坏念头，罪几何？意图信息的强弱变化对大学生道德判断的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 成人在对他人的行为进行道德判断时，对意图和结果信息的利用存在不稳定的现象。Cushman提出道德判断双加工过程理论，认为当存在重大负性后果时，需要综合考虑意图和结果信息；而当不存在负性后果时，主要关注意图信息。本研究通过句式变化操控意图信息的明显性，分别考察了两组大学生在对道德情景进行判断时意图信息强弱变化所造成的影响，结果发现：（1）对中性行为进行道德判断时，突显负性意图信息后被试会增加道德谴责；（2）对负性行为进行道德判断时，道德谴责程度没有因意图信息明显性的改变而发生显著变化。此研究结果表明，在行为结果为中性时，人们主要利用意图的信息做出道德判断，但此时对负性意图的谴责程度并不稳定，容易受明显性变化的干扰。

关键词: 大学生, 意图, 道德判断, 双加工过程理论

Abstract: It's unstable for adults to make moral judgment of others' behaviors by using intention and outcomes information. According to the expectation of the two-process theory, Cushman proposed that people should combine the intention and outcome information to make moral judgment when serious negative outcome occurs, however, they will mainly focus on intention information in neutral outcome condition. By changing the pattern of sentences, the present study manipulated the salience of the intention in order to investigate whether or not the strength of intention information will modulate moral judgment of undergraduate students. The results showed that (1) participants made more moral condemnation about the neutral behavior when the negative intention information was emphasized; (2) The moral judgments was not affected by the salience of intention when participants made judgments on negative behaviors. Based on these findings, we argued that the intention information plays key role for moral judgment on neutral behaviors. More importantly, the moral condemnation to negative intention of undergraduate students depends on the salience of intention information.

Key words: College students, Intention, Moral judgment, The two-process theory

中图分类号:

B844.3

李小晶, 李红. 坏念头，罪几何？意图信息的强弱变化对大学生道德判断的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(3): 244-251.

LI Xiao-jing, LI Hong. How Much Blame Your “Evil” Intention Deserves? The Strength of Intention Information Modulated Moral Judgment of Undergraduate Students[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(3): 244-251.

参考文献

Berg-Cross, L. G. (1975). Intentionality, degree of damage, and moral judgments. Child Development, 46(4), 970-974.
Borg, J. S., Hynes, C., Van Horn, J., Grafton, S., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(5), 803-817.
Cloutier, J., Denis, P. L., & Bilodeau, H. (2012). The dynamics of strike votes: Perceived justice during collective bargaining. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 1016-1038.
Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353-380.
Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y., & Costa, J. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a "trembling hand" game. PloS one, 4(8), e6699.
Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition, 127(1), 6-21.
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment testing three principles of harm. Psychological science, 17(12), 1082-1089.
Druckman, J. N., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430-454.
Park, J., & Feigenson, N. (2012). Effect of a Visual Technology on Mock Juror Decision Making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Forthcoming, 27(2), 235-246.
Gino, F., Moore, D., & Bazerman, M. (2008). See no evil: When we overlook other peoples unethical behavior. Harvard Business School NOM Working Paper.
Gino, F., Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Nameless+harmless=blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 93-101.
Jacobson, N. G. (2013). The effect of color on decision-making in a legal setting. California State University.
Maier, M. A., Elliot, A. J., Lee, B., Lichtenfeld, S., Barchfeld, P., & Pekrun, R. (2012). The influence of red on impression formation in a job application context. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 1-13.
Mazzocco, P. J., Alicke, M. D., & Davis, T. L. (2004). On the robustness of outcome bias: No constraint by prior culpability. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(2-3), 131-146.
Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2013). Convincing Similar and Dissimilar Others The Power of Language Abstraction in Political Communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 596-607.
Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends Cogn Sci, 11(4), 143-152.
Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(10), 799-809.
Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. (2010). Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 107(15), 6753-6758.
Young, L., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Saxe, R. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 104(20), 8235-8240.
Young, L., Nichols, S., & Saxe, R. (2010). Investigating the neural and cognitive basis of moral luck: Its not what you do but what you know. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 333-349.
Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2009). Innocent intentions: a correlation between forgiveness for accidental harm and neural activity. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 2065-2072.
Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120(2), 202-214.
Zelazo, P. D., Helwig, C. C., & Lau, A. (1996). Intention, act, and outcome in behavioral prediction and moral judgment. Child Development, 67(5), 2478-2492.
刘丹青, 徐烈炯. (1998). 焦点与背景, 话题及汉语 "连" 字句. 中国语文, 265(4), 243-252.
张磊. (2011). "为了" 目的句句序研究. 华中师范大学博士学位论文.

相关文章 15

[1]	郭嘉程, 董柔纯, 许放, 徐旋, 牛更枫, 周宗奎. 社会临场感与大学生网络过激行为的关系：双自我意识的并行中介及性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 176-186.
[2]	樊香麟, 崔英锦. 客体化身体意识与女大学生限制性饮食行为的关系：外貌负面评价恐惧和社会文化压力的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 122-131.
[3]	张慧如, 张伟达, 傅王倩, 邓敏, 彭苏浩, 李玉. 孤独感对创造性倾向的影响：无聊倾向和焦虑情绪的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 132-141.
[4]	何安明, 张钰睿, 惠秋平. 大学生感恩与社会幸福感的关系:手机冷落行为的中介作用和负性生活事件的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 505-512.
[5]	杜秀芳, 武玉玺, 徐政, 袁晓倩, 陈功香. 金钱启动与道德认同对大学生道德伪善的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 342-349.
[6]	喻昊雪, 李卉, 王福兴. 大学生公正世界信念与学业倦怠的关系:应对方式与无聊倾向的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 391-401.
[7]	曾子豪, 彭丽仪, 詹林, 刘双金, 欧阳晓优, 丁道群, 黎志华, 胡义秋, 方晓义. 儿童期受虐对大学生抑郁症状的影响:主观幸福感的中介和基因的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 276-285.
[8]	曹瑞琳, 梅松丽, 梁磊磊, 李传恩, 张莹. 感恩与大学生网络成瘾的关系:核心自我评价和生命意义感的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 286-294.
[9]	陈子循, 李金文, 王雨萌, 刘霞. 累积环境风险与大学生自伤的关系:情绪调节策略的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 109-120.
[10]	郑爽, 刘红瑞, 李静, 席雨, 姚梅林. 主动性人格与大学生创业准备行为的关系:创业意向的中介效应与创业社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 813-821.
[11]	王浩, 俞国良. 大学生依恋焦虑与抑郁的关系:恋爱中关系攻击和关系质量的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 879-885.
[12]	朱黎君, 杨强, 叶宝娟, 陈智楠, 张丽. 自然联结对大学生抑郁的影响:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 886-893.
[13]	张宝生, 李鑫, 李新野, 张庆普. 主观规范对大学生志愿者志愿工作投入的影响机制研究——一个链式双重中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 658-666.
[14]	李松, 陈旭, 冉光明, 张琪. 被动性社交网站使用与社交焦虑：反刍思维和自我建构的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 720-728.
[15]	蔺姝玮, 孙炳海, 黄嘉昕, 肖威龙, 李伟健. 共情对广义互惠的影响：自我-他人重叠的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 475-484.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed