调节定向与决策策略对道德判断的影响
发布时间：2018-11-24 08:10
【摘要】：道德判断通常有两种取向:功利性道德判断(也被称为结果论道德判断,即接受能带来潜在益处的伤害)和道义性道德判断(或称作义务论道德判断,即不论伤害是否带来益处都谴责伤害行为)。之前的研究表明,道义性判断是起因于人们面对伤害时的情绪反应,而功利性判断起因于理性的对益处大于损失的深思熟虑。但是,是否在任何时候道义性判断都是情绪反应的结果,功利性判断都是理性的权衡利弊的结果呢?当用调节定向视角来看待这个问题时,结果可能会有所不同。研究表明,促进定向的个体在面对两难道德困境时更倾向于做出功利性的判断,而防御定向的个体却更倾向于做出道义性判断;并且促进定向的个体在决策或者判断时偏好使用直觉启发式策略,而不同的是防御定向的个体偏好使用理性的分析推理策略;采取更加防御的状态会增加个体对坚守可接受行为的公认标准的关注,这也会使得个体在形成判断时更少依赖他们的直觉经验。值得思考的是,如果道义性判断是情绪反应的结果,那么偏好理性分析的防御定向个体就不会倾向于做出道义性判断,促进定向也同理。那么这是否意味着在道义性判断中可能存在非情绪因素呢?这是很有可能的,并且导致不同调节定向的被试有不同道德判断取向的原因可能是由于他们在道德判断时所偏好的决策策略不同(该问题将在实验1中探讨)。那么如果不同调节定向的被试采取其偏好的策略进行判断也很有可能会出现调节匹配效应。那么调节匹配效应的机制是什么呢(该问题将在实验2中探讨)?实验结果发现调节定向的确影响道德判断取向:促进定向的被试倾向于做出更多功利性判断,防御定向的被试倾向于做出更多的道义性判断,并且这种取向上的差异并不是由情绪强度上的差异引起,而很可能是由于不同调节定向的被试使用的策略不同(直觉策略和理性策略)导致的;并进一步探讨了当调节定向和决策策略形成调节性匹配时,是否出现调节匹配效应,结果发现被试对道德判断相比不匹配状态下更道德,说明促进定向的确是偏好使用直觉策略,而防御定向的确偏好使用理性策略,而后又进一步证明了正确感在调节匹配与道德程度判断间起到完全中介作用。
[Abstract]:Moral judgment usually has two orientations: utilitarian moral judgment (also known as result-oriented moral judgment, i.e. acceptance of harm that can bring potential benefits) and moral judgment (or obligation moral judgment). That is to say, the injury is condemned regardless of whether the harm is beneficial or not. Previous studies have shown that moral judgment stems from the emotional reaction of people to harm, while utilitarian judgment results from rational consideration of benefits over losses. But is moral judgment the result of emotional reaction at any time and utilitarian judgment the result of rational weighing of pros and cons? When you look at the problem from an adjustable orientation perspective, the result may be different. The research shows that the individuals who promote orientation tend to make utilitarian judgments in the face of the dilemma of moral dilemma, while individuals who defend the orientation tend to make moral judgments; And the individuals who promote the orientation prefer to use intuitionistic heuristic strategy when making decision or judgment, but the individual preference of defensive orientation is to use rational analytical reasoning strategy. Adopting a more defensive state increases the attention of individuals to the accepted criteria for adhering to acceptable behavior, which also makes individuals rely less on their intuitive experience in shaping their judgments. It is worth considering that if moral judgment is the result of emotional response then the defensive oriented individual who prefers rational analysis will not be inclined to make moral judgment and promote orientation. So does this mean that there may be non-emotional factors in moral judgment? This is very possible, and the reason why the subjects with different regulation orientation have different moral judgment orientation may be that they prefer different decision strategies in moral judgment (this question will be discussed in experiment 1). Therefore, if the subjects with different regulation orientation adopt their preferred strategy to judge, it is very likely that the adjustment matching effect will occur. So what is the mechanism for regulating the matching effect (which will be discussed in experiment 2)? The results show that adjusting orientation does affect moral judgment: subjects who promote orientation tend to make more utilitarian judgments, those who defend orientation tend to make more moral judgments. Moreover, the difference in orientation is not caused by the difference in emotional intensity, but probably due to the different strategies (intuitive strategy and rational strategy) used by the subjects who regulate the orientation. Furthermore, when adjusting orientation and decision strategy form a regulatory matching, it is found that the subjects are more moral than those in the state of mismatch. It shows that promoting orientation is a preference to use intuitive strategy, while defensive orientation does prefer to use rational strategy, which further proves that correct sense plays a complete intermediary role between adjusting matching and moral judgment.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B842
