| Title |
How to Measure Moral Realism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13164-018-0401-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Pölzler |
| Abstract |
In recent years an increasing number of psychologists have begun to explore the prevalence, causes and effects of ordinary people's intuitions about moral realism. Many of these studies have lacked in construct validity, i.e., they have failed to (fully or exclusively) measure moral realism. My aim in this paper accordingly is to motivate and guide methodological improvements. In analysis of prominent existing measures, I develop general recommendations for overcoming ten prima facie serious worries about research on folk moral realism. G1 and G2 require studies' answer choices to be as metaethically comprehensive as methodologically feasible. G3 and G4 prevent fallacious inferences from intuitions about related debates. G5 and G6 limit first-order moral and epistemic influences. G7 address studies' instructions. And G8 and G9 suggest tests of important psychological presuppositions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 28% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 22% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,921,327
of 24,162,843 outputs
Outputs from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#156
of 447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,233
of 334,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Review of Philosophy and Psychology
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,162,843 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.