Moral preferences in helping dilemmas expressed by matching and forced choice
Moral preferences in helping dilemmas expressed by matching and forced choice
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s1930297500007427
复制
发表时间：
2020-07
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Arvid Erlandsson;A. Lindkvist;Kajsa Lundqvist;Per A. Andersson;Stephan Dickert;P. Slovic;D. Västfjäll
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arvid Erlandsson;A. Lindkvist;Kajsa Lundqvist;Per A. Andersson;Stephan Dickert;P. Slovic;D. Västfjäll
本文询问在八种医疗困境中的道德偏好是否会随着偏好的表达方式而改变，以及当人们面对两个同样有吸引力的帮助项目时，他们会如何选择。在两项大规模的研究中，参与者首先阅读困境，他们“匹配”了两个建议的帮助项目（在一个属性上有所不同），这样它们就变得同样有吸引力。他们通过填写一个缺失的数字（例如，M项目必须拯救多少男性患者，才能与F项目一样吸引人，而F项目可以拯救100名女性患者）来做到这一点。之后，同样的参与者被要求在两个同样吸引人的项目中做出选择。我们发现有力的证据表明，人们不是随机选择的，而是倾向于选择那些帮助女性（vs.男性）、儿童（vs.成人）、无辜（vs.非无辜）、内部群体（vs.外部群体）和现有（vs.未来）患者的项目，并且意味着没有（vs.一些）有害副作用的风险，即使这些项目与对照项目一样有吸引力，拯救的患者也更少。我们还发现，当用匹配来表达时，一些道德偏好是隐藏的，而当用强迫选择来表达时，一些道德偏好是明显的。例如，88-95%的参与者在做配对任务时表示女性和男性患者同等重要，但超过80%的参与者在选择任务中帮助女性患者。
This paper asks whether moral preferences in eight medical dilemmas change as a function of how preferences are expressed, and how people choose when they are faced with two equally attractive help projects. In two large-scale studies, participants first read dilemmas where they “matched” two suggested helping projects (which varied on a single attribute) so that they became equally attractive. They did this by filling in a missing number (e.g., how many male patients must Project M save in order to be equally attractive as Project F which can save 100 female patients). Later, the same participants were asked to choose between the two equally attractive projects. We found robust evidence that people do not choose randomly, but instead tend to choose projects that help female (vs. male), children (vs. adult), innocent (vs. non-innocent), ingroup (vs. outgroup) and existing (vs. future) patients, and imply no (vs. some) risk of a harmful side-effect, even when these projects have been matched as equally attractive as, and save fewer patients than the contrasting project. We also found that some moral preferences are hidden when expressed with matching but apparent when expressed with forced choice. For example, 88–95% of the participants expressed that female and male patients are equally valuable when doing the matching task, but over 80% of them helped female patients in the choice task.