道德概念净脏隐喻及其对道德判断的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2017.06.04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过3个实验考察道德概念净脏隐喻的心理现实性以及道德概念净脏背景和净脏自身隐喻对道德判断的影响及其差异。结果表明：（1）道德概念净脏隐喻具有心理现实性，即被试在洁净背景上判断道德词的反应时更快，在肮脏背景上判断不道德词的反应时更快。（2）当将道德两难故事呈现在肮脏背景上时，相比于呈现在洁净背景上，被试更容易将故事主人公的行为判断为不道德，表现出隐喻一致性效应。（3）相比于肮脏自身启动，被试在洁净自身启动下对道德两难故事主人公的行为判断为更加不道德，表现出隐喻补偿性效应。（4）相比于洁净背景启动，被试在洁净自身启动下对道德两难故事的判断更加严厉；相比于肮脏背景启动，被试在肮脏自身启动下对道德两难故事的判断更加宽松。研究结果证明，道德概念净脏隐喻具有心理现实性，净脏背景和净脏自身隐喻均影响个体的道德判断，并且二者对道德判断的影响不同。

关键词: 概念隐喻, 净脏, 道德判断, 隐喻一致性效应, 隐喻补偿性效应

Abstract: We adopted three experiments to explore the psychological reality of the clean and dirty metaphors of moral concepts and its influence and differences of the environment and self clean-dirty metaphors of moral concepts on moral judgments. The results showed that:(1) The clean and dirty metaphors of moral concepts had the psychological reality, specifically, participants' RTs of judging moral words were significantly faster than the RTs of judging immoral words on the clean background, and their RTs of judging immoral words were significantly faster than the RTs of judging moral words on the dirty background. (2) In comparison to the moral dilemma stories presented on the clean background, it was easier for participants to judge more immoral for the leading roles' behavior of the stories in the moral judgment tasks on the dirty background, which revealed the metaphor consistency effects. (3) Compared with the self dirtiness prime condition, participants judged more immoral for the leading roles' behavior of the stories in the moral judgment tasks in the self cleanliness prime condition, which displayed the metaphor compensation effects. (4)Compared with the environment cleanliness prime condition, participants' judgments were more severe for the moral dilemma stories in the self cleanliness prime condition; compared with the environment dirtiness prime condition, participants' judgments were looser in the self dirtiness prime condition. Generally, the results suggest that the clean and dirty metaphors of moral concepts have the psychological reality. The environment and self clean-dirty metaphors influence participants' moral judgments, but have different effects on the moral judgments.

Key words: conceptual metaphor, clean and dirty, moral judgments, metaphor consistency effects, metaphor compensation effects

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.

DING Fengqin, WANG Ximei, LIU Zhao. The Clean and Dirty Metaphors of Moral Concepts and Its Influence on Moral Judgments[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2017, 33(6): 666-674.

参考文献

Bargh, J. A., & Shalev, I. (2012). The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life. Emoti on, 12(1), 154-162.

Cramwinckel, F. M., Cremer, D., & Dijke, M. H. V. (2013). Dirty hands make dirty leaders? how the touching of dirty objects leads to higher rewards for unethical followers. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 93-100.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway:Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-40.

Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals! reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22(4), 517-522.

Holland, R. W., Hendriks, M., & Aarts, H. (2005). Smells Like Clean Spirit Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior. Psychological Science, 16(9), 689-693.

Hong, J., & Sun, Y. (2012). Warm it up with love:The effect of physical coldness on liking of romance movies. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 293-306.

Ijzerman, H., Gallucci, M., Pouw, W. T. J. L., Weiβgerber, S. C., Doesum, N. J. V., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Cold-blooded loneliness:social exclusion leads to lower skin temperatures. Acta Psychologica, 140(3), 283-288.

IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations:Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1214-1220.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh:The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York:Basic Books.

Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045-1067.

Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Dirty hands and dirty mouths:Embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor is specific to the motor modality involved in moral transgression. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1423-1425.

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.

Lu, A., Zhang, H., He, G., Zheng, D., & Hodges, B. H. (2014). Looking up to others:social status, chinese honorifics, and spatial attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(2), 77-83.

Ma, Y., & Han, S. (2010). Why respond faster to the self than others? An implicit positive association theory of self advantage during implicit face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 619-633.

Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts:Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 217-248.

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.

Wang, Z., & Lu, Z. Y. (2011). A study on the metaphor of social exclusion from embodied cognition. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(10), 2225-2227.

Wang, H. L., Lu, Y. Q., & Lu, Z. Y. (2016). Moral-up first, immoral-down last:the time course of moral metaphors on a vertical dimension. Neuroreport, 27 (4), 247-256.

Wheeler, S. C., Morrison, K. R., Demarree, K. G., & Petty, R. E. (2008). Does self-consciousness increase or decrease priming effects? it depends. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 882-889.

Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping One's distance the influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19(3), 302-308.

Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). The scaffolded mind:Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1257-1267.

Wu, X., Jia, H., Wang, E., Du, C., Wu, X., & Dang, C. (2016). Vertical position of chinese power words influences power judgments:evidence from spatial compatibility task and event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 102, 55-61.

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.

陈玉明, 郭田友, 何立国, 燕良轼. (2014). 具身认知研究述评. 心理学探新, 34(6), 483-487.

贾宁, 蒋高芳. (2016). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理现实性及双向映射.心理发展与教育, 32(2), 158-165.

黎晓丹, 杜建政, 叶浩生. (2016). 中国礼文化的具身隐喻效应:蜷缩的身体使人更卑微. 心理学报, 48(6), 746-756.

玛丽·道格拉斯著, 黄剑波, 柳博赟, 卢忱. (2008). 洁净与危险. 北京:民族出版社, 142-157.

唐佩佩, 叶浩生, 杜建政. (2015). 权力概念与空间大小:具身隐喻的视角.心理学报, 47(4), 514-521.

王锃, 鲁忠义. (2013). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响. 心理学报, 45(5), 538-545.

吴念阳, 郝静. (2006). 以道德为本体的概念隐喻. 上海师范大学学报(基础教育版), 35(9), 51-55.

叶浩生. (2010). 具身认知:认知心理学的新取向. 心理科学进展, 18(5), 705-710.

殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生. (2013). 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 220-234.

殷融, 叶浩生. (2014). 道德概念的黑白隐喻表征及其对道德认知的影响. 心理学报, 46(9), 1331-1346.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	杨继平, 王兴超. 青少年道德推脱与攻击行为：道德判断调节作用的性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(4): 361-367.
[4]	陈少华, 郑雪. 亲社会情境中儿童的道德情绪判断及归因模式的实验研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2000, 16(1): 19-23.
[5]	寇彧. 青少年道德判断发展及其与家庭亲密度的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 1997, 13(4): 46-50.