情随境迁:道德情绪概念净脏隐喻及其情境性

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2026.01.02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 基于具身隐喻理论探究道德情绪概念净脏隐喻及其情境性。实验1考察净脏始源域与目标域道德情绪概念的隐喻联结,实验2考察社会公益和社会受损情境下道德情绪概念净脏隐喻的联结。结果发现:(1)环境净脏和自身净脏均与道德情绪概念存在隐喻联结,并且自身净脏与道德情绪概念的隐喻联结强于环境净脏与道德情绪概念的隐喻联结;(2)社会公益情境消解了脏污与负性道德情绪概念的隐喻联结,社会受损情境消解了洁净与正性道德情绪概念的隐喻联结,表现出道德情绪概念隐喻联结的社会情境性。研究结果说明,道德情绪概念净脏隐喻存在且具有情境性;保持自身洁净、倡导社会公益是道德教育干预的有效途径。

关键词: 具身隐喻, 道德情绪, 净脏, 情境性

Abstract: Based on embodied metaphor theory, we explored the conceptual metaphor of moral emotions in cleanliness-dirtiness and its contextuality. Experiments 1 respectively explored the association between the conceptual metaphor of moral emotions and cleanliness-dirtiness from the environmental and personal cleanliness-dirtiness domains, and Experiments 2 examined the contextuality of the cleanliness-dirtiness metaphor in the social welfare and social harm situations. Results indicated: (1) Both environmental and personal cleanliness-dirtiness were metaphorically linked to moral emotion concepts, with personal cleanliness-dirtiness exhibiting a stronger metaphorical association than its environmental counterpart; (2) The metaphorical link between dirtiness and negative moral emotions was attenuated in the social welfare situation, while the link between cleanliness and positive moral emotions was diminished in the social harm situation, demonstrating the contextuality of moral emotion concept metaphors. We found that the cleanliness-dirtiness metaphor in the conceptualization of moral emotions exhibits psychological realism and contextuality. Maintaining environmental and personal cleanliness is crucial for positively guiding individual moral emotions, and individuals may need to take a cautious attitude towards cleanness and dirtiness in certain social situations to avoid cognitive bias.

Key words: embodied metaphor, moral emotions, cleanliness-dirtiness, contextuality

张森森, 丁凤琴. 情随境迁:道德情绪概念净脏隐喻及其情境性[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 9-17.

ZHANG Sensen, DING Fengqin. Emotions Change with the Circumstances: The Conceptual Metaphor of Moral Emotions in Cleanliness-dirtiness and Its Contextuality[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 9-17.

