极端的时间压力揭示了牺牲困境中的功利主义直觉

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2019.1679665
A. Rosas, David Aguilar-Pardo
{"title":"极端的时间压力揭示了牺牲困境中的功利主义直觉","authors":"A. Rosas, David Aguilar-Pardo","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2019.1679665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The mainstream version of the dual-process model of moral cognition claims that utilitarian responses (URs) to sacrificial moral dilemmas are the outputs of controlled cognitive processes. This version predicts that interfering with cognitive resources should elicit more intuitive-deontological responses. Attempts in the literature to experimentally confirm this prediction have been inconclusive. Some experiments partially confirm the prediction, but others suggest that URs are slightly favoured in the time-pressure condition. We present a sequence of four studies with the same background design (total N = 2261) implementing extreme time-pressure. Our data consistently suggest that time-pressure increases URs. The effect is small, but the trend is stable. When confronted with sacrificial dilemmas, our samples slightly favour URs under time pressure. Models of moral cognition should be prepared to include both deontological and utilitarian intuitions as part of the basic structure of moral processing.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"114 1","pages":"534 - 551"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extreme time-pressure reveals utilitarian intuitions in sacrificial dilemmas\",\"authors\":\"A. Rosas, David Aguilar-Pardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2019.1679665\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The mainstream version of the dual-process model of moral cognition claims that utilitarian responses (URs) to sacrificial moral dilemmas are the outputs of controlled cognitive processes. This version predicts that interfering with cognitive resources should elicit more intuitive-deontological responses. Attempts in the literature to experimentally confirm this prediction have been inconclusive. Some experiments partially confirm the prediction, but others suggest that URs are slightly favoured in the time-pressure condition. We present a sequence of four studies with the same background design (total N = 2261) implementing extreme time-pressure. Our data consistently suggest that time-pressure increases URs. The effect is small, but the trend is stable. When confronted with sacrificial dilemmas, our samples slightly favour URs under time pressure. Models of moral cognition should be prepared to include both deontological and utilitarian intuitions as part of the basic structure of moral processing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"534 - 551\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1679665\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1679665","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

道德认知双过程模型的主流版本认为,对牺牲性道德困境的功利反应是受控制的认知过程的输出。这个版本预测,对认知资源的干扰应该会引发更多的直觉道义反应。文献中试图通过实验证实这一预测的尝试一直没有定论。一些实验部分证实了这一预测,但另一些实验表明,URs在时间压力条件下略微有利。我们提出了具有相同背景设计的四项研究序列(总N = 2261),实施极端时间压力。我们的数据一致表明,时间压力会增加尿潴留。影响虽小,但趋势稳定。当面临牺牲困境时,我们的样本在时间压力下略微倾向于URs。道德认知模型应该准备好将义务论和功利主义直觉作为道德加工基本结构的一部分。
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
Extreme time-pressure reveals utilitarian intuitions in sacrificial dilemmas
Abstract The mainstream version of the dual-process model of moral cognition claims that utilitarian responses (URs) to sacrificial moral dilemmas are the outputs of controlled cognitive processes. This version predicts that interfering with cognitive resources should elicit more intuitive-deontological responses. Attempts in the literature to experimentally confirm this prediction have been inconclusive. Some experiments partially confirm the prediction, but others suggest that URs are slightly favoured in the time-pressure condition. We present a sequence of four studies with the same background design (total N = 2261) implementing extreme time-pressure. Our data consistently suggest that time-pressure increases URs. The effect is small, but the trend is stable. When confronted with sacrificial dilemmas, our samples slightly favour URs under time pressure. Models of moral cognition should be prepared to include both deontological and utilitarian intuitions as part of the basic structure of moral processing.
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
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