具身道德:道德心理学研究的新取向

具身道德是指身体及其活动方式与道德心理和行为的相互作用。迄今为止, 具身道德研究主要采用道德Stroop范式、内隐联想测验范式、情境操纵范式和心境诱发范式。具身道德的研究内容主要包括身体解剖学结构、知觉经验及身体与环境的嵌入作用与道德心理及行为的相互作用, 且在广泛的知觉经验内容中包涵了身体厌恶与道德的关系、自我洁净-道德纯洁隐喻、道德-明度隐喻、道德-颜色隐喻、道德的空间维度与时间维度等多个内容。未来的研究需从研究内容的丰富性与全面性、隐喻效应的文化差异与一致性效应、研究方法技术的科学性与多样性等几个方面着手。     

两种道德自我调节机制下的道德行为

道德自我调节指个体根据道德自我, 从事(不从事)道德行为和不道德行为。道德自我分为状态道德自我(道德自我知觉)和特质道德自我(道德认同)。道德自我调节的负反馈机制, 指个体依据道德自我知觉, 保持道德行为的波动性, 它包含道德许可效应和道德清洁效应; 正反馈机制, 指个体依据道德认同, 保持道德行为的一致性。解释水平理论整合了正负反馈机制, 两种道德行为。未来研究需探讨公我、个体差异对道德自我调节机制的影响。     

儿童最早记忆特征的初步研究

为研究童年期遗忘,本研究采用简单最早记忆法考察了60名中国城镇独生最早记忆特征及各特征之间的关系,并在记忆情绪上加入了道德情绪和混合情绪的测查。结果发现,小学四年级学生和初中二年级学生的最早记忆各特征均不存在差异,性别差异也不显著。道德情绪和混合情绪在最早记忆中出现率分别为53.7%和41.7%。结果表明,中国城镇独生儿童的童年期遗忘在9岁时已变得和成人十分相似;情绪理解对早期记忆的长久保持起着关键作用。     

权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响

本研究考察了在一个道德两难的情境中, 权威人格和权力感对道德思维方式的影响。研究以某市公检法系统的122名公务员为被试。首先采用权威人格问卷筛选出高权威人格组和低权威人格组被试, 然后分别进行高、低权力感的启动, 最后让被试对一个道德上的两难情景做出选择, 选择的结果可以反映被试的道德思维方式。研究结果显示, 高权威人格组被试在启动了他们高的权力感后, 产生了明显的以规则导向为主的道德思维, 而对低权威人格被试, 他们道德思维方式则不受权力感启动的影响。由于社会冲突的产生常常与冲突情境中的道德思维方式有关, 因此本研究的结果有助于我们更好地理解某些社会冲突产生的原因, 并从心理学的角度提出解决冲突的方法。     

道德伪善的心理学研究述评

道德伪善(moral hypocrisy)是对道德知行脱离进行反思的产物, 反映了道德心理学和社会认知领域的最新进展。从社会学习理论、认知失调理论、社会影响理论和双加工理论四个理论来对道德伪善产生缘由进行了探讨, 并在此基础上对其产生机制进行了阐述。为了避免道德伪善的消极效应与不良后果, 进一步从个体和群体两个层面来探讨了道德伪善的影响因素。考虑到现实生活中过分强调道德伪善的负面价值, 研究积极地审视了道德伪善在诱导认知失调、塑造和培养亲社会行为以及促进组织发展等领域的应用。未来研究需在现有研究基础上, 进一步借鉴反应时和内隐测量技术来对道德伪善进行本土化和跨文化研究, 并对其应用性开展更深入和系统的探讨。     

移情在道德强度对企业道德决策影响中的作用

摘 要 本研究将一种重要的道德情绪--移情引入问题权变模型中,以探讨移情因素在道德强度对企业道德决策影响中的作用。本研究基于情景研究法,随机选取256名MBA学生为被试,要求被试基于所提供情景中假想参与者的行为,回答随后测量道德决策(道德识别、道德判断和道德意图)、移情反应、主观道德强度及移情特质的问题。结果发现,1）移情反应在道德强度对企业道德决策的影响中具有中介作用;2）移情关怀特质会通过影响主观道德强度和移情反应而作用于企业道德决策;3)结果大小、社会舆论和效应可能性对道德判断和道德意图的影响机制各有特点。     

