf öğrencilerinin üniversite tercihlerini ve meslek seçimini etkileyen faktörler: Sakarya il merkezi örneği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
  92. Wastell, C. ve Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An alexithymic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 730-744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.22.6.730.22931
  93. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. ve Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measuresof positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6):1063-1070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
  94. Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J. ve Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition, 126(3), 364-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.002
  95. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151