谷歌是免费的:群体间好奇心的道德评价。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Ariel J Mosley, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon
{"title":"谷歌是免费的:群体间好奇心的道德评价。","authors":"Ariel J Mosley, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon","doi":"10.1177/01461672231180149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two experiments investigated how evaluations of intergroup curiosity differed depending on whether people placed responsibility for their learning on themselves or on outgroup members. In Study 1, participants (<i>n</i> = 340; 51% White-American, 49% Black-American) evaluated White actors who were curious about Black culture and placed responsibility on outgroup members to teach versus on themselves to learn. Both Black and White participants rated the latter actors as more moral, and perceptions of effort mediated this effect. A follow-up preregistered study (<i>n</i> = 513; 75% White-American) asked whether perceptions of greater effort <i>cause</i> greater perceptions of moral goodness. Replicating Study 1, participants rated actors as more moral when they placed responsibility on themselves versus others. Participants also rated actors as more moral when they exerted high versus low effort. These results clarify when and why participants view curiosity as morally good and help to strengthen bridges between work on curiosity, moral cognition, and intergroup relations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"152-163"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Google is Free: Moral Evaluations of Intergroup Curiosity.\",\"authors\":\"Ariel J Mosley, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672231180149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Two experiments investigated how evaluations of intergroup curiosity differed depending on whether people placed responsibility for their learning on themselves or on outgroup members. In Study 1, participants (<i>n</i> = 340; 51% White-American, 49% Black-American) evaluated White actors who were curious about Black culture and placed responsibility on outgroup members to teach versus on themselves to learn. Both Black and White participants rated the latter actors as more moral, and perceptions of effort mediated this effect. A follow-up preregistered study (<i>n</i> = 513; 75% White-American) asked whether perceptions of greater effort <i>cause</i> greater perceptions of moral goodness. Replicating Study 1, participants rated actors as more moral when they placed responsibility on themselves versus others. Participants also rated actors as more moral when they exerted high versus low effort. These results clarify when and why participants view curiosity as morally good and help to strengthen bridges between work on curiosity, moral cognition, and intergroup relations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"152-163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"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/10.1177/01461672231180149\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/6 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/10.1177/01461672231180149","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有两项实验调查了人们对群体间好奇心的评价是如何根据人们将学习责任归咎于自己还是归咎于群体外成员而有所不同的。在研究 1 中,参与者(n = 340;51% 为美国白人,49% 为美国黑人)评价了对黑人文化好奇的白人演员,他们将教导黑人文化的责任放在了外群体成员身上,而将学习的责任放在了自己身上。黑人和白人参与者都认为后一种行为者更有道德感,而对努力的感知对这一效果起了中介作用。一项预先登记的后续研究(n = 513;75% 为美籍白人)询问,对更多努力的认知是否会导致对道德善行的更多认知。与第一项研究相同,当参与者将责任归咎于自己而不是他人时,他们对演员的道德评价更高。当行为者付出的努力越大,其道德感就越高。这些结果澄清了参与者何时以及为何将好奇心视为道德善举,有助于加强好奇心、道德认知和群体间关系研究之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Google is Free: Moral Evaluations of Intergroup Curiosity.

Two experiments investigated how evaluations of intergroup curiosity differed depending on whether people placed responsibility for their learning on themselves or on outgroup members. In Study 1, participants (n = 340; 51% White-American, 49% Black-American) evaluated White actors who were curious about Black culture and placed responsibility on outgroup members to teach versus on themselves to learn. Both Black and White participants rated the latter actors as more moral, and perceptions of effort mediated this effect. A follow-up preregistered study (n = 513; 75% White-American) asked whether perceptions of greater effort cause greater perceptions of moral goodness. Replicating Study 1, participants rated actors as more moral when they placed responsibility on themselves versus others. Participants also rated actors as more moral when they exerted high versus low effort. These results clarify when and why participants view curiosity as morally good and help to strengthen bridges between work on curiosity, moral cognition, and intergroup relations.

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