当前位置: X-MOL 学术Neuroethics › 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.)
Deterministic Attributions of Behavior: Brain versus Genes
Neuroethics ( IF 2.6 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-11 , DOI: 10.1007/s12152-021-09471-x
Kevin R. Peters , Alena Kalinina , Nastassja M. Downer , Amy Van Elswyk

This research examined the influence of social-, genetic-, and brain-based explanations on attributions of others’ behaviors. Participants were university students in Studies 1 (N = 140), 2 (N = 142), and 3 (N = 260). Participants read a vignette about an individual who possessed several undesirable behaviors and answered related questions. The first two studies had within-subjects designs. Participants in Study 1 were provided with social-, genetic-, and brain-based explanations for the individual’s behavior. The order of the genetic- and brain-based explanations was reversed in Study 2. Study 3 used the same materials, but had a between-subjects design where participants were assigned to one of three groups that differed in their explanation: social, genetic, or brain. Participants also completed measures of social desirability and free will beliefs in all three studies. Consistently, biological explanations had more influence than social explanations on ratings of others’ responsibility, capacity for change, and sentencing considerations. There was inconsistent evidence across the three studies, however, that brain-based explanations had more influence than genetic-based explanations. Interestingly, Free will scores were associated with aspects of the individual’s behavior in the social condition but not in the biological conditions. Additional social cognition research is needed to determine whether brain-based explanations are just one specific instantiation of biological explanations or whether they are unique in this regard when it comes to the attributions we make about others’ behaviors.



中文翻译:

行为的确定性归因:大脑与基因

这项研究检验了基于社会、遗传和大脑的解释对他人行为归因的影响。参与者是研究 1 ( N  = 140), 2 ( N = 142) 和 3 (N = 260)。参与者阅读了一个关于有几种不良行为的个人的小插曲,并回答了相关问题。前两项研究采用了受试者内设计。研究 1 的参与者获得了对个人行为的基于社会、遗传和大脑的解释。在研究 2 中,基于遗传和基于大脑的解释的顺序颠倒了。研究 3 使用了相同的材料,但具有受试者间设计,参与者被分配到三个不同解释的组之一:社会、遗传、或大脑。参与者还在所有三项研究中完成了社会期望和自由意志信念的测量。始终如一地,生物学解释比社会解释对他人责任、变革能力、和量刑考虑。然而,三项研究的证据不一致,表明基于大脑的解释比基于遗传的解释影响更大。有趣的是,自由意志分数与个人在社会条件下的行为方面有关,但与生物条件无关。需要更多的社会认知研究来确定基于大脑的解释是否只是生物学解释的一个特定实例,或者当涉及到我们对他人行为的归因时,它们在这方面是否是独一无二的。自由意志分数与个人在社会条件下的行为方面有关,但与生物条件无关。需要更多的社会认知研究来确定基于大脑的解释是否只是生物学解释的一个特定实例,或者当涉及到我们对他人行为的归因时,它们在这方面是否是独一无二的。自由意志分数与个人在社会条件下的行为方面有关,但与生物条件无关。需要更多的社会认知研究来确定基于大脑的解释是否只是生物学解释的一个特定实例,或者当涉及到我们对他人行为的归因时,它们在这方面是否是独一无二的。

更新日期:2021-06-11
down
wechat
bug