Master Dissertation Proposal
Student: Rouhollah Sarollahi,
[email protected] MA in Cognitive Psychology Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran Supervisor: Dr. Javad Hatami,
[email protected] Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran, and Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran Advisor: Prof. Kamal A. Kharrazi,
[email protected] Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran, and Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran Dissertation Title:
Investigating the Correlation between Evolution of Sexual Disgust Representation and Internet Experience: in Comparison of Christian with Islamic Cultures
Keywords: Christianity, Islam, Purity, Sexual Disgust, Morality, the Internet
INTRODUCTION
ٍ َ فَما َكا َن جواب قَوِم ِه إِاَّل أَن قَالُوا أَخ ِرجوا ِ ِ )65 آية،اس يَتَطَ اهُرو َن (سورة النمل ُ ْ ٌ َآل لُوط ِّمن قَ ْريَت ُك ْم إن ُاه ْم أُن ْ َ ََ َ Imagine a trolley that would kill five persons if continue its running railway. Now there is two kind of Trolley Dilemma: 1) you can pull a switch and change the railway that leads to kill another person; 2) you can push a fat person off a bridge that trolley pass from, so the fat person will be killed and the trolley will be stopped. These two dilemmas logically are the same but human society makes different decisions for them. Most people pull the switch but only minority chooses to push the fat person (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001). In recent decades, the contrast of emotional intuition and effortful reasoning exaggerated in moral psychology, although the findings of cognitive neuroscience enlightened the interaction of two processes with dominance of emotional ones (Greene & Haidt, 2002). It is possible that duals of emotion-reasoning, deontology-consequentialism, and two moral codes of autonomy-community are transferable coordinate systems for the same space. But the third moral code that Kohlberg named “natural law” (1974), Turiel named “unearthly belief” (1987), and for which Shweder used the term “divinity” (1990), is the key indicator of moral decision making. This indicator that acts by functionality of disgust emotion (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999) is one of moral foundations in “Social Intuitionist Theory” which had been named purity (Haidt, 2001). The operator of this indicator, the disgust emotion, that is one of six basic emotions (Ekman, 1992), socially passed its evolution (Haidt, Rozin, McCauley, & Imada, 1997). Preventive emotion latent in violation of the pushing fat person off the bridge that prevents people to act in the same logic of pulling the switch, finds its exemplars through the sociability process of individuals. Rituals, traditions, and religions by determining these exemplars establish dominant mainstream cultures that people develop their life cycle through it. The observation of negative correlation between internet experience and the functionality of this emotion for a special exemplar, consume corpse to survive (Sarollahi, Keshmirian, Rafiee, & Hatami, 2015), underlies this research proposal for comprehensive investigation of correlation between disgust emotion functionality and internet experience. 1.
Evolutionary function and cultural structure of disgust emotion
Cognitive architecture of disgust emotion would be described by investigation of its behavioural component, physiological aspect, related emotional face, and evolutionary function. Behavioural component of this emotion would be observed with distancing from some object, event, or situation, and can be characterized as a rejection (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2008). Association of nausea is the most manifested physiological aspect of disgust that is typically measured by self-report (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2008). The three main components of disgust face seem to be gape, retraction of the upper lip, and the nose wrinkle (Ekman & Friesen, 1978). Eventually, the first
2
evolutionary function of disgust is to guard the body from infection; a functionality that can be elaborated to guardian of self. The function of guardian of body from infection shaped the first category of Tybur’s categorization with the title of pathogen disgust. In the evolution of disgust emotion, olfactory, taste, and other cues correlate with pathogen infection resources. This emotion acts by the laws of contiguity and similarity. In this way the operation of this emotion leads to the avoidance of probable cause of infection contagion (Tybur, 2009). The second category with the title of sexual disgust includes mentioned functionality but also quality and compatibility of sexual partner for reproduction purpose. Tybur called the function of this category as the “avoidance of fitness-jeopardizing sexual partner” (Tybur, Lieberman, Robert, & DeScioli, 2013). For example, despite of no possibility for infection contagion, incest would be disgusting because of the poor compatibility of partners. The third category includes social transgressions such as lying, cheating, and stealing. Tybur used the term moral disgust instead of anti-social disgust or norm violation disgust because of simplicity (Tybur, 2009). Although there is not complete agreement among scholars that moral disgust is really disgust but its exemplars in different language and cultures reported with “disgust” term (Haidt, Rozin, McCauley, & Imada, 1997) and emotional face studies on such exemplars confirms this claim (Chapman, Kim, Susskind, & Anderson, 2009). Although evolutionary roots have been considered for disgust, it is a cultural product (Haidt, Rozin, McCauley, & Imada, 1997). The studies on children younger than five years old that put almost anything into their mouths (Rozin, Hammer, Oster, Horowitz, & Marmora, 1986; Siegal, 1988) and study on feral humans that show no signs of disgust (Malson, 1964/1972) are clear substantiations for this claim. In this sense, disgust emotion passes its evolution based on social nature of human. This emotion finds its exemplars only after individual situating in society; exemplars which depend on the cultural context of individual development. An individual has the need to feel connected to others, to have a sense of group belonging (Brewer, 1991) and pass the third stage of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943). Therefor feeling different from others is problematic for individual, so that different aspects of identity may need to be hidden. But conflicts between public persona and the private self are the major cause of unhappiness and neuroses (Horney, 1946/2013). Mainstream cultures established in societies by this domination. In this way, if desire for disgusting exemplars appears, it will be suppressed because of social costs and minority of individuals with such desires cannot find each other to communicate. 2.
