心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 517-526 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00517

研究报告

道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响

耿晓伟,1, 房津如1, 韩彦芳1, 李中权2, 赵蜜3, 杨烨4

1 鲁东大学教育科学学院, 山东 烟台 264025

2 南京大学心理学系, 南京 210093

3 中央民族大学民族学与社会学学院, 北京 100081

4 常熟理工学院人文学院, 江苏 常熟 215500

The influence of moral relativism and disgust on moral intuitive judgment

GENG Xiaowei,1, FANG Jinru1, HAN Yanfang1, LI Zhongquan2, ZHAO Mi3, YANG Ye4

1 School of Education Science, Ludong University, Yantai 264011, China

2 Department of Psychology, School of Social and Behavior Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

3 School of Ethnology and Sociology, Minzu University of China, Beijing 100081, China

4 School of Humanities, Changshu Institute of Technology, Changshu 215500, China

通讯作者: 耿晓伟, E-mail: fengandwei@126.com

收稿日期: 2018-07-17   网络出版日期: 2019-04-25

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金项目资助.  71401068

Received: 2018-07-17   Online: 2019-04-25

摘要

社会直觉模型认为有意识的道德推理过程发生在道德直觉判断之后。那么, 道德直觉判断又是怎么形成的, 是否受认知推理和情绪的影响?实验1首先验证道德直觉判断的存在; 实验2考察了道德相对主义对道德直觉判断的影响; 实验3考察了厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。结果发现: (1)道德绝对主义比道德相对主义条件下, 个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断, 说明道德直觉判断受认知推理影响。(2)厌恶情绪比中立情绪启动条件下, 个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断, 说明道德直觉判断受情绪影响。因此, 道德直觉判断会受认知推理和情绪的影响。

关键词: 道德直觉判断 ; 道德绝对主义 ; 道德相对主义 ; 厌恶情绪

Abstract

The social intuition model suggests that moral reasoning occurs after moral intuitive judgment. The question of how people make intuitive moral judgments, and whether the process is influenced by reasoning and emotion, remains to be answered. The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of moral relativism and disgust on moral intuitive judgment. According to the unimodel of human judgment, intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on similar rules. The hypotheses are as follows: moral relativism increases moral intuitive judgment (H1) and disgust increases moral intuitive judgment (H2).

We conducted three experiments to test these hypotheses. In Experiment 1, we examined whether moral intuitive judgment exists. A total of 39 undergraduates were selected and asked to answer “yes” or “no” randomly, like tossing a coin, to 20 moral behaviors, 20 immoral behaviors, and 40 fillers. The accuracy of moral judgment is compared to random level (i.e., 0.5). Accuracy greater than 0.5 was considered indicative of moral intuitive judgment. Single-sample t-test showed that the accuracy of the participants’ random responses was significantly greater than random (i.e., 0.5), indicating the existence of moral intuitions.

In Experiment 2, a total of 77 undergraduates were randomly assigned to two different conditions, i.e., moral relativism and moral absolutism. Participants were first primed moral absolutism or moral relativism by scrambling in a sentence, e.g., the scrambled sentence “as to rightness” “cannot” “different types of morality” “be compared” may be recomposed as “Different types of morality cannot be compared as to rightness”, then randomly answer “yes” or “no” to moral judgments. Independent-samples t-test showed that participants were more inclined to make moral intuitive judgments under the conditions of moral absolutism than moral relativism, which suggests that moral relativism weakens participants’ moral intuitive judgment, while moral absolutism promotes participants’ moral intuitive judgment.

In Experiment 3, a total of 80 undergraduates were randomly assigned to two different emotional conditions, i.e., disgust and neutral emotion. Participants’ disgust (or neutral emotion) were primed by eight pictures of disgusting facial expressions (or eight pictures of neutral facial expressions) before randomly answering “yes” or “no” to moral judgments. Independent-sample t-test showed that participants were more inclined to make moral intuitive judgments under the conditions of disgust emotion than neutral emotion, which suggests that moral intuition judgments are affected by emotion, and disgust increases individuals’ moral intuitive judgments.

In sum, the present research investigated the influence of moral relativism and disgust emotion on moral intuitive judgment, which helps to further understand the mechanism of moral intuitive judgment. In addition, it also provides some guidance for the daily moral judgment. The limitations and further research are also discussed.

Keywords: moral intuitive judgment ; moral absolutism ; moral relativism ; disgust

PDF (794KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

耿晓伟, 房津如, 韩彦芳, 李中权, 赵蜜, 杨烨. (2019). 道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响 . 心理学报, 51(4), 517-526

GENG Xiaowei, FANG Jinru, HAN Yanfang, LI Zhongquan, ZHAO Mi, YANG Ye. (2019). The influence of moral relativism and disgust on moral intuitive judgment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 517-526

1 引言

在日常生活中, 人们经常会对某些行为是否是道德的进行判断。这种个体基于文化或亚文化所限定的美德, 对他人的行为或特性的评价(好或坏)被称为道德判断(moral judgment) (Haidt, 2001)。关于人们是如何做出道德判断的, 道德心理学存在两种不同的观点:(1)道德推理。皮亚杰和科尔伯格等认知发展心理学家认为道德判断来自于道德推理, 人类有意识的、需要付出努力的认知推理决定着后续的道德判断和道德行为(Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1965); (2)道德直觉。Haidt (2001)提出社会直觉模型(social intuitionist model, SIM)认为道德判断是由快速、自动的、无意识的道德直觉决定的, 有意识的道德推理过程发生在道德直觉判断之后, 起到补充说明的作用。只有在各种直觉相互冲突时, 道德判断才通过缓慢的、有意识的道德推理来实现(Haidt, 2001, 2007)。Haidt (2001)将道德判断类比为审美判断, 个体看到一个动作或听到一个故事, 就立刻体验到赞同或反对的情感, 并据此做出道德判断。Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley和Cohen (2001)通过对个人道德困境(天桥困境)和非个人道德困境(电车困境)的研究发现, 参与者在个人道德困境中进行道德判断时, 内侧额前回、后扣带回等与情绪相关脑区活动增强; 非个人道德困境的道德判断则会增强与工作记忆相关脑区(背外侧前额叶和顶叶区域)的活动。据此, Greene (2007)提出了道德判断的双加工模型(dual-process model), 指出推理加工和直觉加工两个系统同时影响道德判断, 二者是相互竞争的关系, 在竞争中占优势的那个最终影响道德判断。

社会直觉模型认为道德判断是由快速的、无意识的道德直觉决定的, 有意识的道德推理过程发生在道德直觉判断之后。那么, 道德直觉判断本身又是如何做出的?目前关于直觉并没有统一的定义, 根据Betsch (2008), 直觉是一种思维过程, 这个过程的输入(input)主要来自储存在长时记忆中的知识; 对输入的加工过程是自动化的, 意识不到的; 输出(output)则是一种情感, 作为人们进行判断和决策的基础。有研究表明道德推理判断会受到认知推理和情绪的影响(徐平, 迟毓凯, 2007; Greene et al., 2001), 那么, 道德直觉判断是否也会受到认知推理和情绪的影响呢?为了回答这个问题, 本研究试图考察道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。

1.1 判断的单一模型(The unimodel of human judgment)

