Utilitarian choices in COVID-19 dilemmas depend on whether or not a foreign language is used and type of dilemma

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
A. Maftei, A. Holman, Olga Gancevici
{"title":"Utilitarian choices in COVID-19 dilemmas depend on whether or not a foreign language is used and type of dilemma","authors":"A. Maftei, A. Holman, Olga Gancevici","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2021.1934684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We were interested in exploring the associations and effects of experimental language (i.e., native – L1, or foreign – L2), dilemma type (i.e., personal – D1 or impersonal – D2), the digital device participants used (i.e., PC/laptop or smartphone), along with gender and age in sacrificial COVID-19 and non-COVID moral dilemmas. We performed two studies involving 522 participants aged 18 to 69 in April 2020. In Study 1, we found no significant associations between the dilemma type and the digital device. However, most participants chose to sacrifice an older COVID-19 patient in a critical medical condition to prioritize rescuing similar, younger patients (i.e., 45-year-old males). Results also suggested that male and younger participants were more likely to choose the utilitarian option when the sacrificial dilemma was presented in French. In study 2 (i.e., non-COVID-19), participants made significantly more utilitarian choices in the personal dilemmas presented in French. Results are discussed concerning the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic context and its emotional impact on moral judgment.","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1934684","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT We were interested in exploring the associations and effects of experimental language (i.e., native – L1, or foreign – L2), dilemma type (i.e., personal – D1 or impersonal – D2), the digital device participants used (i.e., PC/laptop or smartphone), along with gender and age in sacrificial COVID-19 and non-COVID moral dilemmas. We performed two studies involving 522 participants aged 18 to 69 in April 2020. In Study 1, we found no significant associations between the dilemma type and the digital device. However, most participants chose to sacrifice an older COVID-19 patient in a critical medical condition to prioritize rescuing similar, younger patients (i.e., 45-year-old males). Results also suggested that male and younger participants were more likely to choose the utilitarian option when the sacrificial dilemma was presented in French. In study 2 (i.e., non-COVID-19), participants made significantly more utilitarian choices in the personal dilemmas presented in French. Results are discussed concerning the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic context and its emotional impact on moral judgment.
新冠肺炎困境中的功利主义选择取决于是否使用外语和困境类型
摘要我们感兴趣的是探索实验语言(即母语-L1或外语-L2)、困境类型(即个人-D1或非个人-D2)、参与者使用的数字设备(即个人电脑/笔记本电脑或智能手机)以及新冠肺炎和非新冠肺炎道德困境中的性别和年龄的关联和影响。2020年4月,我们进行了两项研究,涉及522名年龄在18岁至69岁之间的参与者。在研究1中,我们没有发现困境类型与数字设备之间存在显著关联。然而,大多数参与者选择牺牲一名病情危重的老年新冠肺炎患者,优先抢救类似的年轻患者(即45岁男性)。研究结果还表明,当牺牲困境用法语呈现时,男性和年轻参与者更有可能选择功利主义的选择。在研究2中(即非COVID-19),参与者在用法语呈现的个人困境中做出了更为实用的选择。讨论了关于严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型疫情背景及其对道德判断的情感影响的结果。
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
Ethics & Behavior
Ethics & Behavior Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
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