The Internet, context of the transition
Today, this stasis has been changed. The Internet, as the main medium for development of virtual space, is an interactive medium like the telephone and telegraph and a mass medium like radio and television (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). These two features prepared appropriate context for the formation of individual-society dual; a new space for communication and living as its comprehensive style that includes various possible behaviors without real world restrictions.
3
The Internet offers broad freedom to the users for self-identification. A user can form several identities independent of most usual fixed features like age, gender, race, and so on. In the moment by moment cycle of selfidentification through internet experience, most physical features are not retrieved; and so interdependence of identity and body will fade. Individuals in this private and anonymous situation disclose more (Joinson, 2001) (Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & Schofield, 2010) (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). Identities that are marginal and concealable in real life will find and support each other in this environment. In this way, the demarginalization phenomena as the attenuation of mainstream cultures is taking place (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). According to the observations, there is negative correlation between conative levels of Internet experience and purity in moral decision making for a special exemplar of disgust, consume corpse to survive (Sarollahi, Keshmirian, Rafiee, & Hatami, 2015). As mentioned, evolutionarily, disgust (a) functions to guard the body, and (b) is confirmed in society by cultural dominance. In this way, decrease in the feeling of disgust is consistent with the conclusions that (a’) virtual identity more than real one is independent from the body, and (b’) the dominance of mainstream social conventions is attenuated by the Internet (i.e. demarginalization). This result may be acceptable for other exemplars of pathogen disgust because of functional similarity but this theoretical elaboration is logically weak for sexual and moral disgusts by different functions. 3.
Correlation between internet experience and genogram guard evolution
By considering guardian of genogram and collective social identity as the functions of sexual and moral disgusts, and by using consciousness theory of Damasio (2012) we can integrate functions of three domains of disgust as the guardian of self, which he describe as the mechanism of integration of different mental functions (Damasio, 2003). For this integration we should match Tybur’s and Damasio’s triplets; pathogen disgust with core self, sexual disgust with proto self, and moral disgust with extended self. If this matching be confirmed, investigating the correlation between evolution of disgust and internet experience would lead to a comprehensive viewpoint for investigating the evolution of self and consciousness in the context of the Internet. If the negative correlation between internet experience and the functionality of this emotion for a special exemplar is elaborated to all pathogen disgust exemplars, which needs investigation itself, in the current step we need to investigate the correlation between evolution of sexual disgust and internet experience. For this purpose we target two mainstream cultures of today world: Christianity with 2.2 billion and Islam with 1.6 billion followers, totally about 54 percent of world population (WIKIPEDIA, 2010). We will refer to the Quran and Bible that are common resource of each culture followers for derivation sexual disgust exemplars. In this way, comparing scriptural foundations (Quran and Bible) for sexual disgust exemplars in these two cultures is the first objective of this research. But current reality of individual sensitivity to disgust exemplars and differences of two communities only with analysis of appropriate sample will be achieved which is the second objective of this research. The third objective, which research title allocates for that, is the investigation of correlation between sexual disgust evolution and internet experience. We will ask about universality of the future of these cultures by describing the resulted situation of the Internet penetration and comparing evolution of cultures.
4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1.
Comparing scriptural foundations (Quran and Bible) for sexual disgust exemplars.
2.
Scaling individual sensitivity to disgust and comparing communities.
3.
Investigating the correlation between evolution of sexual disgust representation and internet experience: in comparison of Christian with Islamic cultures (General Objective).