很多研究者提出判断与决策中的双系统(Kahneman, 2003; Esptein & Pacini, 1999; Sloman, 2002)。Esptein和Pacini (1999)将两个系统称之为“理性的”和“经验的”系统。Kahneman (2003)区分了基于直觉的启发式系统(heuristic system)和基于理性的分析系统(analytic system)。启发式系统占用较少的认知资源, 加工速度快, 依赖于直觉(孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉, 2007; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002)。分析系统则占用更多的认知资源, 加工速度较慢, 更多依赖于理性, 但它更符合逻辑和规则, 并且能够对启发式系统进行监控、拒绝、修正, 保证其结果的准确性(孙彦 等, 2007; 唐江伟, 路红, 刘毅, 彭坚, 2015)。

不同于以往研究中将直觉和推理视为相互独立的两个系统, Kruglanski等人提出了判断的单一模型(Kruglanski, Erb, Spiegel, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011)。该模型认为直觉判断和推理判断都是基于规则。所谓规则是指人们进行分类、评价、比较以及判断时用到的一种推论工具。规则代表了一种if-then的关系, 即如果(出现某种线索), 那么(做出某种判断) (Kruglanski et al., 2003)。线索与判断之间这种if-then的关系还可以是概率性的, 例如, 如果出现某种线索X, 那么则有百分之Y的概率做出某种判断。有些规则是外显的算法, 需要有意识的去运用; 有些规则是内隐的联结, 不需要意识参与; 还有些规则是基于事例的(Kruglanski et al., 2003)。

Kruglanski和Gigerenzer (2011)认为规则具有可塑性, 既可以从记忆中提取, 也可以遗忘。人们通过个体经验、社会性发展、规则学习和文化适应等途径获得规则。如同运动技能的自动化一样, if-then规则也可以自动化, 进而转化为直觉判断。规则主要可以分为两类, 一类是最优规则, 例如期望效用最大化等, 另一类是启发式规则。研究表明, 最优规则和启发式规则既可以用于直觉判断, 也可以用于推理判断(Gigerenzer & Murray, 2015; Kruglanski et al., 2003)。因此, 直觉判断和推理判断可以基于同样的规则。

1.2 道德相对主义和道德直觉判断

道德绝对主义(moral absolutism)也称道德普遍主义, 认为道德具有绝对不变的性质, 强调道德规范的普遍有效性与客观性(林剑, 2002)。道德相对主义(moral relativism)也称伦理相对主义, 指出“正确”或“错误”是相对的, 因为道德信仰是文化历史的产物(Harman, 1975)。道德相对主义的内在主体性涉及到更为宽松的道德标准, 因而对自己和他人的越轨行为都更加宽容。

已有研究表明道德相对主义会影响道德判断, 使道德判断变得更为宽松, 进而出现不道德行为, 例如欺骗行为(Lu et al., 2017)、小偷小摸(Rai & Holyoak, 2013)。然而, 这些研究大多采用自我报告的方式, 属于有意识的道德判断。目前还不清楚道德相对主义是否也会影响道德直觉判断。根据判断的单一模型(Kruglanski et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011), 直觉判断也是基于规则的。因此, 启动不同的道德规则会影响道德直觉判断。由于道德相对主义认为“正确”或者“错误”是相对的, 而道德绝对主义者认为道德准则是绝对不变的, 因此, 道德相对主义会削弱道德直觉判断, 道德绝对主义比道德相对主义条件下个体在道德判断时更依赖直觉。据此, 我们提出以下假设:

假设1: 道德相对主义会削弱道德直觉判断, 个体在道德相对主义条件下比道德绝对主义条件下更少做出道德直觉判断。

1.3 厌恶情绪和道德直觉判断

厌恶是人类的基本情绪之一, 是人类早期为避免细菌、病毒和污染物的侵害而产生的最原始的情绪。厌恶作为一种常见的道德情绪(陈英和, 白柳, 李龙凤, 2015; 任俊, 高肖肖, 2011; 吴鹏, 范晶, 刘华山, 2017), 许多研究发现厌恶使道德判断变得更加严苛, 即使被判断的客体不是产生厌恶的直接原因(Wheatley & Haidt, 2005; Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008)。已有研究表明, 个体感到厌恶时会对违反或维护纯洁领域的行为做出更强烈的道德判断(Horberg & Keltner, 2007; Horberg, Oveis, Keltner, & Cohen, 2009)。然而, 以往研究中道德判断任务大多是有意识的道德判断, 要求被试判断某些行为是否在道德上错误, 例如性生活混乱、不把讲义借给同学等(Horberg et al., 2009)、约会迟到、跟好朋友撒谎、谋杀(Olatunji & Puncochar, 2016)、受贿的国会议员(Wheatley & Haidt, 2005)、表兄妹发生性关系(Schnall et al., 2008)。那么, 厌恶情绪是否会影响道德直觉判断呢?

根据判断的单一模型(Kruglanski et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011), 直觉判断也是基于if-then规则的。如果感觉好, 就做出积极评价; 如果感觉不好, 就做出消极评价。情感作为信息(feeling- as-information)的观点认为情感提供了关于判断对象价值的信息(Schwarz & Clore, 1988)。厌恶情绪会提供一种信息, 即尽量避免或者拒绝某个对象。因此, 厌恶情绪下个体更倾向于进行道德直觉判断。据此, 我们提出:

假设2: 在厌恶情绪条件下比中立情绪条件下个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断。

为了对以上研究假设进行检验, 我们设计了3个实验。实验1首先通过随机回答的实验范式(random answering paradigm)来验证道德直觉判断的存在; 实验2考察了道德相对主义是否会影响道德直觉判断; 实验3则考察了厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。

2 实验1: 验证道德直觉判断

2.1 被试

从鲁东大学招募40名在校大学生, 1名被试中途退出。有效样本39名, 其中男生21人, 女生18人, 平均年龄19.20岁(SD = 0.99)。根据GPower3.1的计算, 在统计检验力1 - β = 0.90, 单侧检验ɑ = 0.05, 效应量d = 0.90的前提下, 进行单样本t检验需要的被试量为13。

2.2 实验材料和实验任务

2.2.1 实验材料的选取

为了选出本研究所需的道德判断材料和填充材料, 我们编制了道德行为(例如尊重老师)和不道德行为(例如损害公物)材料各40项, 要求被试判断该行为是否是道德的, 1 = 非常不道德, 7 = 非常道德。另外, 我们编制了正确填充材料(例如北京是中国的首都)和错误填充材料(例如三角形有四条边)各40项, 要求被试判断对错, 1 = 正确, 0 = 错误。通过向100名被试发放问卷, 有效被试97名, 按照得分平均值从大到小的顺序排列, 选出平均值较大的前20项作为道德材料, 平均值较小的后20项作为不道德材料。为了检验实验材料的有效性, 我们对20项道德材料和20项不道德材料的评分进行了独立样本t检验, 结果发现, 被试对道德材料的评价(M = 5.96, SD = 0.20)显著高于不道德材料(M = 2.02, SD = 0.37), t(38)= 41.97, p = 0.001, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 3.7466, ULCI = 4.1264], Cohen’s d = 13.27, 效果量大, 说明道德和不道德材料的选择是有效的。最终正式实验材料中包含20项道德材料, 20项不道德材料, 40项填充材料(正确和错误各20项)。

2.2.2 实验任务

实验采取的是随机回答范式(The Random Answering Paradigm)。随机回答范式要求被试像“在头脑中掷硬币”一样, 尽可能随机地用“是”或“否”回答一系列简单的问题(Wegner, Fuller, & Sparrow, 2003)。该范式关注在明确要求随机回答的情况下, 被试反应的正确性。如果被试能按照要求随机回答, 那么回答的正确率应为50%。然而, 由于受到已有知识的启发, 人们会很难控制根据已有知识回答的冲动, 导致回答的正确率高于50% (Sparrow & Wegner, 2006)。

