诚实的认知动态:冲突水平差异如何影响伦理决策

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-07 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141
Jing Liang , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , Wen-Jing Yan
{"title":"诚实的认知动态:冲突水平差异如何影响伦理决策","authors":"Jing Liang ,&nbsp;Jun Qian ,&nbsp;Ya-Jing Zhang ,&nbsp;Wang-Cheng Cen ,&nbsp;Wen-Jing Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (<em>F</em> (6, 288) = 6.96, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01 or <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (<em>r</em> = −0.77, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"240 ","pages":"Article 113141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Jing Liang ,&nbsp;Jun Qian ,&nbsp;Ya-Jing Zhang ,&nbsp;Wang-Cheng Cen ,&nbsp;Wen-Jing Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (<em>F</em> (6, 288) = 6.96, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01 or <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (<em>r</em> = −0.77, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\"240 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"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/S0191886925001035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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/S0191886925001035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于道德决策的研究争论诚实是直觉还是控制。最近的研究提出了内化策略,表明诚实和不诚实反应的个体倾向差异。本研究考察了冲突水平的差异如何影响具有不同内化策略的人在道德决策中的RTs。所有128名参与者(诚实者、偶尔作弊者和经常作弊者)都完成了测量不道德行为的视觉感知任务(七个差异水平)。偶尔作弊者在冲突条件下表现出显著不同的RTs (F (6, 288) = 6.96, p <;0.001),最大的差异导致更长的时间(平均差异从36.84到47.82 ms, p <;0.01或p <;0.001)。诚实的参与者和经常作弊的参与者在冲突的不同程度上没有显着差异。对于频繁作弊者,平均RTs差异(冲突减去非冲突条件)与作弊频率之间存在显著负相关(r = - 0.77, p <;0.001),而偶尔作弊者表现出显著的正相关(r = 0.60, p <;0.001)。研究表明,道德冲突对决策的影响取决于个体的内化策略。这些发现为道德决策提供了一个细致入微的视角,挑战了简单的模型,并提出了促进道德行为的个性化方法。
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
The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making
Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (F (6, 288) = 6.96, p < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (r = −0.77, p < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.
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
Dark Triad traits across sex and sexual orientation: Evidence from Brazil Technical comment on Ručević, S., & Antunović, J. (2026). Behind the mask of love: Associations among dark triad traits, attachment avoidance and anxiety, romantic beliefs, and intimacy expectations. Personality and Individual Differences, 255, 113692 Is the general factor of interests related to acquiescence? Using reverse-worded items to account for response bias From identification with a violent game character to aggression: The role of perceptual sensitivity of emotions, childhood trauma and antisociality domains Step by step: How emotion regulation strategies follow one another
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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