Wrongness and Blame Judgments and Their Dynamics: Toward a Three-Input Processing Model of Moral Judgment.

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
International Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5334/irsp.868
Aurore Gaboriaud, Flora Gautheron, Jean-Charles Quinton, Annique Smeding
{"title":"Wrongness and Blame Judgments and Their Dynamics: Toward a Three-Input Processing Model of Moral Judgment.","authors":"Aurore Gaboriaud, Flora Gautheron, Jean-Charles Quinton, Annique Smeding","doi":"10.5334/irsp.868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In moral psychology, several approaches to moral judgments coexist, with sometimes contradictory results for different types of judgments. In the current research, we combine two views of moral judgment into a novel three-input processing model. As a first empirical test of this model, the present research investigates the influence of these three classic inputs (i.e., intent, outcome, and causality) on wrongness and blame judgments as well as their underlying dynamics. This preregistered experiment (<i>N</i> = 145) re-uses an adapted mouse-tracking paradigm to analyze these influences over time. Results on final judgments replicate the effects of intent, outcome, and causality, as well as partial evidence for their interaction effects. Mouse trajectory analysis further refines these interaction effects, including evidence for differential dynamics for blame versus wrongness judgments. However, this study does not reveal clear differential weight for intent and outcome inputs in blame versus wrongness judgments. Discussion focuses on the evidence supporting but also contradicting the proposed three-input processing model and insists on the importance of distinguishing between final judgments and underlying dynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"37 ","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12372680/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.868","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In moral psychology, several approaches to moral judgments coexist, with sometimes contradictory results for different types of judgments. In the current research, we combine two views of moral judgment into a novel three-input processing model. As a first empirical test of this model, the present research investigates the influence of these three classic inputs (i.e., intent, outcome, and causality) on wrongness and blame judgments as well as their underlying dynamics. This preregistered experiment (N = 145) re-uses an adapted mouse-tracking paradigm to analyze these influences over time. Results on final judgments replicate the effects of intent, outcome, and causality, as well as partial evidence for their interaction effects. Mouse trajectory analysis further refines these interaction effects, including evidence for differential dynamics for blame versus wrongness judgments. However, this study does not reveal clear differential weight for intent and outcome inputs in blame versus wrongness judgments. Discussion focuses on the evidence supporting but also contradicting the proposed three-input processing model and insists on the importance of distinguishing between final judgments and underlying dynamics.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

错误与责备判断及其动态:一个道德判断的三输入加工模型。
在道德心理学中,几种道德判断方法并存,有时不同类型的判断结果相互矛盾。在目前的研究中,我们将道德判断的两种观点结合到一个新的三输入加工模型中。作为该模型的第一个实证检验,本研究调查了这三种经典输入(即意图、结果和因果关系)对错误和指责判断的影响及其潜在的动态。这个预注册的实验(N = 145)重新使用了一个适应性的鼠标跟踪范例来分析这些随时间的影响。最终判断的结果复制了意图、结果和因果关系的影响,以及它们相互作用的部分证据。鼠标轨迹分析进一步细化了这些相互作用,包括指责与错误判断的差异动力学证据。然而,这项研究并没有揭示在责备和错误判断中意图和结果输入的明确权重差异。讨论的重点是支持和反驳三输入处理模型的证据,并坚持区分最终判断和潜在动力的重要性。
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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Review of Social Psychology (IRSP) is supported by the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale (A.D.R.I.P.S.). The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. Articles are written preferably in English but can also be written in French. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It emphasizes scientific quality of its publications in every area of social psychology. Any kind of research can be considered, as long as the results significantly enhance the understanding of a general social psychological phenomenon and the methodology is appropriate.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信