要求被试对事先编好的道德材料(例如, 尊重老师是道德的)、不道德材料(例如损害公物是道德的)以及正确填充材料(例如, 北京是中国的首都)和不正确填充材料(例如, 三角形有四条边)进行随机判断, 同意按“F”键, 不同意按“J”键。如果被试对于道德/不道德行为判断的正确率大于50%, 则说明被试是根据储存在长时记忆中的已有知识进行的判断, 而且这种判断过程是自动化的、意识不到的, 反应了道德直觉判断。

2.3 实验程序

实验程序采用E-prime 2.0编写程序, 先呈现指导语, 要求被试像抛硬币一样要对本实验任务随机回答。实验任务是先呈现注视点(红色+) 1500 ms, 每一个注视点后面随机呈现一个道德判断任务或者填充材料1500 ms, 要求被试对呈现任务随机回答, 同意按“F”键, 不同意按“J”键(图1)。以往研究发现, 如果判断材料呈现时间小于1000 ms, 那么被试可能会来不及加工判断材料(Sparrow & Wegner, 2006)。通过预实验, 我们把判断材料呈现时间定为1500 ms。

2.4 结果分析

将被试的判断正确率与机遇水平0.5进行t检验, 结果显示, 被试反应的正确率(M = 0.85, SD = 0.07)显著高于随机反应下0.5的水平, t(38)= 30.58, p = 0.001, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 0.3285, ULCI = 0.3751], Cohen’s d = 4.87, 效果量大。被试回答的正确率显著高于随机水平, 说明被试在对道德行为任务做出判断的时候, 是无意识的直觉反应, 说明了道德直觉判断的存在。

图1

图1   实验流程图


2.5 实验1讨论

本研究采取随机回答的实验范式, 要求被试对道德材料随机回答同意或者不同意, 在这种情况下, 被试的回答显著高于随机水平, 说明被试在对道德行为做出判断的时候, 是无意识的直觉判断。该结果验证了道德直觉判断的存在。实验2将在此基础上, 进一步比较道德相对主义和道德绝对主义对道德直觉判断的影响。

3 实验2: 道德相对主义对道德直觉判断的影响

3.1 被试

从鲁东大学招募77名在校大学生, 其中男生36人, 女生41人, 平均年龄19.06岁(SD = 0.91)。根据GPower 3.1的计算, 在统计检验力1 - β = 0.90, 双侧检验ɑ = 0.05, 效应量d = 0.90的前提下, 进行独立样本t检验需要的被试量为54。

3.2 实验设计

3.2.1 自变量

本实验的自变量为道德立场, 分为两个水平, 即道德相对主义和道德绝对主义, 被试间设计。道德相对主义/绝对主义的启动采用混词组句任务, 实验材料改编自Forsyth (1980)的道德立场问卷。道德绝对主义和道德相对主义的材料各10句, 我们匹配了两种条件下的句子长度, 保证两者具有相同的难度。例如, 道德绝对主义条件下的句子为“不同的道德不能在‘对错’上进行比较”, 道德相对主义条件下则为“不同的道德可以在‘对错’上进行比较”。然后, 把每一句话拆成四个短句并打乱顺序, 例如, “在‘对错’上”, “不同的道德”, “进行比较”, “不能”, 要求被试将这些句子成分组成一个完整通顺的句子。

为了检验自变量的操纵是否有效地启动了不同的道德立场, 我们从鲁东大学抽取58名在校大学生进行了操纵检验, 其中男生26人, 女生32人, 平均年龄19.16岁(SD = 0.92)。电脑屏幕上先呈现注视点(红色+) 1500 ms, 再随机呈现打乱顺序的道德绝对主义/相对主义启动材料, 呈现时间为3000 ms, 要求被试将乱句重新组合为通顺的句子, 组句完成后将各个句子成分的序号输入到相应的输入框内。然后, 要求被试完成道德立场问卷(EPQ), 题项例如, “道德标准应当是个人化的, 一个人认为是道德的事, 可能会被另外一个人视为不道德的”, 1 = 完全不同意, 9 = 完全同意。我们对道德相对主义和绝对主义启动两种条件下的道德立场问卷得分进行独立样本t检验, 结果发现, 在道德绝对主义得分上, 道德绝对主义启动条件(M = 6.18, SD = 1.39)显著高于道德相对主义启动条件(M = 5.44, SD = 1.38), t(56)= 2.02, p = 0.048, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 0.0062, ULCI = 1.4628], d = 0.53, 效果量中等; 在道德相对主义得分上, 道德相对主义启动条件(M = 6.87, SD = 1.01)显著高于道德绝对主义启动条件(M = 5.90, SD = 1.18), t(56)= 3.38, p = 0.001, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 0.3969, ULCI = 1.5548], d = 0.88, 效果量大。这说明道德绝对主义和道德相对主义的启动是有效的。

3.2.2 因变量

道德直觉判断。实验任务采用随机回答范式, 同实验1。

3.3 实验程序

实验任务是先呈现注视点(红色+) 1500 ms, 再随机呈现打乱顺序的道德绝对主义/相对主义启动材料, 呈现时间为3000 ms, 要求被试在3000 ms内将乱句重新组合为通顺的句子。接下来呈现一个掩蔽刺激图片117 ms, 最后再呈现一个道德判断任务或者填充材料1500 ms, 要求被试对呈现任务随机回答, 同意按“F”键, 不同意按“J”键(图2)。

图2

图2   实验流程图


3.4 结果分析

首先, 为了进一步验证道德直觉判断是否存在, 我们比较了两种立场启动条件下, 实际判断正确率与机遇水平(0.5)的差异。单样本t检验结果见表1

表1   道德绝对主义和相对主义启动下道德直觉判断正确率与机遇水平的t检验

道德立场 M SD t df p 95%置信区间 Cohen’s d
道德绝对主义者 0.88 0.06 40.07** 37 0.001 0.3618 - 0.4003 6.30
道德相对主义者 0.83 0.06 34.09** 38 0.001 0.3102 - 0.3493 5.50

注: d = 0.2 (效果小); d = 0.5 (效果中); d = 0.8 (效果大)

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


从表中可以看出道德绝对主义(M = 0.88, SD = 0.06)与道德相对主义(M = 0.83, SD = 0.06)启动条件下, 被试道德判断的正确率水平均显著高于0.5的水平, 说明被试在进行道德判断时存在直觉判断, 与实验1结果一致。

为进一步比较道德绝对主义与道德相对主义启动条件下道德直觉判断是否存在显著差异, 我们对道德绝对主义组和道德相对主义组的正确率进行独立样本t检验, 结果发现, 道德绝对主义启动下的正确率(M = 0.88, SD = 0.06)显著高于道德相对主义启动下的正确率(M = 0.83, SD = 0.06), t(75)= 3.78, p = 0.001, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 0.0243, ULCI = 0.0783], Cohen’s d = 0.83, 效果量大。这说明个体在道德绝对主义条件下比道德相对主义启动条件下更倾向于做出道德直觉判断。

3.5 实验2讨论

实验2结果发现, 道德绝对主义启动条件下被试对道德判断任务随机回答时正确率显著高于道德相对主义启动, 说明道德相对主义削弱了个体的道德直觉判断, 道德直觉判断会受到认知推理影响, 与假设1一致。该结果与社会直觉模型观点不一致, 社会直觉模型认为有意识的道德推理过程发生在道德直觉判断之后(Haidt, 2001, 2007)。实验3将进一步考察厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。

