推理、自闭症和亚历山大特质在道德判断中的关系

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112889
Sureish Mantchala , Corentin J. Gosling , Bastien Trémolière , Sylvain Moutier
{"title":"推理、自闭症和亚历山大特质在道德判断中的关系","authors":"Sureish Mantchala ,&nbsp;Corentin J. Gosling ,&nbsp;Bastien Trémolière ,&nbsp;Sylvain Moutier","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The present research investigated whether individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) present with specificities of moral reasoning. Some previous exploratory studies have assessed the differences in moral judgment between ASD and control participants, but results were mixed. The present study aimed to quantify such differences using a larger sample and a standard moral task built upon the new CNI (Consequences, Norms and Generalized Inaction) model of moral judgment that resolves multiple confounds in the measurement of moral judgments. A total of 148 adults with ASD and 151 controls completed 24 sacrificial dilemmas from the CNI battery, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Task. We did not find any differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants, and this pattern was consistent for all the CNI parameters. Equivalence tests revealed that it can be safely excluded that our study missed medium to large differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants when assessed using sacrificial dilemmas. Additional data quality checks allow to rule out the possibility that the small differences in moral judgments between the groups are due to poor data quality. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"233 ","pages":"Article 112889"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relationship between reasoning, autistic and alexithymic traits in moral judgments\",\"authors\":\"Sureish Mantchala ,&nbsp;Corentin J. Gosling ,&nbsp;Bastien Trémolière ,&nbsp;Sylvain Moutier\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The present research investigated whether individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) present with specificities of moral reasoning. Some previous exploratory studies have assessed the differences in moral judgment between ASD and control participants, but results were mixed. The present study aimed to quantify such differences using a larger sample and a standard moral task built upon the new CNI (Consequences, Norms and Generalized Inaction) model of moral judgment that resolves multiple confounds in the measurement of moral judgments. A total of 148 adults with ASD and 151 controls completed 24 sacrificial dilemmas from the CNI battery, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Task. We did not find any differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants, and this pattern was consistent for all the CNI parameters. Equivalence tests revealed that it can be safely excluded that our study missed medium to large differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants when assessed using sacrificial dilemmas. Additional data quality checks allow to rule out the possibility that the small differences in moral judgments between the groups are due to poor data quality. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\"233 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112889\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924003490\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924003490","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)患者是否具有道德推理的特殊性。之前的一些探索性研究评估了自闭症患者与对照组参与者在道德判断方面的差异,但结果不一。本研究旨在使用更大的样本和标准道德任务来量化这种差异,该任务建立在新的道德判断 CNI(后果、规范和普遍不作为)模型基础上,该模型解决了道德判断测量中的多种混淆因素。共有 148 名患有自闭症的成人和 151 名对照组成人完成了 CNI 中的 24 个牺牲窘境、多伦多 Alexithymia 量表和认知反思任务。我们没有发现 ASD 参与者和对照组参与者在道德判断方面存在任何差异,而且这种模式在所有 CNI 参数中都是一致的。等效性测试表明,我们的研究可以安全地排除在使用牺牲性困境进行评估时,ASD 和对照组参与者在道德判断方面存在中度到高度差异的可能性。额外的数据质量检查也排除了因数据质量不佳而导致两组间道德判断存在微小差异的可能性。本文讨论了这些发现的意义和未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Relationship between reasoning, autistic and alexithymic traits in moral judgments
The present research investigated whether individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) present with specificities of moral reasoning. Some previous exploratory studies have assessed the differences in moral judgment between ASD and control participants, but results were mixed. The present study aimed to quantify such differences using a larger sample and a standard moral task built upon the new CNI (Consequences, Norms and Generalized Inaction) model of moral judgment that resolves multiple confounds in the measurement of moral judgments. A total of 148 adults with ASD and 151 controls completed 24 sacrificial dilemmas from the CNI battery, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Task. We did not find any differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants, and this pattern was consistent for all the CNI parameters. Equivalence tests revealed that it can be safely excluded that our study missed medium to large differences in moral judgments between ASD and control participants when assessed using sacrificial dilemmas. Additional data quality checks allow to rule out the possibility that the small differences in moral judgments between the groups are due to poor data quality. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
期刊最新文献
The Golden Mean Inventory: A new approach to studying character strengths imbalances across contexts Inside Front Cover - Ed. Board, Aims and Scope, Copyright, Publication information, Orders and Claims, Advertising information, Author inquiries, Permissions, Funding body, Permanence of paper, Impressum (German titles only) and GFA link in double column ISSID Pages The number of exceptional people: Fewer than 85 per 1 million across key traits Priming moral self-ambivalence facilitates cognitive flexibility in young adults
×
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