基于瞬间成果的反思会影响生物伦理观吗?前后期干预设计。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Carme Isern-Mas, Piotr Bystranowski, John Rueda, Ivar R. Hannikainen
{"title":"基于瞬间成果的反思会影响生物伦理观吗?前后期干预设计。","authors":"Carme Isern-Mas,&nbsp;Piotr Bystranowski,&nbsp;John Rueda,&nbsp;Ivar R. Hannikainen","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many bioliberals endorse broadly consequentialist frameworks in normative ethics, implying that a progressive stance on matters of bioethical controversy could stem from outcome-based reasoning. This raises an intriguing empirical prediction: encouraging outcome-based reflection could yield a shift toward bioliberal views among nonexperts as well. To evaluate this hypothesis, we identified empirical premises that underlie moral disagreements on seven divisive issues (e.g., vaccines, abortion, or genetically modified organisms). In exploratory and confirmatory experiments, we assessed whether people spontaneously engage in outcome-based reasoning by asking how their moral views change after momentarily reflecting on the underlying empirical questions. Our findings indicate that momentary reflection had no overall treatment effect on the central tendency or the dispersion in moral attitudes when compared to prereflection measures collected 1 week prior. Autoregressive models provided evidence that participants engaged in consequentialist moral reasoning, but this self-guided reflection produced neither moral “progress” (shifts in the distributions’ central tendency) nor moral “consensus” (reductions in their dispersion). These results imply that flexibility in people's search for empirical answers may limit the potential for outcome-based reflection to foster moral consensus.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Momentary Outcome-Based Reflection Shape Bioethical Views? A Pre-Post Intervention Design\",\"authors\":\"Carme Isern-Mas,&nbsp;Piotr Bystranowski,&nbsp;John Rueda,&nbsp;Ivar R. Hannikainen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.70009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Many bioliberals endorse broadly consequentialist frameworks in normative ethics, implying that a progressive stance on matters of bioethical controversy could stem from outcome-based reasoning. This raises an intriguing empirical prediction: encouraging outcome-based reflection could yield a shift toward bioliberal views among nonexperts as well. To evaluate this hypothesis, we identified empirical premises that underlie moral disagreements on seven divisive issues (e.g., vaccines, abortion, or genetically modified organisms). In exploratory and confirmatory experiments, we assessed whether people spontaneously engage in outcome-based reasoning by asking how their moral views change after momentarily reflecting on the underlying empirical questions. Our findings indicate that momentary reflection had no overall treatment effect on the central tendency or the dispersion in moral attitudes when compared to prereflection measures collected 1 week prior. Autoregressive models provided evidence that participants engaged in consequentialist moral reasoning, but this self-guided reflection produced neither moral “progress” (shifts in the distributions’ central tendency) nor moral “consensus” (reductions in their dispersion). These results imply that flexibility in people's search for empirical answers may limit the potential for outcome-based reflection to foster moral consensus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70009\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70009\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多生物自由主义者赞同规范伦理学中广泛的结果论框架,这意味着在生物伦理学争议问题上的进步立场可能源于基于结果的推理。这就提出了一个耐人寻味的经验预测:鼓励基于结果的反思可能会使非专家也转向生物自由主义观点。为了评估这一假设,我们确定了在七个有分歧的问题(如疫苗、堕胎或转基因生物)上存在道德分歧的经验前提。在探索性实验和确认性实验中,我们通过询问人们在瞬间反思基本经验问题后,其道德观点会发生怎样的变化,来评估人们是否会自发地进行基于结果的推理。我们的研究结果表明,与一周前收集的反思前测量结果相比,瞬间反思对道德态度的中心倾向或分散性没有整体的处理效果。自回归模型提供了参与者进行结果主义道德推理的证据,但这种自我引导的反思既没有产生道德 "进步"(分布中心倾向的移动),也没有产生道德 "共识"(分布离散度的降低)。这些结果表明,人们在寻找经验答案时的灵活性可能会限制基于结果的反思促进道德共识的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Does Momentary Outcome-Based Reflection Shape Bioethical Views? A Pre-Post Intervention Design

Does Momentary Outcome-Based Reflection Shape Bioethical Views? A Pre-Post Intervention Design

Many bioliberals endorse broadly consequentialist frameworks in normative ethics, implying that a progressive stance on matters of bioethical controversy could stem from outcome-based reasoning. This raises an intriguing empirical prediction: encouraging outcome-based reflection could yield a shift toward bioliberal views among nonexperts as well. To evaluate this hypothesis, we identified empirical premises that underlie moral disagreements on seven divisive issues (e.g., vaccines, abortion, or genetically modified organisms). In exploratory and confirmatory experiments, we assessed whether people spontaneously engage in outcome-based reasoning by asking how their moral views change after momentarily reflecting on the underlying empirical questions. Our findings indicate that momentary reflection had no overall treatment effect on the central tendency or the dispersion in moral attitudes when compared to prereflection measures collected 1 week prior. Autoregressive models provided evidence that participants engaged in consequentialist moral reasoning, but this self-guided reflection produced neither moral “progress” (shifts in the distributions’ central tendency) nor moral “consensus” (reductions in their dispersion). These results imply that flexibility in people's search for empirical answers may limit the potential for outcome-based reflection to foster moral consensus.

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
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
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