期刊文献+

心真的会“软”吗?软硬感受与语义改变道德判断 被引量:2

A Tender Heart:The Effect of Tough and Tender on Moral Judgment
下载PDF
导出
摘要 近年来诸多研究发现,物理变量对心理变量尤其是道德会产生影响,而其机制通常是具身认知与隐喻语言两种。本研究意在通过软硬的具身感受以及软硬的隐喻式意义联系来探讨它对于道德判断的影响。实验一通过操纵被试的软硬身体感受,发现感受到软的被试会比感受到硬的被试更倾向于作出义务论判断。而实验二通过启动被试的软硬语义联接,发现在启动了软的意义之后,对比与启动了硬的意义来说,被试体验到了更少的厌恶情绪,并对同样的道德错误表现得更宽容。这表明软与硬这对物理变量在具身认知与隐喻语言两种机制上都对道德判断起到了影响。 Previous research found that,even the tiny change of external factor could influence moral judgment and moral behavior.The underlying mechanism of the physical-psychological connection is embodied cognition and metaphorical language.Embodied cognition emphasize the body experience and metaphorical language emphasize the representational connection of meaning.Experiment 1 manipulate the body experience of participants and found that,the participants who stand on a tender cushion tend to make deontology judgment.Experiment 2 prime the meaning of tender and tough,found that,participants in the tender priming tend to tolerate moral wrongness,feel less disgust and make less punishment.The results indicate that,tough and tender could influence our moral judgment through embodied cognition and metaphorical language.
作者 吴言动 喻丰 彭凯平 刘书青 Wu Yandong;Yu Feng;Peng Kaiping;Liu Shuqing(Department of Psychology,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084;School of Economics and Management,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084;Department of Psychology,University of California,Berkeley,CA 94720;College of Intelligence and Computing,Tianjin University,Tianjin 300072)
出处 《心理学探新》 CSSCI 北大核心 2019年第6期571-574,共4页 Psychological Exploration
基金 全国教育科学“十二五”规划2014年度青年课题“慕课(MOOC)用户体验的实证研究”(ECA140372)
关键词 具身认知 隐喻 道德 道德判断 tender tough embodied cognition metaphor morality moral judgment
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献62

  • 1Young, L., & Phillips, J. (2011). The paradox of moral focus. Cognition, 119, 166-178.
  • 2Young, L., & Saxe, R. (in press). The role of intent across distinct moral domains. Cognition.
  • 3Young, L., Scholz, J., & Saxe, R. (2011). Neural evidence for "intuitive prosecution": The use of mental state information for negative moral verdicts. Social Neuroscience, 6, 302-315.
  • 4Zhong, C. B., Strejcek, B., & Sivanathan, N. (2011). A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 859-862.
  • 5Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment underuncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
  • 6Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476-477.
  • 7Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotically induced disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780-784.
  • 8Wiltermuth, S. S., Monin, B., & Chow, R. M. (2010). The orthogonality of praise and condemnation in moral judgment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1. 302-310.
  • 9Young, L., Nichols, S., & Saxe, R. (2010). Investigating the neural and cognitive basis of moral luck: It's not what youdo but what you know. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 333-349.
  • 10Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 1-42.

共引文献96

同被引文献21

引证文献2

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部