What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500009062
J. Landy, Pritik A. Shah
{"title":"What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative\n judgments","authors":"J. Landy, Pritik A. Shah","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The act of suicide is commonly viewed as wrong in some sense, but it is\n not clear why this is. Based on past empirical research and philosophical\n theorizing, we test ten different explanations for why suicide is opposed on\n normative grounds. Using a within-subjects design, Study 1 showed that seven\n out of ten manipulations had significant effects on normative judgments of\n suicide: time left to live, lack of close social relationships, a history of\n prior immoral behavior, the manner in which the suicide is committed,\n painful, incurable medical issues, impulsive decision-making, and the\n actor’s own moral-religious background. However, in all cases, the act of\n suicide was still considered wrong, overall. Using a between-subjects\n design, Study 2 tested the combined effect of the seven significant\n manipulations from Study 1. In combination, the seven manipulations\n eliminated opposition to suicide, on average. Implications for moral\n psychology and suicide prevention are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The act of suicide is commonly viewed as wrong in some sense, but it is not clear why this is. Based on past empirical research and philosophical theorizing, we test ten different explanations for why suicide is opposed on normative grounds. Using a within-subjects design, Study 1 showed that seven out of ten manipulations had significant effects on normative judgments of suicide: time left to live, lack of close social relationships, a history of prior immoral behavior, the manner in which the suicide is committed, painful, incurable medical issues, impulsive decision-making, and the actor’s own moral-religious background. However, in all cases, the act of suicide was still considered wrong, overall. Using a between-subjects design, Study 2 tested the combined effect of the seven significant manipulations from Study 1. In combination, the seven manipulations eliminated opposition to suicide, on average. Implications for moral psychology and suicide prevention are discussed.
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
是什么驱使人们反对自杀?规范性判断的两个探索性研究
自杀行为在某种意义上通常被认为是错误的,但原因尚不清楚。基于过去的实证研究和哲学理论,我们测试了十种不同的解释,解释为什么自杀在规范的基础上被反对。通过受试者内部设计,研究1表明,十分之七的操作对自杀的规范性判断有显著影响:剩余的生存时间、缺乏亲密的社会关系、既往不道德行为史、自杀方式、痛苦的、无法治愈的医疗问题、冲动的决策以及演员自己的道德宗教背景。然而,在所有情况下,自杀行为总体上仍然被认为是错误的。研究2采用受试者之间的设计,测试了研究1中七种重要操作的综合效果。综合起来,这七种操作平均消除了对自杀的反对。讨论了对道德心理学和自杀预防的启示。
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
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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