整体论与因果责任:事件后果的数量和价值的作用。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
David Santos, Blanca Requero, Manuel Martín-Fernández
{"title":"整体论与因果责任:事件后果的数量和价值的作用。","authors":"David Santos, Blanca Requero, Manuel Martín-Fernández","doi":"10.1177/01461672231192827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies (<i>N</i> = 4,103), participants' thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause-consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"452-466"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Holism and Causal Responsibility: The Role of Number and Valence of Event Consequences.\",\"authors\":\"David Santos, Blanca Requero, Manuel Martín-Fernández\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672231192827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies (<i>N</i> = 4,103), participants' thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause-consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"452-466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231192827\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231192827","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了整体分析思维风格对因果责任的影响。在七项研究中(N = 4103),对参与者的思维风格进行了测量或操纵。然后,在几个涉及因果关系的情景中,后果的价值或数量会发生变化。作为一项因变量,参与者指出了在每个情景中提到的原因所应承担的责任程度。结果显示,当情景中出现的后果是正面和负面结果的组合(而不是单价),以及当情景中触发多个(而不是单个)后果时,整体型(而不是分析型)参与者赋予原因更多的责任。为了探索这些结果的解释因素,最后一项研究对后果的复杂性和数量进行了操作。研究结果表明,整体型(与分析型)个体在确定因果归因时会考虑后果的复杂程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Holism and Causal Responsibility: The Role of Number and Valence of Event Consequences.

The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies (N = 4,103), participants' thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause-consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
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