Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies
Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Conway, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Byrd, Nick;Conway, Paul
传统的牺牲道德困境建议直接造成一些伤害，以防止更大的伤害。理论表明，接受这样的行为（与功利主义哲学一致）比拒绝这样的行为（与义务论哲学一致）涉及更多的反思推理。然而，过去的研究结果并不总是重复，混淆了不同类型的反思，并采用传统的牺牲困境，将功利主义和义务论的考虑视为相反。在两项研究中，我们研究了当使用过程分离来独立评估义务论和功利主义倾向时，过去的发现是否会重复。研究结果表明，反思有两种截然不同的影响：算术反思的测量方法，如认知反思测试，只能预测功利主义的反应倾向，而不能预测义务论的反应倾向。然而，逻辑反思的衡量标准，如对逻辑三段论的表现，积极地预测了功利主义和义务论的倾向。这些研究重复了一些发现，澄清了其他发现，并揭示了双重过程理论家关于反思和困境判断之间联系的主张的额外细微差别。
Conventional sacrificial moral dilemmas propose directly causing some harm to prevent greater harm. Theory suggests that accepting such actions (consistent with utilitarian philosophy) involves more reflective reasoning than rejecting such actions (consistent with deontological philosophy). However, past findings do not always replicate, confound different kinds of reflection, and employ conventional sacrificial dilemmas that treat utilitarian and deontological considerations as opposite. In two studies, we examined whether past findings would replicate when employing process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian inclinations independently. Findings suggested two categorically different impacts of reflection: measures of arithmetic reflection, such as the Cognitive Reflection Test, predicted only utilitarian, not deontological, response tendencies. However, measures of logical reflection, such as performance on logical syllogisms, positively predicted both utilitarian and deontological tendencies. These studies replicate some findings, clarify others, and reveal opportunity for additional nuance in dual process theorist's claims about the link between reflection and dilemma judgments.