Conflicting influences of justice motivations on moral judgments.
Conflicting influences of justice motivations on moral judgments.
复制标题
正义动机对道德判断的相互冲突的影响。
DOI：
10.1080/02699931.2019.1669536
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Decety,Jean
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yoder,KeithJ;Decety,Jean
人类的动机是正义的关注，但在他们的反应不同观察或经历不公正。在一个接近的水平上，接近和回避代表了核心的基本动机系统，这些系统被认为涉及两个独立的道德系统：一个是对义务（“应该”）的规定性系统，另一个是与禁止（“不应该”）有关的禁止性系统。目前还不清楚这些动机系统或个人参与是否能更好地解释正义倾向对道德判断的影响。为了澄清这一理论论点，两个实验研究了如何处置自我导向和其他导向的正义敏感性影响谴责规定性和禁止性的侵犯，同时操纵的角度之间的主题或主题内。参与者从受害者或中立观察者的角度对日常道德违规的允许性进行评级。在研究1（n= 235）中，自我导向的性格增加和其他导向的性格降低的概率评级规定的违规行为是允许的。研究2（n= 468）复制了其他导向的公正敏感性的影响。总的来说，这些结果弥合了动机系统和自我-他人加工之间的差距。他们认为，正义的敏感性是更好的概念化作为不同的动机，可以施加相反的影响道德决策。此外，在解释日常道德决策时，个人参与可能不如个人正义动机重要。
Humans are motivated by justice concerns, yet vary in their reactions to observing or experiencing injustice. At a proximate level, approach and avoidance represent core fundamental motivational systems which have been proposed to be involved in two independent moral systems: a prescriptive system responsive to obligations (“shoulds”) and a proscriptive system concerned with prohibitions (“should nots”). It is unclear whether these motivational systems or personal involvement better explain the influence of justice dispositions on moral judgments. To clarify this theoretical argument, two experiments examined how dispositional self-oriented and other-oriented justice sensitivity influence condemnation of prescriptive and proscriptive violations while manipulating perspective between-subject or within-subject. Participants rated the permissibility of everyday moral transgressions, from the perspective of the victim or a neutral observer. In Study 1 (n= 235), self-oriented dispositions increased and other-oriented dispositions decreased the probability of rating prescriptive violations as permissible. Study 2 (n= 468) replicated the effect of other-oriented justice sensitivity. Overall, these results bridge the gap between motivational systems and self-other processing. They suggest that justice sensitivity is better conceptualised as distinct motivations which can exert opposing influences on moral decision-making. Moreover, personal involvement may not be as important as individual justice motivations for explaining everyday moral decision-making.