4 实验3: 厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响

4.1 被试

从鲁东大学招募80名在校大学生, 其中男生37人, 女生43人, 平均年龄18.99岁(SD = 0.90)。根据GPower3.1的计算, 在统计检验力1 - β = 0.90, 双侧检验ɑ = 0.05, 效应量d = 0.90的前提下, 进行独立样本t检验需要的被试量为54。

4.2 实验设计

4.2.1 自变量

本实验的自变量为情绪, 包含两个水平即厌恶情绪和中立情绪。情绪启动图片选自中国情绪材料图片系统(Chinese Affective Picture System, CAPS), 厌恶和中性图片各8张作为情绪启动材料(龚栩, 黄宇霞, 王妍, 罗跃嘉, 2011), 每种情绪条件下40名被试。厌恶情绪图片(M = 2.70, SD = 0.33)的愉悦程度显著低于中立情绪图片(M = 4.13, SD = 0.61), t(14) = -5.78, p = 0.001; 厌恶情绪图片(M = 6.50, SD = 0.78)的唤醒度显著高于中立情绪图片(M = 3.96, SD = 0.63), t(14) = 7.20, p = 0.001。厌恶情绪图片的优势度(M = 4.47, SD = 0.23)与中立情绪图片(M = 4.69, SD = 0.23)差异不显著, t(14)= -1.89, p = 0.08; 厌恶情绪图片(M = 4.08, SD = 0.36)的吸引度和中立情绪图片(M = 4.04, SD = 0.38)也无显著差异, t(14) = 0.25, p = 0.80。总体来看, 厌恶情绪图片的愉悦度显著低于中性图片, 而唤醒度则显著高于中性图片, 在优势度以及吸引度上二者不存在显著差异。根据情绪的维度理论(Russell, 2003; Russell & Feldman Barrett, 1999), 厌恶情绪的愉悦度要低于中性情绪, 而唤醒度则高于中性情绪, 因此本研究中厌恶情绪的启动图片是有效的。

4.2.2 因变量

道德直觉判断, 采用随机回答范式, 同实验1。

4.3 实验程序

先呈现注视点(红色+)1500 ms, 然后再呈现情绪启动图片1000 ms, 每种实验条件下先随机呈现一张情绪图片, 随后呈现一个掩蔽刺激图片, 呈现时间为117 ms。最后呈现道德判断任务或者填充材料1500 ms。要求被试对呈现任务随机回答, 同意按“F”键, 不同意按“J”键(图3)。

图3

图3   实验流程图


4.4 结果分析

首先, 我们分别在两种情绪启动条件下, 比较了道德判断正确率与机遇水平(0.5)的差异。单样本t检验, 结果见表2

表2可以看到, 厌恶情绪启动下, 被试反应的正确率(M = 0.88, SD = 0.05)显著高于机遇水平, t(39) = 46.55, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 7.6, 效果量大。中立情绪启动下, 被试反应的正确率(M = 0.85, SD = 0.05)显著高于机遇水平, t(39) = 44.13, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 7.0, 效果量大。说明被试在对道德行为任务做出判断的时候存在直觉判断。

为了进一步考察厌恶情绪启动对道德直觉判断的影响, 我们对两种情绪条件下被试的道德判断正确率做独立样本t检验。结果发现, 厌恶情绪启动下的正确率(M = 0.88, SD = 0.05)高于中立情绪启动下的正确率(M = 0.85, SD = 0.05), 且两者差异显著, t(78) = 3.04, p = 0.003, 95%置信区间[LLCI = 0.0115, ULCI = 0.0553], Cohen’s d = 0.60, 效果量中等偏上。这说明厌恶情绪启动条件下个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断。

4.5 实验3讨论

实验3结果发现, 在厌恶情绪启动条件下被试对道德判断任务随机回答时正确率显著高于中立情绪启动, 说明道德直觉判断会受到厌恶情绪的影响, 厌恶情绪使个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断, 这与假设2一致。研究结果与以往关于厌恶情绪对道德判断的结果一致(Wheatley & Haidt, 2005; Schnall et al., 2008)。

5 总讨论

5.1 道德直觉判断

Haidt (2001)认为道德判断是由直觉判断决定的, 主要的依据是道德失声(moral dumbfounding), 即人们能做出道德判断, 并相信自己的判断是正确的, 但却不能提供某种道德原则来解释这个判断。比如, 假设有一对兄妹在自愿的情况下进行性交, 他们采取了有效的措施确保不会怀孕, 人们会立即判断出这是一种不道德的行为, 但却不能解释为什么这是不道德的。然而, 以往研究似乎缺乏对道德直觉判断的直接验证。本研究采用随机回答的实验范式, 直接验证了道德直觉判断的存在。实验1结果发现被试道德判断的正确率显著高于0.5的机遇水平, 说明被试在进行道德判断时, 会受到储存在长时记忆中的知识的无意识影响, 自动而快速地做出判断, 即存在道德直觉判断。

表2   厌恶和中立两种情绪启动下判断正确率与机遇水平(0.5)的差异检验

情绪类别 M SD t df p 95%置信区间 Cohen’s d
厌恶情绪(N = 40) 0.88 0.05 46.55** 39 0.001 0.3673 - 0.4007 7.60
中立情绪(N = 40) 0.85 0.05 48.23** 39 0.001 0.3359 - 0.3653 7.00

注: d = 0.2 (效果小); d = 0.5 (效果中); d = 0.8 (效果大)

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


5.2 道德相对主义对道德直觉判断的影响

实验2结果发现, 道德绝对主义启动条件下被试判断的正确率显著高于道德相对主义, 说明道德绝对主义增强了个体对道德的直觉判断, 使个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断。本研究结果表明, 道德直觉判断会受到认知推理的影响。道德推理不仅只发生在道德直觉之后, 而且也可以发生在道德直觉判断之前, 影响道德直觉判断。本研究结果支持Kruglanski等人(2003)提出的判断的单一模型, 即直觉判断和推理判断都是基于相同的规则, 规则不仅影响有意识的推理判断, 也会影响无意识的直觉判断。本研究结果与社会直觉模型的观点不一致, 该模型认为道德推理在道德直觉判断过程中不起作用, 推理只是对道德直觉发生冲突时为其寻找原因, 并做出事后解释(Haidt, 2001, 2007)。

5.3 厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响

实验3考察了情绪对道德直觉判断的影响, 结果发现厌恶情绪启动下被试更倾向于做出道德直觉判断。这说明道德直觉判断也跟道德推理一样会受到情绪的影响。研究结果支持了道德直觉判断由情绪驱动的观点(田学红, 杨群, 张德玄, 张烨, 2011; Cushman, Young, & Greene, 2010), 跟以往研究中关于厌恶情绪对道德判断的影响结果一致(Schnall et al., 2008; Wheatley & Haidt, 2005)。

