CNI模型在道德决策研究中的应用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.02102

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

道德决策是指个体面临两种或两种以上道德观或道德需求之间的冲突时, 对行为和行为结果进行利弊权衡并做出最终选择。道德两难困境是研究道德决策的经典范式, 而传统道德两难困境范式受到诸多质疑, 道德两难困境的不现实性及缺乏有效指标量化功利论和道义论倾向, 无法对道德决策进行准确解释。针对传统道德两难困境范式不足, 道德决策CNI模型通过多项式建模的方法, 分别计算个体对结果(Consequences)的敏感性、对道德规范(moral Norms)的敏感性以及个体的行为反应偏好(Inaction versus action), 能够更清晰的识别影响道德决策的重要因素。未来研究应围绕影响道德决策的其他因素、道德情境的生态效度以及跨文化适用性等方面继续完善CNI模型, 并进一步探索道德决策的潜在心理机制。

关键词: 道德决策, 道德两难困境, CNI模型, 双加工理论

Abstract:

Moral decision-making is operationalized by the final choice making after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of behaviors and their following outcomes, when an individual faces a moral dilemma with conflicting moral values or needs. The traditional moral dilemma is though a classical and established paradigm for studying moral decision, however, still has been widely criticized for its unrealistic scenarios and lack of effective indicators to quantify utilitarian and deontological response, which strongly affect the accurate interpretation of moral decision-making. To overcome the shortcomings of traditional moral dilemma paradigm, the CNI model of moral decision-making uses multinomial modeling to quantify the individual sensitivity regarding consequences and moral norms, and general behavioral preference, and therefore can more clearly identify the factors that affect moral decision-making. Future research should focus on further factors that affect moral decision-making, the ecological validity of moral scenarios, and cross-cultural generalisability to optimize the CNI model, and the investigation of the underlying psychological mechanism of moral decision-making.

Key words: moral decision, moral dilemma, CNI model, dual processing theory

中图分类号:

B849:C91

徐科朋, 杨凌倩, 吴家虹, 薛宏, 张姝玥. (2020). CNI模型在道德决策研究中的应用. 心理科学进展 , 28(12), 2102-2113.

XU Kepeng, YANG Lingqian, WU Jiahong, XUE Hong, ZHANG Shuyue. (2020). Application of the CNI model in the studies of moral decision. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(12), 2102-2113.

