Don't be rash: how effort, religion, and decision-type influence judgments of morality.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Veronica N Z Bergstrom, Jeffrey S Robinson, Aisling Curtin, Alison L Chasteen
{"title":"Don't be rash: how effort, religion, and decision-type influence judgments of morality.","authors":"Veronica N Z Bergstrom, Jeffrey S Robinson, Aisling Curtin, Alison L Chasteen","doi":"10.1080/00224545.2024.2413500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study explored how knowledge (Study 1) and inferences (Study 2) about religiosity influence impressions of morality depending on whether effort is exerted to reach a morally controversial decision. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a [religious/nonreligious] doctor who exerted [little/great] effort into their decision to euthanize a patient. Results indicated that when the doctor was nonreligious or exerted low effort, they were considered less moral compared to when they were religious or exerted high effort. In Study 2, Turk Prime participants evaluated a doctor who decided in favor or against euthanizing a patient, with the same effort manipulation as Study 1. Results indicated that the doctor who favored euthanasia was considered less religious than the doctor who did not. As in Study 1, greater morality was associated with the doctor who exerted greater effort, particularly when they favored euthanasia. When the doctor favored euthanasia, they were rated as more moral when their background was inferred to be more religious; however, the opposite pattern of results emerged when the doctor decided against euthanasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":48205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2024.2413500","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study explored how knowledge (Study 1) and inferences (Study 2) about religiosity influence impressions of morality depending on whether effort is exerted to reach a morally controversial decision. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a [religious/nonreligious] doctor who exerted [little/great] effort into their decision to euthanize a patient. Results indicated that when the doctor was nonreligious or exerted low effort, they were considered less moral compared to when they were religious or exerted high effort. In Study 2, Turk Prime participants evaluated a doctor who decided in favor or against euthanizing a patient, with the same effort manipulation as Study 1. Results indicated that the doctor who favored euthanasia was considered less religious than the doctor who did not. As in Study 1, greater morality was associated with the doctor who exerted greater effort, particularly when they favored euthanasia. When the doctor favored euthanasia, they were rated as more moral when their background was inferred to be more religious; however, the opposite pattern of results emerged when the doctor decided against euthanasia.

不要轻率:努力、宗教和决策类型如何影响道德判断。
本研究探讨了关于宗教信仰的知识(研究 1)和推论(研究 2)如何影响道德印象,这取决于是否为做出一个在道德上有争议的决定而付出了努力。在研究 1 中,本科生对一位[有宗教信仰/无宗教信仰]的医生做出安乐死决定时所付出的[很少/很大]努力进行评判。结果表明,与有宗教信仰或付出较多努力的医生相比,无宗教信仰或付出较少努力的医生被认为道德水平较低。在研究 2 中,Turk Prime 的参与者对一名决定赞成或反对对病人实施安乐死的医生进行了评估,其努力程度操纵与研究 1 相同。结果显示,与不赞成安乐死的医生相比,赞成安乐死的医生被认为宗教信仰较少。与研究 1 一样,医生付出的努力越多,道德感就越强,尤其是当他们赞成安乐死时。当医生赞成安乐死时,如果他们的背景被推断为宗教信仰较浓厚,他们就会被评为道德感较强的医生;然而,当医生决定反对安乐死时,则出现了相反的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social Psychology
Journal of Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Since John Dewey and Carl Murchison founded it in 1929, The Journal of Social Psychology has published original empirical research in all areas of basic and applied social psychology. Most articles report laboratory or field research in core areas of social and organizational psychology including the self, attribution theory, attitudes, social influence, consumer behavior, decision making, groups and teams, sterotypes and discrimination, interpersonal attraction, prosocial behavior, aggression, organizational behavior, leadership, and cross-cultural studies. Academic experts review all articles to ensure that they meet high standards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信