当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Personality and Social Psychology › 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.)
The affective harm account (AHA) of moral judgment: Reconciling cognition and affect, dyadic morality and disgust, harm and purity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ( IF 8.460 ) Pub Date : 2022-03-31 , DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000310
Kurt Gray 1 , Jennifer K MacCormack 2 , Teague Henry 3 , Emmie Banks 4 , Chelsea Schein 5 , Emma Armstrong-Carter 6 , Samantha Abrams 1 , Keely A Muscatell 1
Affiliation  

Moral psychology has long debated whether moral judgment is rooted in harm versus affect. We reconcile this debate with the affective harm account (AHA) of moral judgment. The AHA understands harm as an intuitive perception (i.e., perceived harm), and divides "affect" into two: embodied visceral arousal (i.e., gut feelings) and stimulus-directed affective appraisals (e.g., ratings of disgustingness). The AHA was tested in a randomized, double-blind pharmacological experiment with healthy young adults judging the immorality, harmfulness, and disgustingness of everyday moral scenarios (e.g., lying) and unusual purity scenarios (e.g., sex with a corpse) after receiving either a placebo or the β-blocker propranolol (a drug that dampens visceral arousal). Results confirmed the three key hypotheses of the AHA. First, perceived harm and affective appraisals are neither competing nor independent but intertwined. Second, although both perceived harm and affective appraisals predict moral judgment, perceived harm is consistently relevant across all scenarios (in line with the theory of dyadic morality), whereas affective appraisals are especially relevant in unusual purity scenarios (in line with affect-as-information theory). Third, the "gut feelings" of visceral arousal are not as important to morality as often believed. Dampening visceral arousal (via propranolol) did not directly impact moral judgment, but instead changed the relative contribution of affective appraisals to moral judgment-and only in unusual purity scenarios. By embracing a constructionist view of the mind that blurs traditional dichotomies, the AHA reconciles historic harm-centric and current affect-centric theories, parsimoniously explaining judgment differences across various moral scenarios without requiring any "moral foundations." (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

道德判断的情感伤害账户 (AHA):调和认知与情感、二元道德与厌恶、伤害与纯洁。

道德心理学长期以来一直争论道德判断是否植根于伤害与影响。我们将这场辩论与道德判断的情感伤害解释 (AHA) 相协调。AHA 将伤害理解为一种直觉感知(即,感知到的伤害),并将“影响”分为两部分:具体的内脏唤醒(即直觉)和刺激导向的情感评估(例如,厌恶程度)。AHA 在一项随机、双盲的药理学实验中进行了测试,健康的年轻人在接受任何一种药物后,判断日常道德场景(例如,说谎)和不寻常的纯洁场景(例如,与尸体发生性关系)的不道德、有害和令人厌恶的程度。安慰剂或 β 受体阻滞剂普萘洛尔(一种抑制内脏唤醒的药物)。结果证实了 AHA 的三个关键假设。第一的,感知到的伤害和情感评价既不是相互竞争的,也不是独立的,而是相互交织的。其次,虽然感知伤害和情感评估都可以预测道德判断,但感知伤害在所有场景中始终相关(符合二元道德理论),而情感评估在不寻常的纯洁场景中尤其相关(符合影响作为-信息论)。第三,本能唤醒的“直觉”对道德并不像人们通常认为的那么重要。抑制本能唤醒(通过普萘洛尔)并不直接影响道德判断,而是改变了情感评估对道德判断的相对贡献——而且仅在不寻常的纯洁场景中。通过接受模糊传统二分法的建构主义思想观点,AHA 调和了历史上以伤害为中心和当前以情感为中心的理论,在不需要任何“道德基础”的情况下简洁地解释了各种道德场景中的判断差异。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2022-03-31
down
wechat
bug