新型冠状病毒疫情影响下大学生对医生角色行为的道德判断研究

2020年初,在我国发生了新型冠状病毒引发的重大疫情,医生是战“疫”的重要角色,也是最受关注的职业群体。这次疫情是否改变了以往因医患矛盾而引发的大众对医生的道德判断?本研究采用徐科朋(2019)编制的道德判断材料,以非医护专业大学生为被试,用实验法分别比较了疫情前和疫情中大学生对医生道德和不道德行为的判断。结果发现:(1)疫情前大学生对医生在公平行为上的赞扬程度显著高于疫情中,疫情中大学生对医生在关爱、忠诚、权威行为上,赞扬程度显著高于疫情前。(2)在整体不道德行为上,疫情中大学生均对医生的评价比对照组严格。疫情前大学生对医生在背叛、颠覆行为上的评价要比对照组宽松。疫情中大学生对医生在伤害、背叛、堕落行为上的评价要比对照组严格。(3)疫情中,大学生对医生在整体不道德行为和各维度不道德行为上的评价较疫情前均更加严格。     

医疗人工智能科技异化及其伦理风险探析

医疗人工智能广泛应用于现代医疗形式。医疗科技的日新月异,大大推动了人类医学的发展进程及诊疗模式。与此同时,医疗人工智能科技的发展出现了异化现象,并由此带来了人和社会的异化,诸如对人与类人机器的角色定位不清,人对技术的依赖性过度增强,医疗全生命周期中的责任伦理缺失,技术价值失衡等社会问题。以这些异化带来的伦理风险为进度,探析在医疗人工智能使用中的隐私安全与数据使用的边界问题,人在医疗过程中的主体地位问题,“医生-人工智能-患者”的共同决策体系构建问题,构建医疗人工智能科技向善理念及法律问题。     

脑机增强：公平问题及其反思

脑机接口增强性应用引起了人们的广泛热议。相比以治疗为目的的应用,当脑机接口用于增强健全人的身体和心理等功能时,所带来的问题可能更多、更复杂,容易带来公平上的问题和挑战。面对这些问题和挑战,需要辩证地分析,客观、理性地看待。从根本上讲,导致这些不公平不在技术本身。因此,需要深刻反思脑机增强公平问题产生根源的同时,也需要从两方面予以应对,一是重视脑机增强的公平风险,二是明确脑机增强的使用范围,避免滥用。     

人工智能医疗器械的伦理审查要点

人工智能医疗器械分为具备辅助识别的二类和辅助诊断的三类医疗器械,我国三类人工智能医疗器械刚进入注册申报阶段。很多人工智能医疗器械以科研方式进入医疗机构,为受试者免费试用以获取临床试验数据,这给伦理审查带来极大挑战。伦理委员会审查三类人工智能医疗器械的核心问题包括风险评估、数据库、数据安全及软件更新。除关注医疗器械产品与试验操作外,更要从适用范围、研究要求与资料、研究方案、风险控制、数据库、数据安全和软件更新等方面仔细把关,不断总结经验,切实保护受试者权益,也助推我国人工智能医疗器械的健康快速发展。     

Religiosity and Secular and Ascetic Deviance

According to the antiascetic hypothesis, religiosity should be strongly related to behaviors that violate ascetic standards (getting drunk and using marijuana), but only weakly related to behaviors that violate social standards (violence and stealing). Using the second wave of the National Study of Youth and Religion, I tested the antiascetic hypothesis using a question about the most important basis for deciding what is morally right or wrong. Contrary to the antiascetic hypothesis, individuals who believe that God's law is the most important for deciding what is morally right or wrong, compared to those who believe that society is the most important, are not less likely to get drunk or use marijuana. Furthermore, for getting drunk and marijuana use, differences in behavior are not the result of different ethical standards (ascetic or social), but rather differences in the willingness to uphold those standards (is it OK to break moral rules).     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

3～5岁幼儿基于面孔的信任判断的发展

本研究通过两个实验探讨了262名3~5岁幼儿基于面孔的信任判断能力及其年龄间差异。结果发现:(1)实验1中,当陌生面孔单张呈现时,3岁幼儿还不能正确地区分被成人评价为可信和不可信的面孔,而4、5岁幼儿已经能够基于面孔特征做出与成人基本一致的信任判断;(2)实验2中,当配对呈现可信vs.不可信两张面孔时,3~5岁幼儿都能够在日常交往情境中依据陌生交往者的面孔特征做出与成人基本一致的信任判断,并且随着年龄的增长,信任判断准确率逐步提高。这些结果表明幼儿从3岁开始已经能够基于面孔做出信任判断,随着年龄的增长,信任判断能力逐步发展。     

人际归因与行为责任推断研究综述

人际归因是归因研究的一个新领域。现代归因与行为责任推断研究除了关注动机归因理论的构建之外,还十分重视将该理论运用于解决社会实际问题,并初步建立了归因与行为责任推断的理论模型,近年来取得了一系列研究成果。这些成果对于更好地了解人类的社会行为具有重要的意义,同时也代表了现代归因研究发展的一个新趋势。     

Emotional intelligence,cognitive ability and information search in tactical decision-making

Emotional intelligence (EI) may promote more effective decision-making under stress. In the present study, 167 participants completed a situation judgment test for EI, and performed a decision-making task based on an Antarctic rescue scenario. Participants were assigned to either a negative or neutral feedback group. Negative feedback significantly increased distress and impaired decision-making. EI failed to moderate the impacts of negative feedback, but higher EI was associated with greater information-search activity irrespective of feedback condition. It is concluded that ability EI may have a motivational component that may support more exhaustive analysis of both social and non-social stimuli.     

Democratic Moral Education and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit

How far is Thomas Aquinas available for current discussions in political philosophy? While there are certainly things to be learned from him about our political preoccupations, the pedagogy of his moral teaching typically resists our familiar questions. This holds even when the question is put in terms that Thomas should recognize—say, as a question about the virtues appropriate for a democracy. Thomas not only gives different meanings to these terms, he moves political topics away from the center of theological attention and so organizes them very differently. A reader can notice these differences at many points but perhaps especially in the attention that Thomas gives in the Summa to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. His account of these gifts qualifies significantly what he says of virtue and suggests large limits on human agency, whether in ethics or in politics.