总体来看, 本研究在道德判断的双系统框架下展开, 系统1强调道德直觉, 认为道德判断由情绪驱动; 系统2强调道德推理, 认为道德判断由认知推理驱动。Haidt (2001)提出的社会直觉模型认为道德判断是由快速的、无意识的道德直觉决定的, 有意识的道德推理过程发生在道德直觉判断之后。那么, 道德直觉判断又是如何做出的?判断的单一模型(Kruglanski et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011)认为不管直觉判断还是推理判断都是基于相同的规则。那么, 无意识的直觉判断是否也跟推理判断一样, 既会受到认知推理又受到情绪的影响?因此, 本研究通过两个研究分别考察了道德相对主义(实验2)以及厌恶情绪(实验3)对道德直觉判断的影响。实验2和实验3从不同的方面回答了同样一个问题, 即道德直觉判断是否也会受到认知推理和情绪的影响?道德相对主义/道德绝对主义是一种关于道德的规则, 因此, 当启动道德绝对主义时比启动道德相对主义时, 个体更倾向做出道德直觉判断。根据情感作为信息(feeling-as-information)的观点, 厌恶情绪会给个体提供一种信息: 尽量避免或者拒绝某个对象。因此, 当启动厌恶情绪时, 个体会比中性情绪下更做出直觉判断。总体来看, 道德直觉判断与道德推理判断一样, 也会受认知推理和情绪的影响。

5.4 理论和实践价值

本研究从判断的单一模型(Kruglanski et al., 2003; Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011)出发, 认为直觉和推理判断都是基于同样的if-then规则, 道德直觉判断跟道德推理判断一样, 既会受到认知推理影响也会受到情绪影响, 加深了人们对道德判断过程的理解, 也促进了关于人类判断和决策中直觉和推理加工的理解。

本研究发现, 道德直觉判断会受到道德相对主义的影响, 说明道德推理不仅发生在道德直觉之后, 对道德直觉进行补充说明, 而且可以发生在道德直觉之前, 影响道德直觉判断, 这对社会直觉模型的观点提出了挑战。另外, 以往研究中道德判断任务本身通常已经激发了被试的情绪, 较少有研究通过将情绪与道德直觉判断相分离, 来考察厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。本研究采用了随机回答范式, 通过将情绪与道德直觉判断分离, 直接考察了厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响, 拓展了以往关于情绪对道德判断影响的研究。

本研究结果还具有重要的实践价值。根据本研究结果可以对人们的道德直觉判断进行干预, 促使人们做出更为正确的道德判断。例如, 本研究发现道德相对主义可以削弱道德直觉判断, 在实际生活中可以通过启动道德相对主义进而来减少人们的道德直觉判断。本研究发现厌恶情绪可以促进道德直觉判断, 在实际生活中则可以通过对厌恶情绪的干预进而来减少道德直觉判断。

5.5 不足与未来研究展望

本研究通过三个实验考察了道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响, 发现道德直觉判断会受到认知推理和情绪的影响。然而, 本研究还存在以下不足之处: 首先, 本研究分别考察了道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响, 而没有考察二者的交互作用对道德直觉判断的影响。未来研究需要进一步考察认知推理和情绪是如何交互作用来共同影响道德直觉判断的。另外, 本研究只是考察了厌恶情绪这一种情绪对道德直觉判断的影响, 未来研究需要进一步考察其他情绪对道德直觉判断的影响。

6 结论

本研究通过三个实验发现: (1)道德绝对主义比道德相对主义条件下, 个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断, 说明道德直觉判断受认知推理影响。(2)厌恶情绪比中立情绪启动条件下, 个体更倾向于做出道德直觉判断, 说明道德直觉判断受情绪影响。

致谢:赵志裕教授、康萤仪教授和杨宜音研究员对本文研究设计提出了宝贵的指导意见, 特此致谢。

参考文献

Betsch,T. ( 2008).

The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgment and decision making

In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Institution in judgment and decision making( pp. 3-22). New York: Tayolor & Francis Group.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

T here are as many meanings for the term intuition as there are people using it. Philosophers often conceive of intuition as a competence. adopting the philosophical approach, the encyclop03dia Britannica (15th edition, 1989) defines intuition as “the power

Chen Y. H., Bai L., Li L. F . ( 2015).

The characteristics and development of moral emotion and its influence on moral behavior

Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13( 5), 627-636.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Moral emotions arise when a person recognize that one's behavior transgresses moral norms or standards. Based on different criterions, moral emotions can be classified into different clusters. Among them, self-conscious emotions, which involve self-awareness and self-evaluation, have been concerned. Research has suggested that the development of moral emotions might be influence by various factors uch as temperament and parenting. Besides, both behavioral and neurological evidences have documented that moral emotions have a key effect on moral behaviors and the factors related to moral behaviors. Although it is believed that different moral emotions are associated with different behaviors, no consistent conclusions have been drawn. Thus, we proposed that future studies should focus on the potential mechanisms of the link between moral emotions and behaviors. Neuroscience studies were also suggested. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the dynamic associations between moral emotions and moral behaviors among young children, and more practical applications are needed.

[ 陈英和, 白柳, 李龙凤 . ( 2015).

道德情绪的特点、发展及其对行为的影响

心理与行为研究, 13( 5), 627-636.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Moral emotions arise when a person recognize that one's behavior transgresses moral norms or standards. Based on different criterions, moral emotions can be classified into different clusters. Among them, self-conscious emotions, which involve self-awareness and self-evaluation, have been concerned. Research has suggested that the development of moral emotions might be influence by various factors uch as temperament and parenting. Besides, both behavioral and neurological evidences have documented that moral emotions have a key effect on moral behaviors and the factors related to moral behaviors. Although it is believed that different moral emotions are associated with different behaviors, no consistent conclusions have been drawn. Thus, we proposed that future studies should focus on the potential mechanisms of the link between moral emotions and behaviors. Neuroscience studies were also suggested. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the dynamic associations between moral emotions and moral behaviors among young children, and more practical applications are needed.

Cushman F., Young L., & Greene, J. D., ( 2010) . Our multi- system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view. In J. M. Doris (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of moral psychology (pp. 47-71). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Esptein S.,& Pacini, R. ( 1999) . Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive- experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-482). New York: Guilford Press.

[本文引用: 2]

Forsyth, D.R . ( 1980).

A taxonomy of ethical ideologies

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39( 1), 175-184.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Murray D.J.,& Gigerenzer, G., . ( 1987).

Cognition as intuitive statistics

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36( 4), 431-432.

[本文引用: 1]

Gong X., Huang Y. X., Wang Y., & Luo Y. J . ( 2011).

Revision of the Chinese facial affective picture system

Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25( 1), 40-46.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

目的:扩展本土化的中国面孔表情图片系统以提供情绪研究的取材。方法:采用方便取样。从北京2所高等艺术院校的表演系、导演系选取100名学生,作为面孔表情表演者;从北京2所普通高等院校招募100名学生,作为面孔表情评分者。采集表演者的愤怒,厌恶,恐惧,悲伤,惊讶,高兴和平静7种面孔表情图片,再由评分者对图片进行情绪类别的判定和情绪强烈程度的9点量表评分,扩展各种情绪类型的图片数量。然后,从北京3所普通高校戏剧社社员中选取100名学生,从北京某社区选取老年人、儿童各10名,作为面孔表情表演者;另从北京2所普通高等院校招募100名学生,作为面孔表情评分者。进一步扩展负性图片的数量(如,愤怒,厌恶,恐惧,悲伤),并补充一些其他年龄段的图片。结果:得到具有代表性的7种情绪类型的面孔表情图片共870张,每张图片都有其对应的认同率和情绪强度评分,其中,愤怒74张,厌恶47张,恐惧64张,悲伤95张,惊讶120张,高兴248张,平静222张。结论:本研究初步建立了信度较高的中国人面孔表情图片系统,可作为以后情绪研究的选取材料,本系统有待进一步完善。

[ 龚栩, 黄宇霞, 王妍, 罗跃嘉 . ( 2011).