道德直觉决策及其机制探析

道德直觉决策研究是从直觉思维角度探讨决策者在道德境遇下的决策。道德直觉决策是道德情境下的直觉反应, 其理论基础包括躯体标记假说、社会直觉模型、双加工理论、事件特征情感复合体系以及双系统理论; 道德直觉决策机制至少包括：无意识加工、情绪加工和直觉加工三个基本的心理加工过程, 与之对应的神经系统则至少存在三个可能的脑神经回路：无意识加工的道德脑区、情绪加工的道德脑区和直觉加工的道德脑区。研究主要从客观和主观两方面分析了道德直觉决策的一般性影响因素--文化、道德境遇、经验、情绪和道德直觉; 揭示了道德直觉决策的加工机制。未来研究应在加强理论建构的基础上, 通过更缜密细致的实验设计去探究决策过程中各因素的交互作用, 并明确道德脑区之间的联结。     

Toward a Gongfu Reconstruction of Confucianism —Responses to Comments by Huang Yong,Fan Ruiping,and Wang Qingjie

Responding to comments of my recent book, Understanding the Analects of Confucius, by Huang Yong, Fan Ruiping, and Wang Qingjie, this paper looks to highlight one of its major features—that it is a contemporary continuation of the Chinese tradition of doing commentary both as a way of allowing classic texts to unfold their rich meanings in the context of different times, and as a way for the commentator to express his or her own views. It strives to explain how a gongfu reconstruction of Confucianism can explain the apparent inconsistency between advocating rule-like instructions next to its encouragement of the art of flexibility, and to reveal what is more fundamental about Confucianism—rather than a system of rigid moral rules, it is an art of life. This gongfu interpretation would lead to the view that Confucianism does not depend on metaphysical truths as its justification, although it does need to hold metaphysical views as a way of affirming its values, which are justified through the excellence of life to which they lead. While the gongfu approach more accurately reflects Confucius’ own philosophical orientation, and it is therefore used to determine technical details such as what interpretations to put into translation of a text and what interpretations to list in the annotations as alternatives, it is, in the author’s humble view, also a unique contribution that the Chinese tradition can offer to world philosophy.     

Principlism,Pragmatism, or Reconstructionist Confucianism? —Some Comments on Ni Peimin’s English Translation of the Analects

This essay provides a few critical points of view on Ni Peimin’s recent English translation of the Analects. It shows that his translations of ren into “human-heartedness” and of li into “ritual propriety” may indicate a willingness to recast these Confucian concepts in the modern ideology of western subjectivism or individualism, whereas Confucianism is not in the direction of such ideologies. Moreover, while Ni seems to offer a “no-rule” view of Confucian virtue ethics, he cannot deny the existence of moral rules and principles in the Confucian system. It is insufficient for him to emphasize the importance of Confucian “instructions” or “methods” as he does without explicating their relations to Confucian rules. Additionally, Ni’s gongfu Confucianism provides a necessary and healthy step back from the contemporary principlism that has been dominant and popular in contemporary politics, ethics, and applied ethics, but Ni goes too far in denying the importance of the moral rules and principles that are implicit or explicit in the Confucian ritual practices and upheld in Confucius’s Analects.     

Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Free Will

In this dialogue Derk Pereboom and Marcel Brass discuss the free will problem from the perspective of philosophy and cognitive neuroscience. First, they give their opinion on how the two disciplines contribute to the free will problem. While Pereboom is optimistic regarding the contribution of science, Brass is more pessimistic and questions the usefulness of an empirical approach to the question whether free will exists or not. Then they outline their position on the free will problem. The idea of a transcendental agent is discussed in more detail. Furthermore, it is discussed whether free will scepticism is a politically, socially, psychologically viable position. Pereboom argues that promoting the idea of free will scepticism can have a positive impact on retributive emotions and the political practice regarding retributive punishment. Brass argues that retributive emotions are deeply rooted in evolution and therefore difficult to change via high-level beliefs about free will. Finally, the future of the free will debate is discussed. Both agree that the dialogue between philosophy and psychology should be intensified. Philosophy can benefit from taking empirical research more seriously. Psychology and neuroscience can benefit from philosophy by appreciating the sophistication and conceptual clarity of the philosophical debate. Both have to find a common language and define common problems that can be tackled from both perspectives.