this journal publishes authoritative articles in the following areas: Social work Social Welfare Social health Social Security Social Issues Norms
Ebrahim Ahmadi
Abstract
Previous researches about the relationship between religious belief and morality have reached conflicting findings and this shows that the effect of religious belief on morality cannot be direct. Therefore, for the pathology of religious belief, it is necessary to see which characteristics of religious ...
Read More
Previous researches about the relationship between religious belief and morality have reached conflicting findings and this shows that the effect of religious belief on morality cannot be direct. Therefore, for the pathology of religious belief, it is necessary to see which characteristics of religious belief can contribute to which forms of immorality under which conditions. The present study hypothesized that attribution to God makes it easier to justify passive immorality (omission of actions) and makes passive immorality seem more acceptable. With the purpose of testing this hypothesis and in a correlational design, 499 participants (230 men) with an average age of 37 years were selected among 30,000 subscribers of Hamrahe Avval and Irancell living in Tehran and Karaj and were randomly assigned into two groups of passive immorality (who read six stories about passive immorality) and active immorality (who read six stories about active immorality). Religious belief was measured with the Supernatural Beliefs Scale (Jong, Bluemke, & Halberstadt, 2013), and attribution to God and acceptance of immorality were measured with a researcher-made questionnaire. Regression analyses showed that the subjects who had more religious belief attributed passive immorality to God more than the subjects who had less religious belief, attribution to God predicted the acceptance of immorality, and religious belief had a negative relationship with the acceptance of immorality after excluding the variance of attribution to God. Also, the Moderated Mediation Model showed that attribution to God can explain why religious believers accept passive immorality more easily. These findings show tha
Ebrahim Ahmadi
Abstract
Previous research has shown that if we look at our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors from the perspective of others, rather than our own, that is, if we move away from ourselves, we can more easily control them, and current research hypothesized that if we use non-first-person pronouns (e.g., "he") and ...
Read More
Previous research has shown that if we look at our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors from the perspective of others, rather than our own, that is, if we move away from ourselves, we can more easily control them, and current research hypothesized that if we use non-first-person pronouns (e.g., "he") and our own name to name ourselves instead of first-person pronouns (e.g., "I"), It becomes easier to get away from ourselves and then control ourselves. In order to test this hypothesis, a pilot experiment and a main experiment were performed. The Pilot experiment showed that the non-first-person group reported more than the first-person group seeing themselves from the perspective of others. In the main experiment, 86 female students with an average age of 21 years from Payam Noor University of Qom were sampled by convenience method and randomly assigned to two groups of first person (who thought about future stressful events with first person pronouns) and non-first person (who thought about the future stressful events with non-first-person pronouns and their names). Trait anxiety was measured by the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Leary, 1983) and state anxiety was measured by a researcher-made test. participants then performed a social interaction, and five judges rated their social performance. Repeated measures ANCOVAs showed that after social interaction, non-first-person group's state anxiety decreased faster than that of first-person group and non-first-person group received better scores in social performance.
Ebrahim Ahmadi
Abstract
Most psychologists believe that happiness is having too much of pleasant emotions and too less of unpleasant ones, but according to Aristotle, humans are happy if they have the emotions that they want to have, even if those emotions are unpleasant. With the purpose of examining this theory of Aristotle, ...
Read More
Most psychologists believe that happiness is having too much of pleasant emotions and too less of unpleasant ones, but according to Aristotle, humans are happy if they have the emotions that they want to have, even if those emotions are unpleasant. With the purpose of examining this theory of Aristotle, the present study tested the hypothesis that the discrepancy between the emotions that the individual have and the emotions that he wants to have, has a positive correlation with depression and a negative correlation with well-being. In a correlational design, a call for participation in this study was sent to 30,000 subscribers of the Hamrahe Avval and Irancell in Tehran, and 1410 (564 men) people with an average age of 26 years participated in the study. The research tools were a researcher-made questionnaire to measure the desired and experienced emotions, the Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Correlation and regression analyses showed that the absolute discrepancy between desired and experienced emotions (which showed that how much each participant has experienced his/her desired emotions), can predict more depression and less well being, even in participants that experienced more pleasant and less unpleasant emotions than they desired, and even after statistically controlling experienced emotions. Therefore, happiness is not just the pleasant emotions, but any emotion, if desired, can increase our happiness.
