结果预期与结果反应对儿童意图认知和道德判断的影响

考察了结果预期与结果反应对儿童意图认知和道德判断的影响。结果表明,结果预期影响幼儿园和小学儿童的意图认知,结果反应仅影响幼儿园儿童的意图认知;结果预期和结果反应显著地影响幼儿园和小学儿童的道德判断,但结果预期对小学儿童道德判断的影响要比结果反应大。     

Merit,fit, and basic desert

Basic desert is central to the dispute between compatibilists and incompatibilists over the four-case manipulation argument. I argue that there are two distinct ways of understanding the desert salient to moral responsibility; moral desert can be understood as a claim about fitting responses to an agent or as a claim about the merit of the agent. Failing to recognize this distinction has contributed to a stalemate between both sides. I suggest that recognizing these distinct approaches to moral desert will help clarify a central source of disagreement between compatibilists and incompatibilists and assist both sides in resolving the current stalemate.     

Do emotions play an essential role in moral judgments?

The past few decades of moral psychology research have yielded empirical anomalies for rationalist theories of moral judgments. An increasing number of psychologists and philosophers argue that these anomalies are explained well by sentimentalism, the thesis that the presence of an emotion is necessary for the formation of a sincere moral judgment. The present review reveals that while emotions and moral judgments indeed often co-occur, there is scant evidence that emotions directly cause or constitute moral judgments. Research on disgust, anger, sympathy, and guilt indicates that people only reliably experience emotions when judging conduct that is relevant to the welfare of the self and valued others. Moreover, many recent studies have either failed to replicate or exposed crucial confounds in the most cited evidence in support of sentimentalism. Moral psychologists should jettison sentimentalism, and focus instead on how considerations of harm and welfare—the core concepts of rationalist theories— interact with empirical beliefs to shape moral judgments.     

A tale of two processes: On Joseph Henrich’s the secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution,domesticating our species,and making us smarter

We situate Henrich’s book in the larger research tradition of which it is a part and show how he presents a wide array of recent psychological, physiological, and neurological data as supporting the view that two related but distinct processes have shaped human nature and made us unique: cumulative cultural evolution and culture-driven genetic evolution. We briefly sketch out several ways philosophers might fruitfully engage with this view and note some implications it may have for current philosophic debates in moral and political theory and over the nature of extended cognition. We end by noting how Henrich’s view of the source of cultural design and innovation, and the prominence of place he gives to the extended process of cultural evolution, cuts against a cluster of broad but common views about human minds, recasting putative bugs as features and indicating that many of the distinctive features of our individual minds evolved to allow them to be effective cogs in the larger, more productive cultural machine.     

道德情绪：道德行为的中介调节

道德情绪是心理学的一个重要研究主题。道德情绪是个体根据一定的道德标准评价自己或他人的行为和思想时所产生的一种情绪体验。它是一种复合情绪, 主要包括厌恶、移情、内疚, 羞耻等。道德情绪影响下人类会产生某些典型行为, 这主要包括道德洁净行为和道德补偿行为。心理学研究道德情绪的实验范式很多, 主要有行为回忆范式、实物或图片刺激范式、情境设置范式等。有关道德情绪的未来研究主要应注重于探讨正性道德情绪在道德发展中的作用, 探讨道德情绪对群体行为的影响, 以及探讨道德情绪在不同文化背景下的价值意义。     

道德推理与道德行为关系的元分析

目前道德心理学中存在对道德推理作用的质疑, 这一质疑源自哲学领域的著名争论。从经典道德心理学理论来说, 道德推理应该是道德行为的重要决定因素, 但新近的观点则否定这一重要作用。本研究采用元分析技术探讨道德推理与道德行为的关系。通过文献搜索与检查, 获得了50项研究和83个独立效应量, 共包含16738名被试。检验表明发表偏差不会影响元分析的结果, 选择随机效应模型是准确的。通过随机效应模型的元分析表明, 道德推理与道德的行为有显著的正相关, 与不道德的行为有显著的负相关。调节效应分析表明, 道德推理测量工具的类型会影响道德推理与道德行为的关系, 被试年龄阶段会影响道德推理与不道德行为的关系。这些结果肯定了道德推理的作用, 也强调了研究过程中要关注测量工具的类型, 指出了需要开发更全面的道德推理测量工具。     

ICU护士伦理气氛认知与道德困境的相关性研究

采用量性研究方法对ICU护士进行调查分析,了解ICU护士道德困境和伦理气氛认知的现状,并探讨两者之间的相关性。结果显示,ICU护士道德困境总分为43.00分(24.00, 67.00),伦理气氛认知得分为(3.44±0.38)分。相关性分析结果显示：道德困境总分与关怀型伦理气氛呈负相关(r=-0.131,P＜0.05),与功利型伦理气氛呈正相关(r=0.297,P＜0.01)。护理管理者在临床工作中可采取积极有效的措施塑造关怀型伦理气氛,避免或削弱功利型伦理气氛的形成, 从而降低道德困境的发生。

     

重大传染病感染患者的道德创伤隐患研究

重大传染病疫情背景下,病原体的不断变异、疫苗保护效力的不确定性以及诸多后遗症会导致疫情难以控制,并且造成一个数量极其庞大的特殊弱势群体—感染患者。在感染患者从疑似患病到康复的期间,影响他人工作生活、恶化疫情防控形势、感染他人、亲友的抛弃、传染病污名化、医疗资源分配不均以及社会的歧视与排挤等潜在的道德创伤源会对其内心原本的道德体系产生巨大的冲击,甚至改变其原有的道德认知并击溃其积极的道德情感,从而产生道德创伤。在此基础上,感染患者会因此产生一系列社会问题、信任问题、精神问题、生存问题以及诸多消极观念。

     

Children's understanding of equity in the context of inequality

In the context of a pre‐existing resource inequality, the concerns for strict equality (allocating the same number of resources to all recipients) conflict with the concerns for equity (allocating resources to rectify the inequality). This study demonstrated age‐related changes in children's (3–8 years old, N = 133) ability to simultaneously weigh the concerns for equality and equity through the analysis of children's judgements, allocations, and reasoning in the context of a pre‐existing inequality. Three‐ to 4‐year‐olds took equity into account in their judgements of allocations, but allocated resources equally in a behavioural task. In contrast, 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds rectified the inequality in their allocations, but judged both equitable and equal allocations to be fair. It was not until 7–8 years old that children focused on rectifying the inequality in their allocations and judgements, as well as judged equal allocations less positively than equitable allocations, thereby demonstrating a more complete understanding of the necessity of rectifying inequalities. The novel findings revealed age‐related changes from 3 to 8 years old regarding how the concerns for equity and equality develop, and how children's judgements, allocations, and reasoning are coordinated when making allocation decisions.     

Rethinking Moral Agency in Markets: A Book Discussion on Behavioral Economics

Recent work in behavioral economics and psychology provides valuable resources for religious ethicists. This book discussion examines contributions by Cass Sunstein, Daniel Kahneman, George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton, Uri Gneezy and John A. List, and Douglas Hough. This literature raises important questions about ethical decision‐making, moral agency and responsibility, and the ethics of life in global capitalism. It also opens up promising areas for interdisciplinary dialogue between economics and religious studies. This book discussion concludes that religious ethicists have much to contribute to the conversations about moral anthropology that are now being held in behavioral economic research, and to the broader political economic debates in which this research participates.