Adolescents Are More Utilitarian Than Adults in Group Moral Decision-Making.

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY PsyCh journal Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1002/pchj.821
Yingying Jiang, Weiwei Zhang, Yingjia Wan, Michaela Gummerum, Liqi Zhu
{"title":"Adolescents Are More Utilitarian Than Adults in Group Moral Decision-Making.","authors":"Yingying Jiang, Weiwei Zhang, Yingjia Wan, Michaela Gummerum, Liqi Zhu","doi":"10.1002/pchj.821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explores how peers influence the moral decisions of Chinese adolescents (12- to 16-year-olds, M<sub>age</sub> = 14.32, n = 84) and young adults (18- to 26-year-olds, M<sub>age</sub> = 20.92, n = 99) in moral dilemmas. Participants were asked to make moral decisions individually and then collectively within groups of three to reach a consensus in Trolly dilemma and Footbridge dilemma. They were also required to evaluate the degree to which they felt their decisions were moral. Results showed that adolescents tended to choose \"action\" (pull the lever in Trolly dilemma, or push the man in Footbridge dilemma) more than adults, and evaluate their \"no action\" choice as more immoral than young adults across both individual and group settings. Adolescents showed consistent decision-making patterns regardless of whether decisions were made individually or collectively, while adults were more likely to choose \"no action\" in group decision-making. Our results suggest that adolescents are more utilitarian than young adults when making decisions in moral dilemmas, compared to young adults. Young adults are less likely to make utilitarian choices when they are in groups than when they make decisions individually.</p>","PeriodicalId":20804,"journal":{"name":"PsyCh journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PsyCh journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.821","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores how peers influence the moral decisions of Chinese adolescents (12- to 16-year-olds, Mage = 14.32, n = 84) and young adults (18- to 26-year-olds, Mage = 20.92, n = 99) in moral dilemmas. Participants were asked to make moral decisions individually and then collectively within groups of three to reach a consensus in Trolly dilemma and Footbridge dilemma. They were also required to evaluate the degree to which they felt their decisions were moral. Results showed that adolescents tended to choose "action" (pull the lever in Trolly dilemma, or push the man in Footbridge dilemma) more than adults, and evaluate their "no action" choice as more immoral than young adults across both individual and group settings. Adolescents showed consistent decision-making patterns regardless of whether decisions were made individually or collectively, while adults were more likely to choose "no action" in group decision-making. Our results suggest that adolescents are more utilitarian than young adults when making decisions in moral dilemmas, compared to young adults. Young adults are less likely to make utilitarian choices when they are in groups than when they make decisions individually.

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
青少年群体道德决策的功利性高于成人。
本研究探讨了中国青少年(12- 16岁,Mage = 14.32, n = 84)和青年(18- 26岁,Mage = 20.92, n = 99)在道德困境中的道德决策。在电车困境和人行桥困境中,参与者被要求单独做出道德决定,然后三人一组共同做出道德决定。他们还被要求评估他们认为自己的决定在多大程度上是道德的。结果表明,青少年比成年人更倾向于选择“行动”(在有轨电车困境中拉动杠杆,或在人行桥困境中推人),并且在个人和群体环境中,青少年比年轻人更倾向于认为他们的“不行动”选择是不道德的。无论是个人决策还是集体决策,青少年都表现出一致的决策模式,而成年人在群体决策中更倾向于选择“不采取行动”。我们的研究结果表明,与年轻人相比,青少年在道德困境中做出决定时比年轻人更功利。与单独做决定相比,年轻人在群体中做出功利选择的可能性更小。
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
PsyCh journal
PsyCh journal PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: PsyCh Journal, China''s first international psychology journal, publishes peer‑reviewed research articles, research reports and integrated research reviews spanning the entire spectrum of scientific psychology and its applications. PsyCh Journal is the flagship journal of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences – the only national psychology research institute in China – and reflects the high research standards of the nation. Launched in 2012, PsyCh Journal is devoted to the publication of advanced research exploring basic mechanisms of the human mind and behavior, and delivering scientific knowledge to enhance understanding of culture and society. Towards that broader goal, the Journal will provide a forum for academic exchange and a “knowledge bridge” between China and the World by showcasing high-quality, cutting-edge research related to the science and practice of psychology both within and outside of China. PsyCh Journal features original articles of both empirical and theoretical research in scientific psychology and interdisciplinary sciences, across all levels, from molecular, cellular and system, to individual, group and society. The Journal also publishes evaluative and integrative review papers on any significant research contribution in any area of scientific psychology
期刊最新文献
Mothers' and Fathers' Experiences of Family Relations and Parenting During the First Year of Parenthood. Characterizing the Profile of Anhedonia in Individuals With Schizotypal Traits, Subthreshold Depression and Autistic Traits. Attentional Rhythms Are Sensitive to Binocular Visual Pathway. Effect and Mechanism of an ACT-Based Psychological Resilience Intervention Targeting Students Failing in Postgraduate Entrance Examinations in China: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Adolescents Are More Utilitarian Than Adults in Group Moral Decision-Making.
×
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