«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《心理学探新》[ISSN:1003-5184/CN:36-1228/B]

期数:

 2018年01期

页码:

 42-48

栏目:

 认知心理学

出版日期:

 2018-01-15

文章信息/Info

Title:

 Framing Effects within Moral Judgments:A New Perspective

文章编号:

1003-5184(2018)01-0042-07

作者:

 梁凤华¹; 段锦云²

 1.上饶师范学院教育科学学院,上饶 334001; 2.苏州大学心理学系, 教育部人文社科重点研究基地-苏州大学中国特色城镇化研究中心,苏州 215123

Author(s):

 Liang Fenghua¹; Duan Jinyun²

 1.School of Education Sciences,ShangRao Normal University,Shangrao 334001; 2.Department of Psychology,Key Research Institute of Education Ministry-Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies,Soochow University,Suzhou 215123

关键词:

 道德判断;  框架效应;  亚洲疾病情境;  工厂风波情境

Keywords:

 Key words:moral judgment;  framing effects;  Asia disease situation;  factory storm situation

分类号:

 B842.5

DOI:

 -

文献标识码:

 A

摘要:

 道德领域亦存在框架效应,但有关这类偏差的研究仍然存在不足。研究以600名大学生为对象,以亚洲疾病和工厂风波两类经典情境为实验情境,设置正面和负面两类属性框架,以研究道德判断的框架效应。结果发现,在面临道德判断情境时,在正面框架下被试倾向于选择确定性方案,而在负面框架下被试倾向于选择风险性方案; 在正面框架下被试倾向于评价风险性方案更违背道德,在负面框架下则认为确定性方案更违背道德; 被试对情境中人物选择确定性或风险性方案道德之可谴责性评价与确定性或风险性方案本身之道德违背性评价的判断并不一致:在正面框架下,若情境中人物选择风险性方案,被试认为其行为更应受到谴责; 但在负面框架下,被试对情境中人物选择确定性方案和风险性方案在道德上应受谴责性的评价并无显著差异。研究还发现道德判断框架效应存在性别差异,负面框架下女生更为风险寻求。

Abstract:

 Abstract:Framing Effects can be found in all kinds of human judgment and decision making areas,from medical choices to commercial decisions to gambling.Recent work in moral psychology suggests that moral judgments are influenced by factors most people would deem irrelevant,such as wording effect,in which hypothetical moral scenarios are presented.But studies of moral judgment influenced by framing effects are still inadequate.To narrow down the research gaps,two scenarios were used to investigate how moral judgments are affected by positive and negative frames.The main object of the study was to explore how different description of the same moral scenarios impact individual's moral judgment,individual's evaluating of the blamable of the choice of the scenario's protagonist and the gender differences about the framing effects of moral judgment.The used two scenarios were classic Asian disease and factory disturbance situation.The two scenarios were selected because they were belonged to true frame which defined by Frisch.The two scenarios were presented in positive or negative frame,after each scenario there were two solutions,certainty or risky solution,for subjects to choose.Then there were four questions for participants to answer.Using factory disturbance situation as an example,the four questions were:“Which solution would you like to choose?”,“Which solution do you think violates moral principle more badly?”,“Assuming that the workers have chosen plan A,do you think their behavior should be condemned?”,and “Assuming that the workers have chosen plan B,do you think their behavior should be condemned?”.The former two questions were answered according to two alternatives forced choice(plan A or B),the last two questions were answered through three Likert options(1=should not,2=not sure,3=ought to).600 college students were asked to decide which solution they would like to select,to judge which solution is worse from a moral point of view,and to decide which action is more blamable if the protagonist of the scenario had chosen certainty or risky solution.Results showed that when confronted with moral judgment situations,college students tend to choose certainty solution if the scenarios were presented in positive frame,and tend to choose risky solution if the scenarios were presented in negative frame.When the scenarios were presented in positive frame,subjects judged the risky solution was worse than the certainty solution.Whilst when the scenarios were presented in negative frame,subjects judged the certainty solution was worse than the risky solution.The judgments about the condemnable of the protagonist who had chosen the certainty or risky solution were different from the judgments of the violation of morality of the solution.When the scenarios were presented in positive frame,if the protagonist had chosen risky solution,his or her action was more blamable than if he or she had chosen certainty solution.But when the scenarios were presented in negative frame,subjects judged protagonist's risky solution as blamable as certainty solution.We also found that there were gender differences about the framing effects of moral judgment,females were more risk seeking than males in negative moral frame.