METHODOLOGY 1. Research Framework This explanatory basic research is an observational cross-sectional study. This survey includes statistical analysis of questionnaires. Meanwhile this is somehow a historical research because of referring to the scriptures (Quran and Bible). 2. Variables and Measures 2.1. Internet experience (Independent Variable) Time and frequency usually considered as the scale of Internet experience. But time, on its own, cannot differentiate quality and quantity of Internet experience (Rogers, 2003). In addition to time and frequency, start age of Internet usage, categories of activity, and online sexual activity (necessary for this special research) should be evaluated as the conative features of internet experience. Also affective situation of user during the Internet usage differentiate experiences (Novak & Hoffman, 1997). In this way, the set of conative and affective parameters together will describe Internet experience. 2.1.1. Conative features of internet experience
“Start Age of Internet usage” includes five levels: (1) younger than 5 years old, (2) between 5 and 12, (3) between 12 and 18, (4) between 18 and 25, and (5) older 25.
“Frequency of Internet usage” which is defined as the average time interval of returning to the Internet includes four levels: (1) one week and more, (2) once in couple of days, (3) couple of times in day, and (4) frequently in day.
Time of attendance at the Internet will be evaluated with two definitions:
“Average Continues Time of Internet usage” that evaluates average time of attendance at the Internet for one continues session includes four levels: (1) less than minutes, (2) half an hour, (3) an hour, and (4) couple of hours.
“Overall Daily Time of Internet usage” that evaluates average total time of attendance at the Internet for a whole day includes four levels: (1) less than minutes, (2) one hour, (3) one to three hours, and (4) more than three hours.
5
“Type of activity on the Internet” will be evaluated using a list of possible activities prepared with help of a pilot sample of twenty (Appendix 4). The statements presentation order will be counterbalanced across participants. They will answer their level of activity in each case on a likerttype-6 point scale (from Never (0) to Once a day or more (5)). Resulted dimensions from factor analysis of such questionnaire probably include exploring, financial, and social (Rogers, 2003) and maybe fourth category distinct from third one as the inclusive interactions. 2.1.1.1. Online sexual activity
“Online sexual activity” (OSA) refers to the use of the Internet for activities of a sexual nature (Cooper & Griffin-Shelley, 2002). The evaluation of such experience seems necessary because of possible correlation with evolution of sexual disgust. For this purpose, we will use online sexual experience questionnaire (Shaughnessy, Byers, & Walsh, 2011). This questionnaire (Appendix 5) includes nine statements in three categories of non-arousal (two statements), solitary-arousal (four statements), and partnered-arousal (three statements). The statements presentation order will be counterbalanced across participants. They will answer their level of activity in each case on a likerttype-6 point scale (from Never (0) to Once a day or more (5)). 2.1.2. Affective features of internet experience
For evaluating this aspect of internet experience, participants will be asked to respond to a list of 15 statements (Appendix 6) regarding their feelings about being online on a likert-type 9-point scale (with anchors of strongly disagree and strongly agree). Statements were adapted from validated online surveys (Novak & Hoffman, 1997; Rogers, 2003), as well as original queries. It should be noted that the questions presentation order will be counterbalanced across participants. Factor analysis of this questionnaire in the prior study differentiates three affective dimensions (Sarollahi, Keshmirian, Rafiee, & Hatami, 2015). Regarding to the impressive statements in each dimension titles of involvement, confidence, and flow experience labeled to each one. 2.2. Sexual disgust scale (Dependent variable) 2.2.1. Haidt and Olatunji: disgust scale (DS) and disgust scale-revised (DS-R)
Although extensive studies on emotions has taken place in recent decades but less empirical attention has been devoted to disgust (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005). Efforts of Haidt and his colleagues (1994) is the first serious step for development of a comprehensive disgust scale (DS). They referred to 15 student and 5 secretaries for collecting disgust exemplars. Results of purification of this list formed the final scale in two sections. First section includes true-false questions that indicate an exemplar is disgusting or not. In the second section a set of statements represents with three options of not disgusting at all, slightly disgusting, and completely disgusting. A special integration of scores in two sections scale the individual sensitivity to disgust.
6
This scale which is the most widely used disgust measure to date has been revised by investigating its reliability and validity via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Olatunji, et al., 2007). In revision, seven statements have been removed. In between, four statements were sexual disgust exemplars that were all of sexual ones in the original disgust scale (DS). In this way, sexual disgust exemplars completely have been removed from disgust scale-revised (DS-R). It should be mentioned that disgust exemplars with social transgression content had been removed through the purification of sample reports in the original DS because of low repetition (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994). 2.2.2. Tybur: three domain disgust scale (TDDS) Because of theoretical objections to the disgust categorization in DS assumptions, Tybur offered his own theoretical disgust categorization and developed appropriate scale (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). An overall image of evolution of sensitivity to three domains of disgust will be obtained by using Tybur’s three domain disgust scale (TDDS). But a comprehensive investigation of evolution of sexual disgust is not possible by using this limited set of sexual exemplars that has been collected and purified from a small sample.