本文编号：2352924
[Abstract]:Moral judgment usually has two orientations: utilitarian moral judgment (also known as result-oriented moral judgment, i.e. acceptance of harm that can bring potential benefits) and moral judgment (or obligation moral judgment). That is to say, the injury is condemned regardless of whether the harm is beneficial or not. Previous studies have shown that moral judgment stems from the emotional reaction of people to harm, while utilitarian judgment results from rational consideration of benefits over losses. But is moral judgment the result of emotional reaction at any time and utilitarian judgment the result of rational weighing of pros and cons? When you look at the problem from an adjustable orientation perspective, the result may be different. The research shows that the individuals who promote orientation tend to make utilitarian judgments in the face of the dilemma of moral dilemma, while individuals who defend the orientation tend to make moral judgments; And the individuals who promote the orientation prefer to use intuitionistic heuristic strategy when making decision or judgment, but the individual preference of defensive orientation is to use rational analytical reasoning strategy. Adopting a more defensive state increases the attention of individuals to the accepted criteria for adhering to acceptable behavior, which also makes individuals rely less on their intuitive experience in shaping their judgments. It is worth considering that if moral judgment is the result of emotional response then the defensive oriented individual who prefers rational analysis will not be inclined to make moral judgment and promote orientation. So does this mean that there may be non-emotional factors in moral judgment? This is very possible, and the reason why the subjects with different regulation orientation have different moral judgment orientation may be that they prefer different decision strategies in moral judgment (this question will be discussed in experiment 1). Therefore, if the subjects with different regulation orientation adopt their preferred strategy to judge, it is very likely that the adjustment matching effect will occur. So what is the mechanism for regulating the matching effect (which will be discussed in experiment 2)? The results show that adjusting orientation does affect moral judgment: subjects who promote orientation tend to make more utilitarian judgments, those who defend orientation tend to make more moral judgments. Moreover, the difference in orientation is not caused by the difference in emotional intensity, but probably due to the different strategies (intuitive strategy and rational strategy) used by the subjects who regulate the orientation. Furthermore, when adjusting orientation and decision strategy form a regulatory matching, it is found that the subjects are more moral than those in the state of mismatch. It shows that promoting orientation is a preference to use intuitive strategy, while defensive orientation does prefer to use rational strategy, which further proves that correct sense plays a complete intermediary role between adjusting matching and moral judgment.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B842
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前3条
1 胡笑羽;方平;叶宝娟;;熟悉情境下文理大学生风险决策的框架效应[J];前沿;2013年02期
2 汪玲;林晖芸;逄晓鸣;;特质性与情境性调节定向匹配效应的一致性[J];心理学报;2011年05期
3 姚琦;乐国安;伍承聪;李燕飞;陈晨;;调节定向的测量维度及其问卷的信度和效度检验[J];应用心理学;2008年04期
相关硕士学位论文 前5条
1 龙雅姿;调节定向与结果框架对道德判断的影响[D];湖南师范大学;2016年
2 王珍;解释水平对道德判断的影响[D];河南大学;2013年
3 邱永娟;消费者调节性匹配及卷入程度对广告说服效果的影响[D];暨南大学;2011年
4 张博;正确感和错误感对判断任务的影响[D];吉林大学;2010年
5 舒首立;时间距离对道德判断和道德行为意向的影响[D];西南大学;2011年
，本文编号：2352924
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/xinlixingwei/2352924.html
