幻想情境对道德行为和道德判断的影响

Brian Ruedinger, J. Barnes
{"title":"幻想情境对道德行为和道德判断的影响","authors":"Brian Ruedinger, J. Barnes","doi":"10.1177/02762366211019782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research suggests individuals import real-world facts into fictional worlds based on the type of fact and fictional context. We examined the importation of real-world morality across fictional contexts. Undergraduate (Study 1) and MTurk (Study 2) participants were randomly assigned to read either a realistic or matching fantastical interactive narrative. At seven junctions, participants were presented with a choice between behaving morally and behaving immorally to advance their goals. In Study 3, an MTurk sample judged the actions of a character who behaved immorally. For Study 1, a gender by condition interaction was found, with males electing more immoral actions in the fantasy condition. For Study 2, no such effect was found. Nonetheless, in Study 3, participants judged immoral actions in the realistic condition as more immoral compared to the fantasy context. Across all studies, transportation predicted choosing fewer immoral actions and judging immoral actions more harshly.","PeriodicalId":89150,"journal":{"name":"Imagination, cognition and personality","volume":"41 1","pages":"245 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02762366211019782","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Fantasy Context on Moral Action and Judgment\",\"authors\":\"Brian Ruedinger, J. Barnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02762366211019782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research suggests individuals import real-world facts into fictional worlds based on the type of fact and fictional context. We examined the importation of real-world morality across fictional contexts. Undergraduate (Study 1) and MTurk (Study 2) participants were randomly assigned to read either a realistic or matching fantastical interactive narrative. At seven junctions, participants were presented with a choice between behaving morally and behaving immorally to advance their goals. In Study 3, an MTurk sample judged the actions of a character who behaved immorally. For Study 1, a gender by condition interaction was found, with males electing more immoral actions in the fantasy condition. For Study 2, no such effect was found. Nonetheless, in Study 3, participants judged immoral actions in the realistic condition as more immoral compared to the fantasy context. Across all studies, transportation predicted choosing fewer immoral actions and judging immoral actions more harshly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Imagination, cognition and personality\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"245 - 273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02762366211019782\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Imagination, cognition and personality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211019782\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imagination, cognition and personality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211019782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究表明,个人根据事实类型和虚构背景将真实世界的事实导入虚构世界。我们研究了现实世界道德在虚构环境中的输入。本科生(研究1)和MTurk(研究2)的参与者被随机分配阅读现实或匹配的幻想互动叙事。在七个路口,参与者被要求在道德行为和不道德行为之间做出选择,以推进他们的目标。在研究3中,一个MTurk样本判断了一个行为不道德的角色的行为。在研究1中,发现了一种按条件的性别互动,男性在幻想条件下选择了更多不道德的行为。对于研究2,未发现此类影响。尽管如此,在研究3中,与幻想环境相比,参与者认为现实条件下的不道德行为更不道德。在所有研究中,交通预测选择更少的不道德行为,对不道德行为的评判更严厉。
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 Effect of Fantasy Context on Moral Action and Judgment
Research suggests individuals import real-world facts into fictional worlds based on the type of fact and fictional context. We examined the importation of real-world morality across fictional contexts. Undergraduate (Study 1) and MTurk (Study 2) participants were randomly assigned to read either a realistic or matching fantastical interactive narrative. At seven junctions, participants were presented with a choice between behaving morally and behaving immorally to advance their goals. In Study 3, an MTurk sample judged the actions of a character who behaved immorally. For Study 1, a gender by condition interaction was found, with males electing more immoral actions in the fantasy condition. For Study 2, no such effect was found. Nonetheless, in Study 3, participants judged immoral actions in the realistic condition as more immoral compared to the fantasy context. Across all studies, transportation predicted choosing fewer immoral actions and judging immoral actions more harshly.
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
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recommended for You: Explicit Motivations and Recommender Systems Influence Users’ Media Engagement and Well-Being Trending Now: Implicit Factors Influence Users’ Online Audiovisual Media Motivations and Engagement Design, validation and performance of aspartate aminotransferase- and lactate dehydrogenase-reporting algorithms for haemolysed specimens including correction within quality specifications. Continuity Between Waking Life and Dreaming: A Research Note and Study in Adolescents Measuring the Mediated Imagined Interaction Hypothesis: Scale Development
×
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