中国面孔表情图片系统的修订

中国心理卫生杂志, 25( 1), 40-46.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

目的:扩展本土化的中国面孔表情图片系统以提供情绪研究的取材。方法:采用方便取样。从北京2所高等艺术院校的表演系、导演系选取100名学生,作为面孔表情表演者;从北京2所普通高等院校招募100名学生,作为面孔表情评分者。采集表演者的愤怒,厌恶,恐惧,悲伤,惊讶,高兴和平静7种面孔表情图片,再由评分者对图片进行情绪类别的判定和情绪强烈程度的9点量表评分,扩展各种情绪类型的图片数量。然后,从北京3所普通高校戏剧社社员中选取100名学生,从北京某社区选取老年人、儿童各10名,作为面孔表情表演者;另从北京2所普通高等院校招募100名学生,作为面孔表情评分者。进一步扩展负性图片的数量(如,愤怒,厌恶,恐惧,悲伤),并补充一些其他年龄段的图片。结果:得到具有代表性的7种情绪类型的面孔表情图片共870张,每张图片都有其对应的认同率和情绪强度评分,其中,愤怒74张,厌恶47张,恐惧64张,悲伤95张,惊讶120张,高兴248张,平静222张。结论:本研究初步建立了信度较高的中国人面孔表情图片系统,可作为以后情绪研究的选取材料,本系统有待进一步完善。

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.

URL     PMID:17625951      [本文引用: 1]

This article has no associated abstract. ( fix it )

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Haidt,J. ( 2001).

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment

Psychological Review, 108( 4), 814-834.

URL     [本文引用: 8]

Haidt,J. ( 2007).

The new synthesis in moral psychology

Science, 316( 5827), 998-1002.

URL     PMID:17510357      [本文引用: 3]

People are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and institutions that create diverse moral communities. I propose a fourth principle to guide future research: Morality is about more than harm and fairness. More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity.

Harman,G. ( 1975).

Moral relativism defended

The Philosophical Review, 84( 1), 3-22.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Horberg, E. J.,& Keltner, D. , ( 2007).

Passions for justice

In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect ( pp. 155-174). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

[本文引用: 1]

Horberg E. J., Oveis C., Keltner D., & Cohen A. B . ( 2009).

Disgust and the moralization of purity

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97( 6), 963-976.

URL     PMID:19968413      [本文引用: 2]

Guided by appraisal-based models of the influence of emotion upon judgment, we propose that disgust moralizes--that is, amplifies the moral significance of--protecting the purity of the body and soul. Three studies documented that state and trait disgust, but not other negative emotions, moralize the purity moral domain but not the moral domains of justice or harm/care. In Study 1, integral feelings of disgust, but not integral anger, predicted stronger moral condemnation of behaviors violating purity. In Study 2, experimentally induced disgust, compared with induced sadness, increased condemnation of behaviors violating purity and increased approval of behaviors upholding purity. In Study 3, trait disgust, but not trait anger or trait fear, predicted stronger condemnation of purity violations and greater approval of behaviors upholding purity. We found that, confirming the domain specificity of the disgust-purity association, disgust was unrelated to moral judgments about justice (Studies 1 and 2) or harm/care (Study 3). Finally, across studies, individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) were more likely than individuals of higher SES to moralize purity but not justice or harm/care.

Kahneman,D. ( 2003).

A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality

American Psychologist, 58( 9), 697-720.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Kahneman D., & Frederick S. , ( 2002) . Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment In T Gilovich, D Griffin, & D Kahneman (Eds), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp 49-81) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Kohlberg,L. ( 1969).

Stage and sequence: The cognitive- developmental approach to socialization

In D.A. Goslined (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research( pp.347-480), Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Kruglanski A. W., Erb H. P., Spiegel S., & Pierro, A. , ( 2003) . The parametric unimodel of human judgment: A fanfare to the common thinker In L G Aspinwall & U M Staudinger (Eds), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp 197-210) Washington, DC: APA Press A fanfare to the common thinker. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 197-210). Washington, D.C.: APA Press.

[本文引用: 12]

Kruglanski, A. W.,& Gigerenzer, G. , ( 2011).

Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles

Psychological Review, 118( 1), 97-109.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

Lin, J. ( 2002).

On the union of relativity and absolute nature of moral laws and decrees

Academics in China, 96( 5), 169-179.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

本文首先区分了自然律与道德律 的差别 ,阐述了历史上的道德相对主义与道德绝对主义对道德律令的基本态度及其片面性。并以马克思主义历史观与道德观为指导 ,论证了对道德律令既不能持一种相对主义态度 ,也不能持一种绝对主义态度 ,而必须从相对与绝对相统一的辩证思维的维度去进行把握。认为道德律令之所以是一种相对性与绝对性的统一 ,深刻的原因在于 :人们是从自己进行生产和交换的经济关系中吸取自己的道德观念的。人们的生产和交换的经济关系是历史发展着的。因此 ,道德律令或道德规范具有历史的相对的性质 ,不存在一种适合于任何情况、一切时代的道德律令。但每一时代占统治地位的道德规范相对于各自的时代或生存条件来说 ,又具有其客观性、必然性 ,因而具有绝对性的一面。

[ 林剑 . ( 2002).

论道德律令的相对性与绝对性的统一

学术界, 96( 5), 169-179.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

本文首先区分了自然律与道德律 的差别 ,阐述了历史上的道德相对主义与道德绝对主义对道德律令的基本态度及其片面性。并以马克思主义历史观与道德观为指导 ,论证了对道德律令既不能持一种相对主义态度 ,也不能持一种绝对主义态度 ,而必须从相对与绝对相统一的辩证思维的维度去进行把握。认为道德律令之所以是一种相对性与绝对性的统一 ,深刻的原因在于 :人们是从自己进行生产和交换的经济关系中吸取自己的道德观念的。人们的生产和交换的经济关系是历史发展着的。因此 ,道德律令或道德规范具有历史的相对的性质 ,不存在一种适合于任何情况、一切时代的道德律令。但每一时代占统治地位的道德规范相对于各自的时代或生存条件来说 ,又具有其客观性、必然性 ,因而具有绝对性的一面。

Lu J. G., Quoidbach J., Gino F., Chakroff A., Maddux W. W., & Galinsky A . ( 2017).

The dark side of going abroad: How broad foreign experiences increase immoral behavior

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112( 1), 1-16.

URL     PMID:28032773      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Because of the unprecedented pace of globalization, foreign experiences are increasingly common and valued. Past research has focused on the benefits of foreign experiences, including enhanced creativity and reduced intergroup bias. In contrast, the present work uncovers a potential dark side of foreign experiences: increased immoral behavior. We propose that broad foreign experiences (i.e., experiences in multiple foreign countries) foster not only cognitive flexibility but also moral flexibility. Using multiple methods (longitudinal, correlational, and experimental), 8 studies (N > 2,200) establish that broad foreign experiences can lead to immoral behavior by increasing moral relativism he belief that morality is relative rather than absolute. The relationship between broad foreign experiences and immoral behavior was robust across a variety of cultural populations (anglophone, francophone), life stages (high school students, university students, MBA students, middle-aged adults), and 7 different measures of immorality. As individuals are exposed to diverse cultures, their moral compass may lose some of its precision.

Olatunji, B. O., & Puncochar, B. D . ( 2016).

Effects of disgust priming and disgust sensitivity on moral judgement

International Journal of Psychology, 51( 2), 102-108.