Tybur, for preparing disgust exemplars, like Haidt and colleagues referred to samples of 14 includes 4 undergraduate students, 5 graduate students, and 5 psychology professors. It should be mentioned that he asked this sample to report exemplars in his three categories (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). Exemplars after purification in a set of 21 statements represent with likert-type 7-point scale from not at all disgusting (0) to extremely disgusting (6) for participants (Appendix 7). It should be noted that the statements presentation order will be counterbalanced across participants. 2.2.3. Sexual disgust exemplars from scriptures (Quran and Bible)
As mentioned, disgust emotion has evolutionary functions but established culturally in societies. In a religious society, because of more than two millenniums of Christian lifetime or nearly one and half millenniums of Islam lifetime, religion has considerable role on determining disgust exemplars. With regard to this issue, we will refer to the scriptural foundations of cultural conventions for preparing prior set of sexual disgust exemplars, instead of referring to a small sample. Unlike the method of Haidt and Tybur which is based on methodology of social psychology, this referring to the historical scripture is justified in the methodology of anthropology (Bernard, 2011).
Considering wide plurality in Christianity and Islam we will refer to the most in common criterion of each religion. Quran and Bible are in common for Muslims and Christians regardless of internal plurality of each religion because of originality and historical stability of scriptures. Alongside of TDDS we will use a set of sexual disgust exemplars derivate from Quran and Bible. These 22 statements also represent with likert-type 7-point scale from not at all disgusting (0) to extremely disgusting (6) for participants (Appendix 8). It should be noted that the statements presentation order will be counterbalanced across participants.
7
2.3. Control variables 2.3.1. Demographics As observed in the prior study, variables of gender, being religious or not, and relationship status among all variables had the most salient effects on the answers to the dilemma containing a disgust example (Sarollahi, Keshmirian, Rafiee, & Hatami, 2015). Therefor general specifications will be obtained to be controlled.
Birthday (Gregorian Dates), Gender (Male, Female).
Relationship status (Married, Non-marital relationship, Single), Widower/Widowed (Yes, No), have/have had children (Yes, No).
Officially reported religion in religious censuses (Christianity, Islam, Others), Born (Christian, Muslim, Others), my parents are (Practicing, Non-practicing).
Education: (Pre-university or less, Under graduate, Graduate, Medical studies MD or more). 2.3.2. Religiosity scale
We will evaluate religiosity of participants based on theory of “Modes of Religiosity” (Whitehouse, 2002). According to this theory, religiosity includes two modes of doctrinal and imagistic. In the doctrinal mode of religiosity frequently repeated behaviors and rituals, in the operational context of semantic and implicit memory with regard to the presence of religious leaders and need for orthodoxy check, leads to the formation of wide spreading and centralized religious communities. On the other hand in the imagistic mode of religiosity high arousal infrequent repeated rituals activate spontaneous exegetical reflection (SER) in episodic memory which leads to the intense cohesion in community. SER leads to a diversity of religious representations that inhibit dynamic leadership and need for orthodoxy check. This mode of religiosity fosters localized and exclusive communities and inhibits centralization and dissemination. Since this theory is founded in anthropology, appropriate socio-psychological scale has not been developed yet. Therefor with an extensive simplification we will use two questions to measure religiosity of participants in each mode.
To what extent do you adhere to the Christian Canon Law/Islamic Sharia in everyday life? (Completely ignoring (0), … Completely versed in said law (9))
To what extent are religious miracles tangible to you? (Completely intangible (0) … Completely tangible (9)) 2.3.3. Sexual orientation
Sociosexuality is usually referred to the overall orientation toward uncommitted sex. Sociosexuality has been described with three components (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Sociosexual behaviour, the first component refers to the past behavioural experiences reflecting the quantity of past short-term sexual encounters and links to the
8
diversity of past romantic and sexual relationships, as well as the occurrence of sexual infidelity. Sociosexual attitude, the second component refers to the evaluative disposition toward uncommitted sex. Sociosexual desire, the third component is the motivational disposition to allocate mating effort to long-term versus short-term mating tactics. It is possible that Sociosexual orientation correlate with sensitivity to sexual disgust.
