Being blind (or not) to scenarios used in sacrificial dilemmas: the influence of factual and contextual information on moral responses.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Frontiers in Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1477825
Robin Carron, Emmanuelle Brigaud, Royce Anders, Nathalie Blanc
{"title":"Being blind (or not) to scenarios used in sacrificial dilemmas: the influence of factual and contextual information on moral responses.","authors":"Robin Carron, Emmanuelle Brigaud, Royce Anders, Nathalie Blanc","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1477825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traditionally, human morality has been largely studied with classical sacrificial dilemmas. A way to advance current understandings of moral judgment and decision-making may involve testing the impact of contexts that are made available to individuals presented with these archetypal dilemmas. This preliminary study focused on assessing whether the availability of factual and contextual information delivered through classical scenarios would change moral responses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 334 participants were presented with sacrificial dilemmas either with a scenario or without a scenario before performing two moral tasks: one consisted in moral judgment (e.g., <i>is it acceptable to sacrifice one person to save five?</i>) and one was related to choice of action (e.g., <i>would you sacrifice one person to save five?</i>). In the condition with a scenario, participants were presented with a story describing the dilemma, its protagonists, their roles, the location and some background details of the situation, before answering to the two moral tasks. In the condition without a scenario, participants were only asked to perform the two moral tasks without any additional contextual elements usually provided by the scenario. Participants' emotions were also measured before and after completing the two moral tasks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated that the presence of a scenario did not affect moral judgments. However, the presence of a scenario significantly increased utilitarian action choices (i.e., sacrificing one person in the interest of saving a greater number) and this effect was partially mediated by an increase in the perceived plausibility of the sacrificial action. Regarding emotional reaction to dilemmas, no differences were observed between the two conditions, suggesting that emotions are mainly based on the two moral tasks.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These findings underscore the value of carefully considering the role of factual and contextual information provided by the scenarios in moral dilemmas.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1477825"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11551016/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1477825","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Traditionally, human morality has been largely studied with classical sacrificial dilemmas. A way to advance current understandings of moral judgment and decision-making may involve testing the impact of contexts that are made available to individuals presented with these archetypal dilemmas. This preliminary study focused on assessing whether the availability of factual and contextual information delivered through classical scenarios would change moral responses.

Method: A total of 334 participants were presented with sacrificial dilemmas either with a scenario or without a scenario before performing two moral tasks: one consisted in moral judgment (e.g., is it acceptable to sacrifice one person to save five?) and one was related to choice of action (e.g., would you sacrifice one person to save five?). In the condition with a scenario, participants were presented with a story describing the dilemma, its protagonists, their roles, the location and some background details of the situation, before answering to the two moral tasks. In the condition without a scenario, participants were only asked to perform the two moral tasks without any additional contextual elements usually provided by the scenario. Participants' emotions were also measured before and after completing the two moral tasks.

Results: The results indicated that the presence of a scenario did not affect moral judgments. However, the presence of a scenario significantly increased utilitarian action choices (i.e., sacrificing one person in the interest of saving a greater number) and this effect was partially mediated by an increase in the perceived plausibility of the sacrificial action. Regarding emotional reaction to dilemmas, no differences were observed between the two conditions, suggesting that emotions are mainly based on the two moral tasks.

Discussion: These findings underscore the value of carefully considering the role of factual and contextual information provided by the scenarios in moral dilemmas.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对牺牲困境中使用的情景视而不见(或视而不见):事实和背景信息对道德反应的影响。
简介传统上,人类道德主要是通过经典的牺牲困境来研究的。要推进当前对道德判断和决策的理解,可能需要测试向面临这些原型困境的个体提供的情境所产生的影响。这项初步研究的重点是评估通过经典情景提供的事实和背景信息是否会改变道德反应:共有 334 名参与者在完成两项道德任务之前,分别接受了有情景或无情景的牺牲困境:一项任务包括道德判断(例如,牺牲一个人救五个人是否可以接受?),另一项任务则与行动选择有关(例如,你会牺牲一个人救五个人吗?)在有情景的条件下,参与者在回答两个道德任务之前,会先看到一个故事,描述困境、主角、他们的角色、地点和一些背景细节。在无情景条件下,参与者只被要求完成两项道德任务,而没有通常由情景提供的任何额外的背景元素。在完成两项道德任务前后,还对参与者的情绪进行了测量:结果表明,情景的存在并不影响道德判断。然而,情景的出现明显增加了功利性行动选择(即为了拯救更多的人而牺牲一个人),而这种影响部分是由牺牲行动的可感知合理性的增加所中介的。关于对困境的情绪反应,在两种条件下没有观察到差异,这表明情绪主要基于两种道德任务:这些发现强调了仔细考虑道德两难情景所提供的事实和背景信息的作用的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.20%
发文量
7396
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.
期刊最新文献
Capturing spontaneous interactivity: a multi-measure approach to analyzing the dynamics of interpersonal coordination in dance improvisation. Editorial: Animacy in cognition: effects, mechanisms, and theories. Social and ethical impact of emotional AI advancement: the rise of pseudo-intimacy relationships and challenges in human interactions. The relationship between distress tolerance and life satisfaction among young adults in Saudi Arabia. The role of information and participation in overcoming users' initial reluctance: a case study of a decentralized wastewater treatment plant.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1