参考文献/References

 [1]段锦云,曹忠良,娄玮瑜.(2008).框架效应及其认知机制的研究进展.应用心理学,4,378-384.
[2]段锦云,卢志巍,张涵碧.(2016).权力感对风险决策框架效应的影响.心理科学,39(2),412-417.
[3]段锦云,朱月龙,陈婧.(2013).心理距离对风险决策框架效应的影响.心理科学,36(6),1404-1407.
[5]邓颖,徐富明,李欧,史燕伟,刘程浩.(2016).社会偏好中的框架效应.心理科学进展,24(4),622-632.
[6]王芃,王忠军,李松锴.(2013).好人也会做坏事:有限道德视角下的不道德行为.心理科学进展,21(8),1502-1511.
[7]钟毅平,陈海洪.(2013).心理距离对道德行为判断的影响.心理学探新,33(1),43-46.
[8]钟毅平,陈文龙.(2012).心理距离对不道德行为判断的影响.湖南师范大学(教育科学学报),11(2),96-99.
[9]Bocian,K.,& Wojciszke,B.(2014).Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others' actions.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,40(7),898-909.
[10]Demareecotton,J.(2014).Do framing effects make moral intuitions unreliable?Philosophical Psychology,29(1),1-22.
[11]Evans,N.,& Levinson,S.(2009).The myth of language universals:Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.Brain and Behavioral Sciences,32,429-448.
[12]Frisch,D.(1993).Reasons for framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,54(3),399-429.
[13]Greene,J.D.(2014).Beyond point-and-shoot morality:Why cognitive(neuro)science matters for ethics.Ethics,124(4),695-726.
[14]Haidt,J.,& Baron,J.(1996).Social roles and the moral judgment of acts and omissions.European Journal of Social Psychology,26,201-218.
[15]Huang,Y.,& Wang,L.(2010).Sex differences in framing effects across task domain.Personality & Individual Differences,48(5),649-653.
[16]Johnson,J.G.,Wilke,A.,& Weber,E.U.(2004).Beyond a trait view of risk taking:A domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions,expected benefits,and perceived-risk attitudes in german-speaking populations.Polish Psychological Bulletin,35(3),153-172.
[17]Lammers,J.,Stapel,D.A.,& Galinsky,A.D.(2010).Power increases hypocrisy:Moralizing in reasoning,immorality in behavior.Psychological Science,21(5),737-744.
[18]Petrinovich,L.,& O'Neill,P.(1996).Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions.Ethology & Sociobiology,17(3),145-171.
[19]Polman,E.,& Ruttan,R.L.(2012).Effects of anger,guilt,and envy on moral hypocrisy.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,38(1),129-139.
[20]Rai,T.,& Holyoak,K.(2010).Moral principles or consumer preferences?Alternative framings of the trolley problem.Cognitive Science,34,311-321.
[21]Reyna,V.F.,Chick,C.F.,Corbin,J.C.,& Hsia,A.N.(2013).Developmental reversals in risky decision making:Intelligence agents show larger decision biases than college students.Psychological Science,25(1),76-84.
[22]Sinott-Armstrong,W.(2008).Framing moral intuitions.In W.Sinott-Armstrong(Ed.),Moral psychology,Vol.2.The cognitive science of morality(pp.47-76).Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
[23]Tversky,A.,& Kahneman,D.(1981).The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211,453-458. Van Berkum,J.J.,Holleman,B.,Nieuwland,M.,Otten,M.,& Murre,J.(2009).Right or wrong?The brain's fast response to morally objectionable
[24]statements.Psychological Science,20(9),1092-1099. Wang,X.T.(1996).Framing effects:Dynamics and task domains.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,68(2),145-157.
[25]Weber,E.U.,Blais,A.R.,& Betz,N.E.(2002).A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,15(4),263-290.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

 基金项目:江西省人文社会科学项目(XL1521),江西省社会科学规划项目(17SH09)。 通讯作者:段锦云,E-mail:mgjyduan@hotmail.com。

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update:  2018-01-15