To measure Sociosexual orientation we use the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) that includes nine statements (three for each component) represent with likert-type 9-point scale (Appendix 2).
The contrast of heterosexuality versus homosexuality is another sexual orientation which would be assessed by a single question:
I have desire for sexual intercourse (only with opposite sex, with both sexes, only with same sex).
The contrast of polygyny versus monogamy is another sexual orientation that has relative social dependent changes during history (Fortunato, 2011). The current difference of communities toward this orientation includes individual differences which would be assessed by another single question:
To what extent is polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is acceptable for your own case? (Not at all (0), … Completely acceptable (9))
3. Data Analysis 3.1. Factor analysis of questionnaires We will use factor analysis for collected information through questionnaires represented in appendixes 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Internal consistency will be measured by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. 3.2. Correlation coefficient and between group comparisons Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient will be calculated because there are ranked variables. Since there is no interval and ratio in the variables median is a better indication of central tendency than the arithmetic mean for comparing groups besides of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). In addition regression analysis will be used for investigating control variables. 3.3. Purification and categorization of open-ended questionnaire Two common data mining methods will be used for categorization of reported sexual disgusts in open-ended questionnaire: Bag-of-Words Model (Zhang, Jin, & Zhou, 2010) and Topic Modeling (Wallach, 2006). Using these methods participant’s portion in each category will be calculated and comparison between individuals will be possible. In this way, participants’ reports will be correlated with other variables.
9
4. Sample 4.1. Statistical population (Demographics of London vs. Tehran) Tehran as the most accessible statistic population is the first target population. With a population around 9 million in the city and 16 million in the wider metropolitan area, Tehran is the capital of Iran (WIKIPEDIA, 2015). The majority of Tehranis are officially Muslims, around 99% (SCIran, 2011). But there is a diverse ethno-social composition in Tehran, so that 37% of its population were not born in it (Moidfar, 2010). Ethnic groups in Tehran include Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Armenians, Georgians, Bakhtiaris, Talysh people, Baloch people, Assyrians, Arabs, Jews, and Circassians gathered from all over the country. Moreover Tehran is an appropriate and available statistic population for this research because of 75% internet penetration (ICTIran, 2015). In this way, Tehran with diverse ethnicity and unipolar religious structure will prepare the first Muslim sample of this study. London, according to the similarities and differences with Tehran, is another target population. With a population more than 9 million in the city and nearly 14 million in the wider metropolitan area, London is the capital of England (WIKIPEDIA, 2014). It is worth noting that fertility rate was 1.4 in Tehran (SABTEAHVAL, 2006) and 1.9 in London (WIKIPEDIA, 2006) children per woman. The relative majority of Londoners are Christians (48.4%) and there is a diverse religious composition: no religion (20.7%), Muslims (12.4%), No response (8.5%), Hindus (5.0%), Jews (1.8%), Sikhs (1.5%), Buddhists (1.0%), and 0.6% of other (WIKIPEDIA, 2011). Moreover about 37% of Greater London’s population were born outside UK that led international diversity of ethno-social composition of London: White (59.8%), Asian (18.4%), Black (13.3%), Mixed (5%), Arab (1.3%), and 2.1% of any other ethnic group (WIKIPEDIA, 2011). The comparison of ethnic and religious compositions in London may illustrate that lack of a large minority in Tehran, like 20% of “no religion” in London, is the result of different political structure of authority. Considering this issue, official religion, religion at birth, and parents’ religiosity will be obtained. By the way, about 50% of London population prepare Christian sample of this research and about 12% of Londoners will form the comparison Muslim group. Three groups of Tehranis Muslims, Londoners Christians, and Londoners Muslims are target population of this study. Londoners Muslims group performs the role of controller, similar with Tehranis in religion and with Londoners Christians in civic context of life. In addition, concurrent contrast of this control group with both other groups will illustrate difference of being Muslim in majority and minority. There would be also a minority group of Tehranis Christians, less than one per cent (SCIran, 2011), that will help to this investigating the effect of population proportion (majority vs. minority) on religiosity. For appropriate categorization of participants in mentioned groups the following information will be obtained:
I was born in (London, Tehran, Others). I spend the majority of my childhood in (London, Tehran, Others). In recent years I have been living in (London, Tehran, Others).