URL     PMID:25622917      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Although prior research suggests that disgust results in more severe moral judgements, the extent to which awareness of disgust cues influences moral judgements remains unclear. To address this gap in the literature, participants in this study were randomised to subliminal or conscious awareness of disgust and neutral images prior to the description and evaluation of moral transgressions. No differences were found in moral severity ratings for transgressions that were presented after neutral and disgust images in the subliminal condition. However, moral severity ratings for moderate transgressions that were presented after neutral images were significantly higher than morality ratings of transgressions presented after disgust images in the conscious condition. Subsequent analysis also revealed a significant relationship between individual differences in disgust propensity and perceived immorality of moderate transgressions, especially in the conscious condition. The finding of higher moral severity ratings for moderate transgressions presented after neutral images in the conscious condition is inconsistent with research showing that disgust uniquely influences moral judgements. This research highlights the importance of further research examining the role of methodological considerations that may moderate the influence of disgust on moral judgements. 2015 International Union of Psychological Science.

Piaget, J. ( 1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: The Free Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Rai, T. S., & Holyoak, K. J . ( 2013).

Exposure to moral relativism compromises moral behaviors

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 6), 995-1001.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

61We examined whether exposure to moral relativism would compromise moral behavior.61Participants who read a relativist argument were more likely to cheat.61Participants who read an absolutist moral definition were less willing to steal.61The subjectivity of morality implied by relativism appears to compromise behavior.

Ren, J., & Gao, X. X . ( 2011).

Moral emotions: The moral behavior’s intermediary mediation

Advances in Psychological Science, 19( 8), 1224-1232.

URL    

Moral emotion, an important research area of Psychology, is an emotional experience which results from people’s judgment of one’s own or other’s behavior and thought based on certain moral standards. It is a complex emotion, including disgust, empathy, guilt, shame, etc. Moral purity and moral compensation constitute typical behaviors people would exhibit under the influence of moral emotions. Behavior recalled paradigm, physical goods or picture stimulus paradigm and situation settings paradigm are the main psychological research paradigms of moral emotions. Future research may focus on the role of positive moral emotions in moral development, the impact of moral emotions on group behavior and the value of moral emotions in different cultural backgrounds.

[ 任俊, 高肖肖 . ( 2011).

道德情绪: 道德行为的中介调节

心理科学进展, 19( 8), 1224-1232.]

URL    

Moral emotion, an important research area of Psychology, is an emotional experience which results from people’s judgment of one’s own or other’s behavior and thought based on certain moral standards. It is a complex emotion, including disgust, empathy, guilt, shame, etc. Moral purity and moral compensation constitute typical behaviors people would exhibit under the influence of moral emotions. Behavior recalled paradigm, physical goods or picture stimulus paradigm and situation settings paradigm are the main psychological research paradigms of moral emotions. Future research may focus on the role of positive moral emotions in moral development, the impact of moral emotions on group behavior and the value of moral emotions in different cultural backgrounds.

Russell, J. A . ( 2003).

Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion

Psychological Review, 110( 1), 145-172.

URL     PMID:12529060      [本文引用: 1]

At the heart of emotion, mood, and any other emotionally charged event are states experienced as simply feeling good or bad, energized or enervated. These states--called core affect--influence reflexes, perception, cognition, and behavior and are influenced by many causes internal and external, but people have no direct access to these causal connections. Core affect can therefore be experienced as free-floating (mood) or can be attributed to some cause (and thereby begin an emotional episode). These basic processes spawn a broad framework that includes perception of the core-affect-altering properties of stimuli, motives, empathy, emotional meta-experience, and affect versus emotion regulation; it accounts for prototypical emotional episodes, such as fear and anger, as core affect attributed to something plus various nonemotional processes.

Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett , L. ( 1999).

Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76( 5), 805-819.

URL     PMID:10353204      [本文引用: 4]

What is the structure of emotion? Emotion is too broad a class of events to be a single scientific category, and no one structure suffices. As an illustration, core affect is distinguished from prototypical emotional episode. Core affect refers to consciously accessible elemental processes of pleasure and activation, has many causes, and is always present. Its structure involves two bipolar dimensions. Prototypical emotional episode refers to a complex process that unfolds over time, involves causally connected subevents (antecedent; appraisal; physiological, affective, and cognitive changes; behavioral response; self-categorization), has one perceived cause, and is rare. Its structure involves categories (anger, fear, shame, jealousy, etc.) vertically organized as a fuzzy hierarchy and horizontally organized as part of a circumplex.

Schnall S., Haidt J., Clore G. L., & Jordan A. H . ( 2008).

Disgust as embodied moral judgment

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34( 8), 1096-1109.

URL     PMID:18505801      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract How, and for whom, does disgust influence moral judgment? In four experiments participants made moral judgments while experiencing extraneous feelings of disgust. Disgust was induced in Experiment 1 by exposure to a bad smell, in Experiment 2 by working in a disgusting room, in Experiment 3 by recalling a physically disgusting experience, and in Experiment 4 through a video induction. In each case, the results showed that disgust can increase the severity of moral judgments relative to controls. Experiment 4 found that disgust had a different effect on moral judgment than did sadness. In addition, Experiments 2-4 showed that the role of disgust in severity of moral judgments depends on participants' sensitivity to their own bodily sensations. Taken together, these data indicate the importance-and specificity-of gut feelings in moral judgments.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L . ( 1988).

How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states

In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition and social behavior ( pp. 44-62). Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe International.

[本文引用: 1]

Sloman S. A. ( 2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379-396) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Sparrow, B., & Wegner, D. M . ( 2006).

Unpriming: The deactivation of thoughts through expression

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91( 6), 1009-1019.

URL     PMID:17144761      [本文引用: 2]

Abstract Unpriming is a decrease in the influence of primed knowledge following a behavior expressing that knowledge. The authors investigated strategies for unpriming the knowledge of an answer that is activated when people are asked to consider a simple question. Experiment 1 found that prior correct answering eliminated the bias people normally show toward correct responding when asked to answer yes-no questions randomly. Experiment 2 revealed that prior answering intended to be random did not unprime knowledge on subsequent attempts to answer randomly. Experiment 3 found that exposure to the correct answer did not influence the knowledge bias but that exposure to the incorrect answer increased bias. Experiment 4 revealed that merely expressing the answer for oneself was sufficient to unprime knowledge. Experiment 5 found that each item of activated knowledge needs to be unprimed specifically, in that correctly answering 1 question does not reduce the knowledge bias in randomly answering another. (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved.

Sun Y., Li S., Yin X. L . ( 2007).

Two systems in decision- making and reasoning: Heuristic system and analytic system

Advances in Psychological Science, 15( 5), 721-726.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

近来,在决策与推理的研究中,研究者提出了双系统作用模型:基于直觉的启发式系统和基于理性的分析系统.启发式系统加工速度较快,不占用或占用很少的心理资源,容易受背景相似性、刻板印象的影响;分析系统加工速度慢,占用较多的心理资源,遵从逻辑和规则,而且两个系统有不同进化历史和神经基础.该文根据已有的相关研究,综述了双系统在决策与推理中可能的作用机制、相互关系、个体差异,同时指出了目前研究存在的不足.

[ 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉 . ( 2007).

决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统

心理科学进展, 15( 5), 721-726.]

