【摘要】：Uhlmann et al.(2012)所作的實(shí)證研究表明,個(gè)體的道德污點(diǎn)可以在其具有血緣關(guān)系的家族成員內(nèi)傳播。換言之,相比于不存在生物學(xué)關(guān)聯(lián)(無(wú)血緣關(guān)系)的個(gè)體,與具有道德污點(diǎn)的人存在血緣關(guān)系的個(gè)體更容易被判斷為在道德上有虧的人。Uhlmann et al.(2012)的研究結(jié)果支持了血緣關(guān)系影響道德判斷的假設(shè),其所揭示的這一現(xiàn)象和規(guī)律其意義引人深思。然而,在Uhlmann et al.(2012)取得令人歡欣的結(jié)果的同時(shí),我們也想要了解：Uhlmann et al.(2012)的研究結(jié)果在中國(guó)文化背景下是否能夠得到驗(yàn)證?血緣關(guān)系對(duì)道德判斷的影響是否會(huì)從特定事件和行為泛化到其他事件和行為上?血緣關(guān)系對(duì)道德判斷的影響作用如何調(diào)節(jié)? 因此,本研究通過(guò)3個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn),考察血緣關(guān)系對(duì)道德判斷的影響。實(shí)驗(yàn)1a與實(shí)驗(yàn)1b分別在個(gè)體并沒(méi)有從其血親的不道德行為中獲益的情況下與個(gè)體與其不道德血親無(wú)任何情感聯(lián)系的情況下,考察被試在不同血緣關(guān)系條件下對(duì)個(gè)體扶助義務(wù)的評(píng)定以及對(duì)該個(gè)體的道德判斷等,以檢驗(yàn)Uhlmann等人(2012)所作的研究。實(shí)驗(yàn)2采用替代性懲罰的研究范式,并引入“被試角度”這—因素,進(jìn)一步考察血緣對(duì)道德判斷的影響。實(shí)驗(yàn)3則在實(shí)驗(yàn)1與實(shí)驗(yàn)2的基礎(chǔ)上為部分被試提供有關(guān)個(gè)體會(huì)受到其血親污染的特定知識(shí),使其在進(jìn)行判斷時(shí)處于一種審慎的心向,探究如何調(diào)節(jié)血緣關(guān)系在道德判斷中的影響作用。 研究結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)： (1)在個(gè)體并沒(méi)有從其血親的不道德行為中獲益的情況下,被試對(duì)不同血緣關(guān)系條件的個(gè)體的扶助義務(wù)評(píng)定存在顯著差異。相比于與具有道德污點(diǎn)的人無(wú)血緣關(guān)系的個(gè)體,被試把與具有道德污點(diǎn)的人有血緣關(guān)系的個(gè)體評(píng)定為更有義務(wù)對(duì)事件受害人的后代進(jìn)行扶助。 (2)在個(gè)體與其不道德血親無(wú)任何情感聯(lián)系的情況下,被試對(duì)不同血緣關(guān)系條件的個(gè)體的道德判斷存在差異。相比于與具有道德污點(diǎn)的人無(wú)血緣關(guān)系的個(gè)體,被試對(duì)與具有道德污點(diǎn)的人有血緣關(guān)系的個(gè)體進(jìn)行更嚴(yán)厲的道德判斷。 (3)處于不同血緣關(guān)系條件組的被試對(duì)個(gè)體遭受替代性懲罰的可接受程度評(píng)定存在差異。相比于不道德行為人的非血親后代,被試將針對(duì)不道德行為人的血親后代實(shí)施的替代性懲罰評(píng)定為更可接受。 (4)處于不同被試角度條件組的被試對(duì)替代性懲罰的道德程度和認(rèn)可接受程度的評(píng)定存在差異。相比處于原始事件施害方的被試,處于原始事件受害方的被試把替代性懲罰的實(shí)施評(píng)定為更道德,也更認(rèn)可替代性懲罰的實(shí)施。 (5)為被試提供有關(guān)血緣關(guān)系會(huì)影響道德判斷的特定知識(shí)可以調(diào)節(jié)血緣關(guān)系對(duì)捐助金額評(píng)定的影響。即,被預(yù)先告知特定知識(shí)的被試與不被預(yù)先告知特定知識(shí)的被試,對(duì)與不道德者具有血緣關(guān)系的嬰兒所進(jìn)行的捐助金額評(píng)定存在顯著差異,而對(duì)與不道德者具有血緣關(guān)系的嬰兒所進(jìn)行的捐助金額評(píng)定則不存在差異。
[Abstract]:An empirical study by Uhlmann et al. (2012 shows that an individual's moral stains can be transmitted within his or her kindred family members. In other words, compared to individuals who do not have a biological association (no blood relationship), The results of the study,. Uhlmann et al. (2012, supported the hypothesis that kinship affects moral judgment, which is more likely to be judged as morally deficient by individuals who have blood ties with people with moral stains. The phenomenon and law it reveals is thought-provoking. However, at the same time that the Uhlmann et al. (2012) results are exhilarating, we also want to know if the findings of: Uhlmann et al. (2012) can be verified in the context of Chinese culture. Will the influence of kinship on moral judgment be generalized from specific events and behaviors to other events and behaviors? How to regulate the influence of blood relationship on moral judgment? Therefore, three experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of blood relationship on moral judgment. Experiment 1a and experiment 1b had no emotional connection with their unethical blood relatives if the individual did not benefit from the immoral behavior of his blood relatives, In order to test the research done by Uhlmann et al. (2012), the evaluation of the