10
4.2. Chain referral sampling (snowball sampling) In this non-probability sampling technique a starting sampling pool will be selected. Researcher organizes different features like gender, ethnicity, religion, and etc. of starting pool in order to prepare spread process for accessing various social groups and increasing final sample size. The participants in starting pool receive an email containing requests of participating in research and sharing its website. In this way, process of sample spreading starts with chain referral request for participation. Appropriate facilities for sharing the website in cyberspace increase the chance of spreading for each additional participant. Also with purpose of easy participation there won’t be any registration or any other identical challenge. Although participation ratio per person decrease by taking distance from starting pool smaller ratio in farther layers of snowball act on more participants and has bigger total effect. For instance, starting pool of 150 persons led to total sample of 4500 valid participants in the prior study (Sarollahi, Keshmirian, Rafiee, & Hatami, 2015). Considering three layers for this sample this is a suitable estimate for participation ratios: 10:1 for transition from first layer (150 persons) to second layer (1500 persons) and 3:1 for transition to third layer as final sample (4500 participants). The reasons for greatness of initial participation ratios are: 1) there is more commitment among who recognize researchers for more serious sharing; 2) this led to sharing in more private groups like work or study groups that transferring information are valuable; and also 3) there was some celebrities of Social Networks. 5. Ethical Considerations
Institute for Cognitive Science Studies and Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology would be introduced to the participants as the affiliations of the research.
Participants would be informed about the usage of information for a Master Dissertation.
Sexual Morality would be expressed as the pivot of research.
Participants would be notified about the presence of conceptual contents in sexuality.
Entrance to the website is conditional on legal age (+18) confirmation.
Participant’s Internet Protocol (IP) address won’t be traced and this issue would be informed to them.
11
APPENDIXES 1.
Single questions of control variables I was born in (London, Tehran, Others). I spend the majority of my childhood in (London, Tehran, Others). In recent years I have been living in (London, Tehran, Others). Birthday (Gregorian Dates), Gender (Male, Female) Officially reported religion in religious censuses (Christianity, Islam, Others), Born (Christian, Muslim, Others), my parents are (Practicing, Non-practicing). To what extent do you adhere to the Christian Canon Law/Islamic Sharia in everyday life? (Completely ignoring (0), … Completely versed in said law (9)) To what extent are religious miracles tangible to you? (Completely intangible (0) … Completely tangible (9)) Education: (Pre-university or less, Under graduate, Graduate, Medical studies MD or more) Relationship status (Married, Non-marital relationship, Single), Widower/Widowed (Yes, No), have/have had children (Yes, No) To what extent is polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is acceptable for your own case? (Not at all (0), … Completely acceptable (9)) I have desire for sexual intercourse (only with opposite sex, with both sexes, only with same sex)
2.
The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) Please respond honestly to the following questions: 1. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months? 2. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion? 3. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a longterm committed relationship with this person? 0
1
2
3
4
5-6
7-9
10-19
20 or more
4. Sex without love is OK. 5. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying "casual" sex with different partners. 6. I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship. 1_ 2_ Strongly disagree
3_
4_
5_
6_
7_
8_
9_ Strongly agree
7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? 8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? 9. In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met? _ 1 – never _ 2 – very seldom _ 3 – about once every two or three months _ 4 – about once a month
12
_ 5 – about once every two weeks _ 6 – about once a week _ 7 – several times per week _ 8 – nearly every day _ 9 – at least once a day 3.
Single questions of conative internet experience At what age did you start using the Internet? Younger than 5 years old (1) Between 5 and 12 (2) Between 12 and 18 (3) Between 18 and 25 (4) Older 25 (5) On average, how frequently do you use the Internet? Every…? More than week (1) Couple of days (2) about once a day (3) Multiple times a day (4) On average, how much time do you spend on each visit of the Internet? Less than a few minutes (1) half an hour (2) an hour (3) couple of hours (4) How much time in total did you spend on the internet yesterday? Less than minutes (1) one hour (2) one to three hours (3) more than three hours (4)
4.
Activity type statements How many times in the past month have you visited the Internet to: 1. Use search engines to find information. 2. Access materials such as movies, music, books, etc. 3. Visit specific web sites to access information (e.g. news agencies). 4. Academic or scientific purposes. 5. Web surfing (aimlessly exploring sites and web pages for accidental exposure to interesting content). 6. Online single-player games that are not competitive or are competitive against artificial (non-human) agents. 7. Repeated online multi-player games with few select players (e.g. two persons having a regular schedule to play with each other). 8. Online multi-player games that take place on social networks with one player confronting many players. 9. Massively multi-player online exclusive interactive games with many players simultaneously involved in it. 10. Using e-mail. 11. Chatting with specific friends. 12. Participating in chat rooms. 13. Passively exploring social networks mostly for accidental exposure to interesting contents. 14. Actively exploring social networks while interacting with others. 15. Participating in group discussions taking place on social networks. 16. Internet shopping. 17. Job-related official and organizational affairs. 18. Paying bills and banking activities. 19. Teleworking. 20. Business in cyberspace. Never (0) not very often (1) once a week (2) once a couple of days (3) almost once a day (4) once a day or more (5)
13
5.
