Virtue trade-offs in everyday life.

IF 6.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-30 DOI:10.1037/pspp0000608
Qilin Zhang, Jeremy Jacobson, Benjamin Hardin, Jessie Sun
{"title":"Virtue trade-offs in everyday life.","authors":"Qilin Zhang, Jeremy Jacobson, Benjamin Hardin, Jessie Sun","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Is it usually possible to be virtuous in all ways, or do people experience ubiquitous trade-offs among moral virtues? Past work has examined a limited set of virtue pairs (e.g., honesty vs. compassion, fairness vs. loyalty) and focused on situations in which trade-offs are likely to occur. Across 2 day reconstruction method studies featuring representative U.S. samples, we investigate the frequency and experience of trade-offs among 12 virtues in everyday life. In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 377), participants reported virtue conflicts during 12,385 episodes across 1 week. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 988), participants elaborated on one trade-off episode. Trade-offs most often involved honesty and courage, and coding of open-ended responses showed that many (but not all) trade-offs reflected a general tension between benevolence and integrity. Overall, however, prevalence estimates suggested that virtue enactments tend to be largely compatible in daily life. People felt less happy when they experienced a virtue trade-off, but it also mattered how they resolved them. People most often prioritized one virtue over the other (57%) but were most satisfied with their decision in the rare cases (12%) when they overcame the trade-off by showing high levels of both virtues. Finally, there was a general mismatch between people's proclaimed virtue preferences and which virtues they prioritized when they experienced an everyday trade-off (e.g., people prioritized honesty the most in the abstract but the least in everyday decisions). These findings highlight the importance of studying moral decision-making in ecologically valid contexts and have implications for moral education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"695-714"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000608","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Is it usually possible to be virtuous in all ways, or do people experience ubiquitous trade-offs among moral virtues? Past work has examined a limited set of virtue pairs (e.g., honesty vs. compassion, fairness vs. loyalty) and focused on situations in which trade-offs are likely to occur. Across 2 day reconstruction method studies featuring representative U.S. samples, we investigate the frequency and experience of trade-offs among 12 virtues in everyday life. In Study 1 (N = 377), participants reported virtue conflicts during 12,385 episodes across 1 week. In Study 2 (N = 988), participants elaborated on one trade-off episode. Trade-offs most often involved honesty and courage, and coding of open-ended responses showed that many (but not all) trade-offs reflected a general tension between benevolence and integrity. Overall, however, prevalence estimates suggested that virtue enactments tend to be largely compatible in daily life. People felt less happy when they experienced a virtue trade-off, but it also mattered how they resolved them. People most often prioritized one virtue over the other (57%) but were most satisfied with their decision in the rare cases (12%) when they overcame the trade-off by showing high levels of both virtues. Finally, there was a general mismatch between people's proclaimed virtue preferences and which virtues they prioritized when they experienced an everyday trade-off (e.g., people prioritized honesty the most in the abstract but the least in everyday decisions). These findings highlight the importance of studying moral decision-making in ecologically valid contexts and have implications for moral education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

美德在日常生活中权衡取舍。
是否有可能在所有方面都是善良的,或者人们是否在道德美德之间经历了无处不在的权衡?过去的研究只考察了有限的几种美德(例如,诚实vs.同情,公平vs.忠诚),并专注于可能发生权衡的情况。在为期两天的重建方法研究中,我们以具有代表性的美国样本为特征,调查了日常生活中12种美德之间权衡的频率和经验。在研究1 (N = 377)中,参与者在一周内报告了12,385次美德冲突。在研究2 (N = 988)中,参与者详细阐述了一个权衡事件。权衡通常涉及诚实和勇气,而开放式回答的编码表明,许多(但不是全部)权衡反映了仁慈和正直之间的普遍紧张关系。然而,总体而言,流行率估计表明,美德行为在日常生活中往往是基本兼容的。人们在经历美德交换时感觉不那么快乐,但如何解决也很重要。人们通常会优先考虑其中一种美德(57%),但在极少数情况下(12%),当他们通过表现出高水平的两种美德来克服权衡时,他们对自己的决定最满意。最后,人们宣称的美德偏好与他们在日常权衡中优先考虑的美德之间普遍存在不匹配(例如,人们在抽象决策中最优先考虑诚实,但在日常决策中最不优先考虑诚实)。这些发现强调了在生态有效的背景下研究道德决策的重要性,并对道德教育具有启示意义。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
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
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
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
小红书