当前位置: X-MOL 学术Cognition › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat.
Cognition ( IF 2.8 ) Pub Date : 2020-07-25 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397
Eric Schwitzgebel 1 , Bradford Cokelet 2 , Peter Singer 3
Affiliation  

Do university ethics classes influence students' real-world moral choices? We aimed to conduct the first controlled study of the effects of ordinary philosophical ethics classes on real-world moral choices, using non-self-report, non-laboratory behavior as the dependent measure. We assigned 1332 students in four large philosophy classes to either an experimental group on the ethics of eating meat or a control group on the ethics of charitable giving. Students in each group read a philosophy article on their assigned topic and optionally viewed a related video, then met with teaching assistants for 50-minute group discussion sections. They expressed their opinions about meat ethics and charitable giving in a follow-up questionnaire (1032 respondents after exclusions). We obtained 13,642 food purchase receipts from campus restaurants for 495 of the students, before and after the intervention. Purchase of meat products declined in the experimental group (52% of purchases of at least $4.99 contained meat before the intervention, compared to 45% after) but remained the same in the control group (52% both before and after). Ethical opinion also differed, with 43% of students in the experimental group agreeing that eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical compared to 29% in the control group. We also attempted to measure food choice using vouchers, but voucher redemption rates were low and no effect was statistically detectable. It remains unclear what aspect of instruction influenced behavior.

中文翻译:

道德课会影响学生的行为吗?案例研究:教授吃肉的伦理。

大学伦理课会影响学生现实世界的道德选择吗?我们的目标是对普通哲学伦理课程对现实世界道德选择的影响进行第一次受控研究,使用非自我报告、非实验室行为作为依赖度量。我们将四个大型哲学班的 1332 名学生分配到吃肉伦理的实验组或慈善捐赠伦理的控制组。每个小组的学生阅读一篇关于他们指定主题的哲学文章,并有选择地观看相关视频,然后与助教会面,进行 50 分钟的小组讨论部分。他们在后续问卷(排除后的 1032 名受访者)中表达了他们对肉类伦理和慈善捐赠的看法。我们获得了 13 个,干预前后 495 名学生在校园餐厅的 642 份食品购买收据。实验组的肉类产品购买量有所下降(干预前购买至少 4.99 美元的肉类中有 52%,而干预后为 45%),但在对照组中保持不变(前后均为 52%)。伦理观点也不同,实验组中有 43% 的学生同意吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组的这一比例为 29%。我们还尝试使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券兑换率很低,并且在统计上没有检测到任何影响。目前尚不清楚教学的哪个方面影响了行为。实验组的肉类产品购买量有所下降(干预前购买至少 4.99 美元的肉类中有 52%,而干预后为 45%),但在对照组中保持不变(前后均为 52%)。伦理观点也不同,实验组中有 43% 的学生同意吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组的这一比例为 29%。我们还尝试使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券兑换率很低,并且在统计上没有检测到任何影响。目前尚不清楚教学的哪个方面影响了行为。实验组的肉类产品购买量有所下降(干预前购买至少 4.99 美元的肉类中有 52%,而干预后为 45%),但在对照组中保持不变(前后均为 52%)。伦理观点也不同,实验组中有 43% 的学生同意吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组的这一比例为 29%。我们还尝试使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券兑换率很低,并且在统计上没有检测到任何影响。目前尚不清楚教学的哪个方面影响了行为。实验组中有 43% 的学生同意吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组的这一比例为 29%。我们还尝试使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券兑换率很低,并且在统计上没有检测到任何影响。目前尚不清楚教学的哪个方面影响了行为。实验组中有 43% 的学生同意吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组的这一比例为 29%。我们还尝试使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券兑换率很低,并且在统计上没有检测到任何影响。目前尚不清楚教学的哪个方面影响了行为。
更新日期:2020-07-25
down
wechat
bug