Online sexual experience questionnaire (Shaughnessy, Byers, & Walsh, 2011) How many times in the past month have you: 1. Visited an educational web site on sexuality 2. Chatted with someone on a dating web site 3. Watched sexually explicit videos/photos online alone 4. Masturbated while watching sexually explicit videos online 5. Masturbated while viewing a stranger via web cam 6. Read erotic material online 7. Engaged in a conversation with someone via computer typing or microphone in which you share sexual fantasies 8. Repeatedly engaged in private discussion online about sexual fantasies with the same person 9. Maintained a sexual relationship with someone online Never (0) not very often (1) once a week (2) once a couple of days (3) almost once a day (4) once a day or more (5)
6.
Affective internet experience Please carefully indicate your level of agreement with following statements: 1. I enjoy visiting unfamiliar web sites just for the sake of variety. 2. I enjoy web surfing. 3. I look forward to checking out new information on the Internet. 4. I experience a sense of achievement when I use the Internet. 5. I think of the Internet as a tool to make life easier. 6. I am extremely skilled at using the Web. 7. I consider myself knowledgeable about good search techniques on the Web. 8. If I had a problem using the Internet, I could solve it one way or another. 9. I would prefer to learn how to use the Internet on my own. 10. The Internet challenges me, compared to other things I do on the computer. 11. I forget about my immediate surroundings when I use the Internet. 12. I am in complete control when I use the Internet. 13. Time seems to go by very quickly when I use the Internet. 14. Using the Internet often makes me forget mealtime. 15. Using the Internet creates a new world for me, and this world suddenly disappears when I stop browsing. 1_ 2_ 3_ 4_ 5_ 6_ 7_ 8_ 9_ Strongly agree Strongly disagree
7.
Three-Domain Disgust Scale (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009) The following items describe a variety of concepts. Please rate how disgusting you find the concepts described in the items, where 0 means that you do not find the concept disgusting at all and 6 means that you find the concept extremely disgusting. Not at all disgusting Extremely disgusting 1. Shoplifting a candy bar from a convenience store 0123456 2. Hearing two strangers having sex 0123456 3. Stepping on dog poop 0123456 4. Stealing from a neighbor 0123456 5. Performing oral sex 0123456 6. Sitting next to someone who has red sores on their arm 0123456
14
7. A student cheating to get good grades 0123456 8. Watching a pornographic video 0123456 9. Shaking hands with a stranger who has sweaty palms 0123456 10. Deceiving a friend 0123456 11. Finding out that someone you don’t like has sexual fantasies about you 12. Seeing some mold on old leftovers in your refrigerator 13. Forging someone’s signature on a legal document 14. Bringing someone you just met back to your room to have sex 15. Standing close to a person who has body odor 16. Cutting to the front of a line to purchase the last few tickets to a show 17. A stranger of the opposite sex intentionally rubbing your thigh in an elevator 18. Seeing a cockroach run across the floor 19. Intentionally lying during a business transaction 20. Having anal sex with someone of the opposite sex 21. Accidentally touching a person’s bloody cut 8.
Sexual Disgusts from Quran and Bible The following items describe a variety of concepts. Please rate how disgusting you find the concepts described below, where 0 means that you do not find the concept disgusting at all and 6 means that you find the concept extremely disgusting. Not at all disgusting Extremely disgusting 1. Sexual intercourse of two males with each other. 0123456 2. Sexual intercourse of two females with each other. 0123456 3. Sexual intercourse of man with an animal (bestiality). 0123456 4. Sexual intercourse of woman with an animal (bestiality). 0123456 5. Sexual intercourse of a man and a woman who do not know each other. 6. Sexual intercourse of a married man with a woman other than his wife. 7. Sexual intercourse of a married woman with a man other than her husband. 8. Endless appetite of a man for sex. 9. Abortion. 10. Marriage of a believer man with an atheist woman. 11. Marriage of a believer woman with an atheist man. 12. A man ogling. 13. A woman ogling. 14. A woman wears makes up and behaves in a manner that salacious eyes of men are seduced. 15. Forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse. 16. Incest between sister and brother. 17. Marriage and sexual intercourse of a divorced woman while there is probability for pregnancy from her ex-husband. 18. Marriage and sexual intercourse of a widow shortly after death of her husband. 19. Remarriage of a man with his ex-wife who had marriage with another man in this while and now is alone. 20. Divorce without any suspicion of adultery. 21. Sexual intercourse while fasting. 22. Sexual intercourse while the woman is menstruating.
