所有权的双重标准。

Q1 Social Sciences
Open Mind Pub Date : 2025-02-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00190
Zofia Washington, Ori Friedman
{"title":"所有权的双重标准。","authors":"Zofia Washington, Ori Friedman","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Owners are often blamed when their property causes harm but might not receive corresponding praise when their property does good. This suggests a double standard of ownership, wherein owning property poses risks for moral blame that are not balanced with equal opportunities for credit. We investigated this possibility in three preregistered experiments on 746 US residents. Participants read vignettes where agentic property (e.g., animals, robots) produced bad or good outcomes, and judged whether owners and the property were morally responsible. With bad outcomes, participants assigned owners more blame than property (Experiments 1 and 2) or similar blame (Experiment 3). But with good outcomes, participants consistently assigned owners much less praise relative to their property. The first two experiments also examined if the double standard arises in two other relationships between authorities and subordinates; participants showed the double standard when assessing moral responsibility for parents and children, but not for employers and employees. Together, these findings point to a novel asymmetry in how owners are assigned responsibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"325-339"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864797/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Double Standard of Ownership.\",\"authors\":\"Zofia Washington, Ori Friedman\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/opmi_a_00190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Owners are often blamed when their property causes harm but might not receive corresponding praise when their property does good. This suggests a double standard of ownership, wherein owning property poses risks for moral blame that are not balanced with equal opportunities for credit. We investigated this possibility in three preregistered experiments on 746 US residents. Participants read vignettes where agentic property (e.g., animals, robots) produced bad or good outcomes, and judged whether owners and the property were morally responsible. With bad outcomes, participants assigned owners more blame than property (Experiments 1 and 2) or similar blame (Experiment 3). But with good outcomes, participants consistently assigned owners much less praise relative to their property. The first two experiments also examined if the double standard arises in two other relationships between authorities and subordinates; participants showed the double standard when assessing moral responsibility for parents and children, but not for employers and employees. Together, these findings point to a novel asymmetry in how owners are assigned responsibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Mind\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"325-339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864797/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当他们的财产造成伤害时,业主往往受到指责,但当他们的财产做好事时,业主可能得不到相应的赞扬。这表明所有权存在双重标准,即拥有财产会带来道德指责的风险,而这种风险与获得信贷的平等机会是不平衡的。我们对746名美国居民进行了三个预先登记的实验,调查了这种可能性。参与者阅读代理财产(如动物、机器人)产生好坏结果的小短文,并判断所有者和财产是否负有道德责任。在结果不好的情况下,参与者对主人的指责多于对财产的指责(实验1和2)或类似的指责(实验3)。但在结果好的情况下,参与者对主人的赞扬相对于他们的财产要少得多。前两个实验还检验了双重标准是否出现在权威和下属之间的其他两种关系中;参与者在评估父母和孩子的道德责任时表现出双重标准,但在评估雇主和雇员的道德责任时却没有表现出双重标准。总之,这些发现指出了一种新的不对称,即在如何分配所有者的责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Double Standard of Ownership.

Owners are often blamed when their property causes harm but might not receive corresponding praise when their property does good. This suggests a double standard of ownership, wherein owning property poses risks for moral blame that are not balanced with equal opportunities for credit. We investigated this possibility in three preregistered experiments on 746 US residents. Participants read vignettes where agentic property (e.g., animals, robots) produced bad or good outcomes, and judged whether owners and the property were morally responsible. With bad outcomes, participants assigned owners more blame than property (Experiments 1 and 2) or similar blame (Experiment 3). But with good outcomes, participants consistently assigned owners much less praise relative to their property. The first two experiments also examined if the double standard arises in two other relationships between authorities and subordinates; participants showed the double standard when assessing moral responsibility for parents and children, but not for employers and employees. Together, these findings point to a novel asymmetry in how owners are assigned responsibility.

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
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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