Are Thoughtful People More Utilitarian? CRT as a Unique Predictor of Moral Minimalism in the Dilemmatic Context

Recent theorizing about the cognitive underpinnings of dilemmatic moral judgment has equated slow, deliberative thinking with the utilitarian disposition and fast, automatic thinking with the deontological disposition. However, evidence for the reflective utilitarian hypothesis—the hypothesized link between utilitarian judgment and individual differences in the capacity for rational reflection (gauged here by the Cognitive Reflection Test [CRT; Frederick, 2005]) has been inconsistent and difficult to interpret in light of several design flaws. In two studies aimed at addressing some of the flaws, we found robust evidence for a reflective minimalist hypothesis—high CRT performers’ tendency to regard utility‐optimizing acts as largely a matter of personal prerogative, permissible both to perform and to leave undone. This relationship between CRT and the “minimalist” orientation remained intact after controlling for age, sex, trait affect, social desirability, and educational attainment. No significant association was found between CRT and the strict utilitarian response pattern or CRT and the strict deontological response pattern, nor did we find any significant association between CRT and willingness to act in the utility‐optimizing manner. However, we found an inverse association between empathic concern and a willingness to act in the utility‐optimizing manner, but there was no comparable association between empathic concern and the deontological judgment pattern. Theoretical, methodological, and normative implications of the findings are discussed.     

Eye Movements in Strategic Choice

In risky and other multiattribute choices, the process of choosing is well described by random walk or drift diffusion models in which evidence is accumulated over time to threshold. In strategic choices, level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models have been offered as accounts of the choice process, in which people simulate the choice processes of their opponents or partners. We recorded the eye movements in 2 × 2 symmetric games including dominance‐solvable games like prisoner's dilemma and asymmetric coordination games like stag hunt and hawk–dove. The evidence was most consistent with the accumulation of payoff differences over time: we found longer duration choices with more fixations when payoffs differences were more finely balanced, an emerging bias to gaze more at the payoffs for the action ultimately chosen, and that a simple count of transitions between payoffs—whether or not the comparison is strategically informative—was strongly associated with the final choice. The accumulator models do account for these strategic choice process measures, but the level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models do not. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

公共物品困境中的突显身份效应及合作动机对合作行为影响

从合作动机的激发与破坏的角度探讨公共物品困境中突显身份对合作行为的影响,同时考察社会价值取向与突显身份之间的关系。结果表明：突显合作者与突显不合作者两种方式都会提高被试的合作水平;两种突显方式的作用机制不同。突显合作者条件下,被试的合作行为受内在动机和外在动机的共同影响。而突显不合作者则会破坏被试合作的内在动机,外在动机对提高合作行为起主要作用;突显合作者条件下,合作取向的被试更多受内在动机的影响,而非合作取向的被试则更多受外在动机的影响。在突显不合作者的条件下,合作取向和非合作取向被试的合作行为都受外在动机的影响较大。     

财富越多，责任越大：资金数量和来源对公共物品困境中第三方惩罚的影响

本研究探讨了公共物品困境中,初始资金的数量和来源如何影响第三方对成员贡献值的评价及惩罚。行为结果发现了“贵族责任效应”,即在同等贡献值条件下,相比于获得较少初始资金的成员,第三方会更重地惩罚获得较多初始资金的成员。当初始资金是随机分配而非通过个人努力获得时,该效应更强。在神经层面上,发现初始资金的数量和来源调节了第三方评估贡献值时所诱发的FRN和P3成分。其中FRN波幅与惩罚力度显著相关。本研究揭示了初始资金数量和来源如何调节第三方对成员贡献的评估及相关惩罚决策。     

患者主体意识在现代医学语境中的价值困境分析

患者主体意识在现代医学语境中出现了话语权的失落和自证困难,这可能引起患者的不满。对主客二分的生物医学模式教条和僵化的运用是这一困境产生的主要原因。临床医生仍习惯于将疾病作狭义的生物学理解,造成了对患者主观陈述的轻视。若想突破困境,需要认识到医学具有科学和治疗手段的不同属性,在临床中加强医生对患者的理解与尊重,回归病人的真实世界,构建医患的共同决策环境,借鉴传统中医学身心一体的哲学思想,积极转换理念,探索新的路径。     

程序伦理在破解新冠肺炎疫情引发伦理难题中的价值

伦理程序是做出伦理决策与辩护、进行伦理审查与评价等道德决断的行为过程;程序伦理是具有一定时空顺序地做出伦理决断的行为过程伦理,保证人们遵循"应该做什么"和"应该如何做"等道德规范的伦理,有利于道德规范和实质伦理的实现。国内外新冠肺炎疫情防控遭遇或引发了积极防控是否应该和值得,防控措施限制人们的权利是否适度,卫生资源到底应该如何公正分配等大量的伦理难题。破解这些难题,程序伦理要求通过伦理行为决策、辩护、评价以及伦理审查等程序,并在程序中遵循公开与透明决断信息,沟通与协商决断措施以及评议与审查伦理决断的伦理要求。     

When clients want to pay more for psychotherapy: ethical issues and implications

One ethical issue that commonly comes up in clinical practice is the negotiation of fees with clients. Although the APA Ethics Code provides standards regarding clients who are unable to or do not pay (Standard 6.04), little guidance is given pertaining to fee limits for clients who want to pay more. This issue is explored using a real case example, including the relevant ethical codes to be considered. The necessary “gray” areas of ethical decision-making are demonstrated through my own decision process. Implications for future scenarios are discussed.     

Knowledge Justice: An Opportunity for Counter-expertise in Security vs. Science Debates

ABSTRACT

Knowledge justice provides a conceptual framework to apply principles of social justice in environments of competing interests regarding science. Both knowledge and its making can be seen as a good to be distributed, including all voices for whom the science will matter. In this framework, knowledge production is shared among a broader constituency of knowers representing both local and cosmopolitan voices. The problem of knowledge injustice can be seen in the U.S. government’s recent attempt to secure scientific knowledge about H5N1 or avian bird flu virus. The censorship produced a global debate between scientists and policy-makers over how to balance the nation-state’s desire for security with the life science’s tradition of open and shared research. This conundrum, known as the dual-use dilemma, obscures larger questions that lie outside of expert-centered domains—namely the concerns of many communities in the Global South struggling with the impact of the virus in their daily lives. An example of such counter-expertise is that of the backyard poultry farmer whose ways of knowing are foreign to science and policy experts who frame the ways in which knowledge about H5N1 should be developed, controlled, and used. While the H5N1 debate illuminated competing positions regarding knowledge production between powerful elites, it ignored the social justice inequities produced by the dual-use dilemma. The concept of knowledge justice provides a way of thinking about science that can include locally situated counter-expertise, disrupting the dual-use dilemma produced by competing dominant priorities of security and public health.