15
REFERENCES Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590. Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 475-482. Chapman, H. A., Kim, D. A., Susskind, J. M., & Anderson, A. K. (2009). In bad taste: Evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science, 1222-1226. Cooper, A., & Griffin-Shelley, E. (2002). Introduction.The Internet: The next sexual revolution. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 1-15). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Vintage. Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. London: Wlliam Heinemann. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & emotion, 169-200. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1978). Facial Action Coding System: A technique for the measurement of facial movements. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Fortunato, L. (2011). Reconstructing the history of marriage strategies in Indo-European-speaking societies: monogamy and polygyny. Human Biology, 87-105. Greene, D. J., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 2105-2108. Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in cognitive science, 517-523. Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological review, 814-834. Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701-713. Haidt, J., Rozin, P., McCauley, C., & Imada, S. (1997). Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship of disgust to morality. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9, 107-131. Horney, K. (1946/2013). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. Routledge. ICTIran. (2015). National Management Center for the Internet Developement. Retrieved from Management System of the Internet Penetration: http://www.iriu.ir/matma/pages Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 177-192. Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., & Schofield, C. B. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human–Computer Interaction, 1-24. Kohlberg, L. (1974). Education, Moral Development and Faith. Journal of Moral Education, 5-16. Malson, L. (1964/1972). Wolf children (E. Fawcett, P. Ayrton, & J. White, Trans.). Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 370. McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of internet: Identity "Demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 681-694. McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of social issues, 9-31. Moidfar, S. (2010). How many percent of Tehranis were born in Tehran? Retrieved from Tabnak Professional News Site: http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/133668 Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (1997, July 31). Measuring the Flow Experience Among Web Users. Retrieved from Interval Research Corporation. Olatunji, B. O., & Sawchuk, C. N. (2005). Disgust: Characteristic features, social implications, and clinical manifestations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 932-962. Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Abramowitz, J. S., Sawchuk, C. N., Lohr, J. M., et al. (2007). The Disgust Scale: Item Analysis, Factor Structure, and Suggestions for Refinement. Psychological assessment, 281-297. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1113-1135. Rogers, B. L. (2003, August 11). Measuring Online Experience: It’s About More Than Time! Retrieved December 29, 2014, from Software Usability Research Laboratory Wichita State University: http://usabilitynews.org/measuring-online-experience-its-about-more-than-time/
16
Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757-776). New York: Guilford Press. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Personality and social psychology, 574-586. SABTEAHVAL. (2006). Retrieved from Sabteahvale-Tehran: http://www.sabteahvaletehran.ir/sites/default/files/statistics/attachment/shkhs_wldtt.pdf Sarollahi, R., Keshmirian, A., Rafiee, Y., & Hatami, J. (2015). Internet Experience and Purity in Moral Decision Making. 6th International Conference of Cognitive Science (p. 111). Tehran, Iran: Institute for Cognitive Science Studies. SCIran. (2011). 1390(2011) Census. Retrieved from Statistical Center of Iran: http://www.sci.org.ir/SitePages/report_90/ostani/ostani_population_report_final_permision.aspx Shaughnessy, K., Byers, E. S., & Walsh, L. (2011). Online Sexual Activity Experience of Heterosexual Students: Gender Similarities and Differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 419-427. Shweder, R. A. (1990). In Defense of Moral Realism: Reply to Gabennesch. Child Development, 61, 2060-2067. Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. C. (1987). Morality: Its structure, function, and vagaries. In j. Kagan, & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 166-245). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tybur, J. M. (2009). Disgust Dissected: an investigation of the valdity of the three domain disgust scale. The University of New Mexico: Dissertation. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, VMicrobes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103-122. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Robert, K., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved Function and Structure. Psychological Review, 65-84. Whitehouse, H. (2002). Modes of religiosity: Towards a cognitive explanation of the sociopolitical dynamics of religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 293-315. WIKIPEDIA. (2006). Total fertility rate in England by county / unitary authority. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate_in_England_by_county_/_unitary_authority#cite_note-1 WIKIPEDIA. (2010). List of religious populations. Retrieved from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#cite_note-1 WIKIPEDIA. (2011). Ethnic groups in London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London WIKIPEDIA. (2011). Religion in London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_London WIKIPEDIA. (2014). London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London WIKIPEDIA. (2015). Tehran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran
17