URL     [本文引用: 2]

近来,在决策与推理的研究中,研究者提出了双系统作用模型:基于直觉的启发式系统和基于理性的分析系统.启发式系统加工速度较快,不占用或占用很少的心理资源,容易受背景相似性、刻板印象的影响;分析系统加工速度慢,占用较多的心理资源,遵从逻辑和规则,而且两个系统有不同进化历史和神经基础.该文根据已有的相关研究,综述了双系统在决策与推理中可能的作用机制、相互关系、个体差异,同时指出了目前研究存在的不足.

Tang J. W., Lu H., Liu Y., & Peng J . ( 2015).

Exploring moral intuitive decision-making and its mechanism

Advances in Psychological Science, 23( 10), 1830-1842.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Moral intuitive decision-making refers to making intuitive decisions in a moral situation. Moral intuitive decision-making includes at least three basic mental processes— unconscious processing, emotional processing and intuitive processing, which correspond to three possible brain circuits, neural systems for unconscious processing, for emotional processing and for intuitive processing. The present study analyzes, both objectively and subjectively, the general factors underlying moral intuitive decision-making—culture, moral situation, experience, emotion and moral intuition, in order to reveal the processing mechanism of moral intuitive decision-making. It is suggested that future studies should further consolidate the theoretical framework by designing more sophisticated experiments to explore the interaction of various factors in decision-making process and the relations among various brain areas.

[ 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.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Moral intuitive decision-making refers to making intuitive decisions in a moral situation. Moral intuitive decision-making includes at least three basic mental processes— unconscious processing, emotional processing and intuitive processing, which correspond to three possible brain circuits, neural systems for unconscious processing, for emotional processing and for intuitive processing. The present study analyzes, both objectively and subjectively, the general factors underlying moral intuitive decision-making—culture, moral situation, experience, emotion and moral intuition, in order to reveal the processing mechanism of moral intuitive decision-making. It is suggested that future studies should further consolidate the theoretical framework by designing more sophisticated experiments to explore the interaction of various factors in decision-making process and the relations among various brain areas.

Tian X. H., Yang Q., Zhang D. X., Zhang Y . ( 2011).

A theory on the mechanism underlying moral intuitions

Advances in Psychological Science, 19( 10), 1426-1433.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

How cognition and emotion influences moral judgment has been the focus of dispute for decades in moral psychology and in the social neuroscience research. The present project proposes that there might be a universal moral intuition which consists of moral knowledge and emotions and drives our moral judgment in a fast and automatic way. Three studies are planned to be carried out to examine the hypothesis: In study 1, transcranial magnetic stimulation technique is employed to explore the possibility that moral intuitions are used to make moral judgment; In study 2, event elated potential technique is used to investigate the temporal features of moral intuition; In study 3, lateralized readiness potential is derived to examine how moral intuitions dissociate from basic disgust emotion.

[ 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.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

How cognition and emotion influences moral judgment has been the focus of dispute for decades in moral psychology and in the social neuroscience research. The present project proposes that there might be a universal moral intuition which consists of moral knowledge and emotions and drives our moral judgment in a fast and automatic way. Three studies are planned to be carried out to examine the hypothesis: In study 1, transcranial magnetic stimulation technique is employed to explore the possibility that moral intuitions are used to make moral judgment; In study 2, event elated potential technique is used to investigate the temporal features of moral intuition; In study 3, lateralized readiness potential is derived to examine how moral intuitions dissociate from basic disgust emotion.

Wegner D. M., Fuller, V A., & Sparrow B . ( 2003).

Clever hands: Uncontrolled intelligence in facilitated communication

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85( 1), 5-19.

URL     PMID:12872881      [本文引用: 2]

Five studies examined how people who are answering questions on behalf of another person may use their own knowledge to answer correctly while attributing authorship of their answers to the other. Experiments 1 and 2 found that participants instructed to answer yes/no questions randomly were unable to do so. They were more often correct on easy than hard questions, and extended opportunity and incentive did not reduce this effect. Experiments 3-5 found similar correctness for participants who were asked to answer yes/no questions by sensing either the ostensible keyboard finger movements or unvoiced inclinations of another person who had been admonished not to answer, and who was infact a confederate and was not even given the questions. In this paradigm, the answers were often attributed to the other.

Wheatley, T., &Haidt, J. ( 2005).

Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe

Psychological Science, 16( 10), 780-784.

URL     PMID:16181440      [本文引用: 3]

Abstract090000 Highly hypnotizable participants were given a posthypnotic suggestion to feel a flash of disgust whenever they read an arbitrary word. They were then asked to rate moral transgressions described in vignettes that either did or did not include the disgust-inducing word. Two studies show that moral judgments can be made more severe by the presence of a flash of disgust. These findings suggest that moral judgments may be grounded in affectively laden moral intuitions.

Wu P., Fan J., & Liu H. S . ( 2017).

The influence of moral emotions on online helping behavior: The mediating role of moral reasoning

Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 12), 1559-1569.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

对道德情绪与道德推理在道德行为中的作用,道德心理学研究者还存在一定的争议。传统道德心理学理论认为道德推理应该起重要作用。最新的道德心理模型则认为道德情绪也起重要作用,但在情绪与推理的作用大小上存在争议。实验1通过情绪启动与电子邮件求助的研究范式,探讨同情、内疚情绪对网络助人行为的影响,结果表明同情与内疚情绪可以显著激发个体的网络助人行为。实验2探讨道德情绪影响网络助人行为的机制,即道德推理在道德情绪对网络助人行为影响的中介作用,结果表明道德推理可以部分中介道德情绪对网络助人行为的影响。上述结果表明道德情绪对网络助人行为的直接影响及道德推理的部分中介作用,不支持道德动机社会直觉模型、支持道德双加工模型。

[ 吴鹏, 范晶, 刘华山 . ( 2017).

道德情绪对网络助人行为的影响——道德推理的中介作用

心理学报, 49( 12), 1559-1569.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

对道德情绪与道德推理在道德行为中的作用,道德心理学研究者还存在一定的争议。传统道德心理学理论认为道德推理应该起重要作用。最新的道德心理模型则认为道德情绪也起重要作用,但在情绪与推理的作用大小上存在争议。实验1通过情绪启动与电子邮件求助的研究范式,探讨同情、内疚情绪对网络助人行为的影响,结果表明同情与内疚情绪可以显著激发个体的网络助人行为。实验2探讨道德情绪影响网络助人行为的机制,即道德推理在道德情绪对网络助人行为影响的中介作用,结果表明道德推理可以部分中介道德情绪对网络助人行为的影响。上述结果表明道德情绪对网络助人行为的直接影响及道德推理的部分中介作用,不支持道德动机社会直觉模型、支持道德双加工模型。

Xu, P., & Chi, Y. K . ( 2007).

A review on the social intuitionist model of moral judgment

Psychological Science, 30( 2), 403-405.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

传统的理性主义模型认为,道德判断是一系列理性推理的结果;而当前的社会直觉模型认为,道德判断包括直觉系统和推理系统两种加工,很多时候人们的道德判断更多的是一种直觉和情感的结果。近期神经心理学研究的一些成果证实了社会直觉模型的理念。

[ 徐平, 迟毓凯 . ( 2007).

道德判断的社会直觉模型述评

心理科学, 30( 2), 403-405.]

URL     [本文引用: 1]

传统的理性主义模型认为,道德判断是一系列理性推理的结果;而当前的社会直觉模型认为,道德判断包括直觉系统和推理系统两种加工,很多时候人们的道德判断更多的是一种直觉和情感的结果。近期神经心理学研究的一些成果证实了社会直觉模型的理念。

版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/