参考文献

Cramwinckel, F. M., Cremer, D. D., & Dijke, M. (2013). Dirty hands make dirty leaders? The effects of touching dirty objects on rewarding unethical subordinates as a function of a leader’s self-interest.Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 93-100.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
Holland, R.W., Hendriks, M., & Aarts, H. (2005). Smells like clean spirit: Non-conscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior. Psychological Science, 16(9), 689-693.
Hunsinger, M., Isbell, L. M., & Clore, G. L. (2012).Sometimes happy people focus on the trees and sad people focus on the forest: Context-dependent effects of mood in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 220-232.
Liljenquist, K., Zhong, C. B., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). The smell of virtue: Clean scents promote reciprocity and charity.Psychological Science, 21(3), 381-383.
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.
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008).With a clean conscience, cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. University of Plymouth, 19(12), 1219-1222.
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.
Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2009).The color of sin: White and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1019-1025.
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004).Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 57-121.
Stafford, L. D., Fleischman, D. S, & Hummel, T. (2018). Exploring the emotion of disgust: Differences in smelling and feeling. Chemosensors, 6(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors6010009
Tang, H., Lu, X., Su, R., Liang, Z., Mai, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Washing away your sins in the brain: Physical cleaning and priming of cleaning recruit different brain networks after moral threat.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(7), 1149-1158.
Wei, W., Ma, J., & Wang, L. (2015). The 'warm’ side of coldness: Cold promotes interpersonal warmth in negative contexts.British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(4), 712-727.
Xu, A. J., Zwick, R., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Washing away your (good or bad) luck: Physical cleansing affects risk-taking behavior.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 26-30.
Zhai, D., Guo, Y., & Lu, Z. (2018). A dual mechanism of cognition and emotion in processing moral-vertical metaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1554. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01554
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing.Science, 313(5792), 1451-1452.
Zhong, C. B., Strejcek, B., & Sivanathan, N. (2010).A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 859-862.
丁凤琴, 孙逸舒, 赵虎英. (2022). 道德概念净脏隐喻映射的偏向性. 心理发展与教育, 38(3), 315-322.
丁凤琴, 王小芳. (2023). 净脏启动对负性道德情绪词加工的影响: 具身隐喻视角. 心理研究, 16(5), 419-428.
傅小兰. (2016). 情绪心理学 (p.5+356). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
郭人豪, 王婷, 张积家. (2020). 多元语言文化对个体情境下与社会情境下认知转换功能的差异性影响-来自锡伯族的证据. 心理学报, 52(9),1071-1086.
贾宁, 陈换娟, 鲁忠义. (2018). 句子启动范式下的道德概念空间隐喻: 匹配抑制还是匹配易化? 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 541-547.
梁晓燕, 马虹, 范红霞. (2012). 大学生道德情绪对身体洁净内隐认知影响的研究. 教育研究与实验, (5), 73-78.
李莹, 张灿, 王悦. (2019). 道德情绪在道德隐喻映射中的作用及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 27(7), 1224-1231.
刘永芳, 毕玉芳, 王怀勇. (2010). 情绪和任务框架对自我和预期他人决策时风险偏好的影响. 心理学报, 42(03), 317-324.
吕军梅, 鲁忠义. (2013). 为什么快乐在“上”, 悲伤在“下”-语篇阅读中情绪的垂直空间隐喻. 心理科学, 36(2), 328-334.
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.
孙岩, 吕娇娇, 兰帆, 张丽娜. (2020). 自我关注重评和情境关注重评情绪调节策略及对随后认知控制的影响. 心理学报, 52(12), 1393-1406.
王继瑛, 叶浩生, 苏得权. (2018). 身体动作与语义加工: 具身隐喻的视角. 心理学探新, 38(1), 15-19.
叶浩生. (2020). 认知心理学的实用性转向. 心理科学, 43(3), 762-767.
张积家, 潞娇, 王婷, 和秀梅. (2021). 颜色文化差异影响道德的黑白隐喻表征及行为选择. 广西民族研究, (2), 70-81.
张丽, 陈雪梅, 王琦, 李红. (2012). 身体形式和社会环境对SNARC效应的影响: 基于具身认知观的理解. 心理学报, 44(10), 1309-1317.
张姝玥, 张悦昕, 钟裕洁, 邹雯洁. (2015). 负性道德情绪影响下的应对行为: 掩饰还是洁净? 中国特殊教育, (7), 92-96.
郑信军, 温小欧, 吴琼琼.(2013).中学生的道德情绪内隐观研究. 心理科学, 36(01),122-127.
朱金富,陈玮,蒲明慧,冯申梅. (2018).厌恶启动后垂直空间隐喻加工的时间特征. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 27(3), 266-271.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	冯娜, 梁峰, 王芬, 何春丽, 张慧. 基本情绪与道德情绪对不同年龄群体道德判断的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 491-499.
[2]	衡书鹏, 赵换方, 周宗奎. 无手机恐惧:我们为什么不能与手机分离？[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 140-152.
[3]	丁凤琴, 孙逸舒, 赵虎英. 道德概念净脏隐喻映射的偏向性[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 315-322.
[4]	丁凤琴, 王喜梅, 刘钊. 道德概念净脏隐喻及其对道德判断的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(6): 666-674.
[5]	李占星, 曹贤才, 庞维国, 牛玉柏. 6~10岁儿童对损人情境下行为者的道德情绪判断与归因[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(3): 252-258.
[6]	蔡丹, 李其维, 邓赐平. 工作记忆新探:基于个体差异的研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2010, 26(2): 205-209.
[7]	俞国良, 赵军燕. 自我意识情绪:聚焦于自我的道德情绪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2009, 25(2): 116-120.