图/表 2

参考文献 55

[1]	景夏慧. (2019). 心理距离对道德判断的影响 (硕士学位论文). 山西大学, 太原.
[2]	康德. (1957). 道德形而上学探本: 商务印书馆.
[3]	唐江伟, 路红, 刘毅, 彭坚. (2015). 道德直觉决策及其机制探析. 心理科学进展, 23(10), 1830-1842. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01830 URL
[4]	田学红, 杨群, 张德玄, 张烨. (2011). 道德直觉加工机制的理论构想. 心理科学进展, 19(10), 1426-1433.
[5]	王鹏, 方平, 姜媛. (2011). 道德直觉背景下的道德决策: 影响因素探究. 心理科学进展, 19(4), 573-579.
[6]	肖前国, 罗乐, 余林. (2009). 推理与决策的双加工理论研究简评. 心理科学进展, 17(2), 321-324.
[7]	谢熹瑶, 罗跃嘉. (2009). 道德判断中的情绪因素——从认知神经科学的角度进行探讨. 心理科学进展, 17(6), 1250-1256.
[8]	喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳. (2011). 道德困境之困境——情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1702-1712.
[9]	詹泽, 吴宝沛. (2019). 无处不在的伤害: 二元论视角下的道德判断. 心理科学进展, 27(1), 132-144.
[10]	张红霞, 陈小莹, 王栋, 马靓, 周仁来. (2016). 学习困难儿童的事件性前瞻记忆: 多项式加工树状模型的应用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(5), 800-804.
[11]	张银花, 李红, 吴寅. (2020). 计算模型在道德认知研究中的应用. 心理科学进展, 28(7), 1042-1055.
[12]	钟毅平, 占友龙, 李琎, 范伟. (2017). 道德决策的机制及干预研究: 自我相关性与风险水平的作用. 心理科学进展, 25(7), 1093-1102.
[13]	Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2019). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 353-363. doi: 10.1177/1948550618755873 URL
[14]	Arutyunova, K. R., & Alexandrov,Y. I. (2016). Factors of gender and age in moral judgment of actions. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 37(2), 79-91.
[15]	Barak-Corren,N., & Bazerman,M. H. (2017). Is saving lives your task or God's? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(3), 280-296.
[16]	Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro,D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010 URL
[17]	Bauman, C. W., Mcgraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536-554. doi: 10.1177/003803857400800330 URL
[18]	Bialek, M., Paruzel-Czachura, M., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 8.
[19]	Brannon, S. M., Carr, S., Jin, E. S., Josephs, R. A., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Exogenous testosterone increases sensitivity to moral norms in moral dilemma judgements. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(8), 856-866. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0641-3 URL pmid: 31332298
[20]	Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Scheffer, J. A., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). Implicit moral evaluations: A multinomial modeling approach. Cognition, 158, 224-241. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.013 URL pmid: 27865113
[21]	Cameron, C. D., Spring, V. L., & Todd, A. R. (2017). The empathy impulse: A multinomial model of intentional and unintentional empathy for pain. Emotion, 17(3), 395-411. doi: 10.1037/emo0000266 URL pmid: 28080083
[22]	Candee, D., & Puka, B. (1984). An analytic approach to resolving problems in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 10(2), 61-70. doi: 10.1136/jme.10.2.61 URL pmid: 6234395
[23]	Capraro, V., & Sippel, J. (2017). Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents. Cognitive Processing, 18(4), 399-405. doi: 10.1007/s10339-017-0822-9 URL pmid: 28597324
[24]	Cipolletti, H., McFarlane, S., & Weissglass, C. (2016). The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 23-40. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2014.993063 URL
[25]	Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235. doi: 10.1037/a0031021 URL pmid: 23276267
[26]	Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 2(2), 152-161.
[27]	Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696-713. doi: 10.1177/0146167215575731 URL pmid: 25840987
[28]	Gardner, M. (2016). The trolley problem mysteries. Ethics, 126(4), 1105-1110. doi: 10.1086/686061 URL
[29]	Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hutter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343-376. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000086 URL pmid: 28816493
[30]	Gawronski,B., & Brannon,S. M. (2020). Power and moral dilemma judgments: Distinct effects of memory recall versus social roles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 15.
[31]	Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J. B., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2018). Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion, 18(7), 989-1008. doi: 10.1037/emo0000399 URL pmid: 29389208
[32]	Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J. B., Friesdorf, R., & Hutter, M. . (2016). Understanding responses to moral dilemmas: Deontological inclinations, utilitarian inclinations, and general action tendencies. In J. P. Forgas, L. Jussim, & P. A. M. Van Lange (Eds.), Social psychology of morality (pp. 91-110). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[33]	Gold, N., Pulford, B. D., & Colman, A. M. (2014). The outlandish, the realistic, and the real: Contextual manipulation and agent role effects in trolley problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00010 URL pmid: 24478742
[34]	Greene, J. D. (2003). From neural 'is' to moral 'ought': What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 846-849. doi: 10.1038/nrn1224 URL pmid: 14523384
[35]	Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322-323. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004 URL pmid: 17625951
[36]	Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nvstrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004 URL pmid: 18158145
[37]	Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 URL
[38]	Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872 URL pmid: 11557895
[39]	Hutter,M., & Klauer,K. C. (2016). Applying processing trees in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 116-159. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2016.1212966 URL
[40]	Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537. doi: 10.1037/a0013779 URL pmid: 19254101
[41]	Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). 'Utilitarian' judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005 URL pmid: 25460392
[42]	Körner, A., Deutsch, R., & Gawronski, B. (2020). Using the CNI model to investigate individual differences in moral dilemma judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16. doi: 10.1177/0146167205277097 URL pmid: 16317185
[43]	Kroneisen,M., & Heck,D. W. (2019). Interindividual differences in the sensitivity for consequences, moral norms, and preferences for inaction: Relating basic personality traits to the CNI model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14. doi: 10.1177/0146167202238368 URL pmid: 15272956
[44]	Larsen, E. M., Ospina, L. H., Cuesta-Diaz, A., Vian-Lains, A., Nitzburg, G. C., Mulaimovic, S., … Burdick, K. E. (2019). Effects of childhood trauma on adult moral decision- making: Clinical correlates and insights from bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 244, 180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.10.002 URL pmid: 30343121
[45]	McPhetres, J., Conway, P., Hughes, J. S., & Zuckerman, M. (2018). Reflecting on God's will: Reflective processing contributes to religious peoples' deontological dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 301-314. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.013 URL
[46]	Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the implicit association test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 45-69. doi: 10.1037/a0030734 URL pmid: 23148698
[47]	Mill, J. S. (1992). On Liberty And Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
[48]	Nadarevic, L., & Erdfelder, E. (2011). Cognitive processes in implicit attitude tasks: An experimental validation of the Trip Model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 254-268. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.776 URL
[49]	Shin, H. I., & Kim, J. (2017). Foreign language effect and psychological distance. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(6), 1339-1352. doi: 10.1007/s10936-017-9498-7 URL pmid: 28516209
[50]	Starcke, K., Ludwig, A. C., & Brand, M. (2012). Anticipatory stress interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 61-68.
[51]	Suessenbach,F., & Moore,A. B. (2015). Individual differences in the explicit power motive predict "utilitarian" choices in moral dilemmas, especially when this choice is self-beneficial. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 297-302. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.031 URL
[52]	Szekely, R. D., Opre, A., & Miu, A. C. (2015). Religiosity enhances emotion and deontological choice in moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 104-109. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.036 URL
[53]	Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204-217. doi: 10.5840/monist197659224 URL pmid: 11662247
[54]	Tinghog, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Koppel, L., & Vastfjall, D. (2016). Intuition and moral decision-making-The effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior. Plos One, 11(10), 19.
[55]	Zhang, L. S., Kong, M., Li, Z. Q., Zhao, X., & Gao, L. P. (2018). Chronic stress and moral decision-making: An exploration with the CNI model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00006 URL pmid: 29403416

道德规范禁止行为		道德规范允许行为
行为利益大于成本	行为利益小于成本	行为利益大于成本	行为利益小于成本
您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救数百人的生命。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救大约相同数量的生命。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救大约相同数量的生命。您的一位同事计划使用该疫苗, 但是您可以通过向卫生部门报告他的计划来阻止他。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救数百人的生命。您的一位同事计划使用该疫苗, 但是您可以通过向卫生部门报告他的计划来阻止他。
在这种情况下使用疫苗是否合适?	在这种情况下使用疫苗是否合适?	在这种情况下, 将您同事的计划报告给卫生部门是否合适?	在这种情况下, 将您同事的计划报告给卫生部门是否合适?

道德规范禁止行为		道德规范允许行为
行为利益大于成本	行为利益小于成本	行为利益大于成本	行为利益小于成本
您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救数百人的生命。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救大约相同数量的生命。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救大约相同数量的生命。您的一位同事计划使用该疫苗, 但是您可以通过向卫生部门报告他的计划来阻止他。	您是一名高度传染性疾病爆发地区的医生。初步测试表明, 一种新疫苗由于严重的副作用, 未得到您国家卫生部门的认可。疫苗的副作用可能会导致数十名未感染者死亡, 但该疫苗将通过阻止病毒传播而挽救数百人的生命。您的一位同事计划使用该疫苗, 但是您可以通过向卫生部门报告他的计划来阻止他。
在这种情况下使用疫苗是否合适?	在这种情况下使用疫苗是否合适?	在这种情况下, 将您同事的计划报告给卫生部门是否合适?	在这种情况下, 将您同事的计划报告给卫生部门是否合适?