Sentence examples for responsibility judgment from inspiring English sources

Following Kohlberg Kohlberg & Candeee, 1984), this process involves making a "responsibility judgment" (e.g., "I'm responsible for not cheating") that complements the "deontic judgment" described above (e.g., "It's morally wrong to cheat").

The key concepts associated with the objectives of this discussion include Kohlberg and Candee's (1984) "responsibility judgment" and several of Bandura's (1986) "mechanisms of moral disengagement".

As defined and distinguished by Kohlberg and Candee's (1984), a "deontic judgment" is as a "first-order" judgment concerning the rightness or wrongness of given action (i.e., what "one" should do) while a responsibility judgment is a "second-order affirmation of the will to act in terms of that judgment" (p. 57).

Numerous empirical studies have employed Beck and Azjen's (1991) concept and measure of "moral obligation" (akin to "responsibility judgment") and found strong negative relations between students' moral obligation and academic dishonesty (e.g., Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, & Passow, 2004; Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007).

To demonstrate that quality, one needs to exhibit responsibility, judgment and sometimes personal sacrifice in many areas of life, including business.

The results of both experiments show a very close correspon- dence between counterfactual simulations and responsibility judgments.

These responsibility judgments, however, can be undermined by the activation of psychological mechanisms that serve to disengage one's sense of obligation or culpability (Bandura, 1986, 1990, 1999).

The SWAP is designed to help students account for the types of skills and will that will be needed to carryout the responsibility judgments they made during the previous discussion.

The bias transmitted in oral testimony had an influence on the impressions of the factual evidence and responsibility judgments of naive adjudicators, indicating a 3rd-order (lawyer to witness to adjudicator) role-playing effect.

On the structural model approach, responsibility judgments are explicitly model dependent.

We draw on the structural model account of causality (Pearl, /2009 2000; Halpern & Pearl, 2005; Woodward, 2003), and its extension to responsibility judgments (Chockler & Halpern, 2004).