This week’s group discussion is designed to help you understand the importance of having appropriate conceptual and operational definitions in any study.  Thus, I’d like you to evaluate and discuss an opinion article written by Dr. Greg, where he gives his personal assessment of the study conducted by Saslow et al. (2013). In addition, please read another article, written by Righetti et al. (2013)Preview the documentView in a new window, which Dr. Greg cites to support his position.

I’d like you to focus and comment specifically on Dr. Gregg’s argument involving the study constructs.  Explain and address the following:

Dr. Greg’s conceptualization of empathy: he wrote the following “I hypothesized that the reason non-believers gave more in the study is that they don’t have as well-developed a set of principles and are more prone to emotional giving.  Believers, I guessed, would be more likely to be more consistently and reliably charitable as a matter of principle than non-believers.  I suggested that the study really showed that it was easier to emotionally manipulate agnostics/atheists into giving whether it did any good or not as opposed to believers who probably tended to give to causes they actually believed in and thought mattered.” In other words, Dr. Greg is questioning Saslow’s conceptualization and operationalization of empathy. Does he have a valid point?

Dr. Greg cited the study by Righetti et al. (2013) to support his claim that compassionate people lack self-control. Respond to his argument using the same study by Righetti et al. (2013).  Does the study support Dr. Greg’s claim?

Greg’s article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/07/why-religious-people-really-are-compassionate-and-why-codependents-are-more-likely-atheists/