individual's obligation to assist and the moral judgment of the individual were investigated under different consanguinity conditions. Experiment 2 adopts the research paradigm of alternative punishment and introduces the factor of "subject angle" to further investigate the influence of blood relationship on moral judgment. Experiment 3, on the basis of experiments 1 and 2, provided some of the subjects with specific knowledge that individuals might be contaminated by their blood relatives, so that they were in a prudent direction in their judgment. Explore how to regulate the influence of blood relationship in moral judgment. The results showed that: (1) when the individuals did not benefit from the immoral behavior of their blood relatives, there were significant differences in the evaluation of the aiding obligations of the individuals with different blood relationship conditions. Compared with the individuals who had no blood relationship with the people with moral stain, the subjects rated the individuals who had blood ties with the people with moral stains as having more obligation to assist the offspring of the victims of the incident. (2) when there was no emotional relationship between the individual and their unethical blood relatives, there were differences in the moral judgment of the subjects with different blood relationship conditions. Compared with the individuals who had no blood relationship with the people with moral stains, the subjects made more severe moral judgments on the individuals who had blood relations with the people with moral stains. (3) there were differences in the acceptability of the individuals who were subject to alternative punishment in different consanguinity groups. The subjects rated the alternative punishment imposed on the blood and offspring of the immoral perpetrator as more acceptable than that of the non-blood offspring of the immoral perpetrator. (4) there were differences in the evaluation of the moral degree and acceptance of alternative punishment among the subjects in different angle groups. Compared with the subjects who were in the original event victimizer, the subjects who were in the original event injured party rated the implementation of alternative punishment as more moral and more acceptable to the implementation of alternative punishment. (5) providing specific knowledge about the influence of blood relationship on moral judgment can regulate the influence of blood relationship on the evaluation of donor amount. That is, there was a significant difference in the amount of donation between those who were informed of specific knowledge in advance and those who were not informed of specific knowledge in advance. There was no difference in the amount of money donated to infants who were related to the immoral.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣西師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：B848

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 李宏翰;許闖;;道德隱喻:道德研究的隱喻視角[J];廣西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年05期

2 謝熹瑤;羅躍嘉;;道德判斷中的情緒因素——從認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)的角度進(jìn)行探討[J];心理科學(xué)進(jìn)展;2009年06期

3 羅躍嘉;李萬(wàn)清;彭家欣;劉超;;道德判斷的認(rèn)知神經(jīng)機(jī)制[J];西南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2334521