环顾四周和展望未来:道德决策中的预测和道德强度

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Mark Fichtel, Y. Gujar, Chanda Sanders, Cory Higgs, Tristan J. McIntosh, S. Connelly, M. Mumford
{"title":"环顾四周和展望未来:道德决策中的预测和道德强度","authors":"Mark Fichtel, Y. Gujar, Chanda Sanders, Cory Higgs, Tristan J. McIntosh, S. Connelly, M. Mumford","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Prior studies have examined the impacts of sensemaking processes, such as forecasting, on ethical decision making (EDM) but only a few have considered how aspects of the ethical issue itself, such as social consensus and magnitude of consequences, might interact with sensemaking processes to influence EDM. The present effort examines both forecasting and moral intensity, as well as their interactions, during the EDM process. Participants in this study were given an ethical scenario with either a high or low degree of social consensus as well as a greater or smaller magnitude of consequences. They were then asked to forecast either many or few potential outcomes stemming from their actions before coming up with a final plan of action. Responses were rated for quality of forecasting, use of metacognitive reasoning strategies, perceived moral intensity, and ethicality. Results indicate that social consensus may not be beneficial for EDM if the magnitude of consequences is low or individuals are not engaged in extensive forecasting. Implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Looking around and looking ahead: forecasting and moral intensity in ethical decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Mark Fichtel, Y. Gujar, Chanda Sanders, Cory Higgs, Tristan J. McIntosh, S. Connelly, M. Mumford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Prior studies have examined the impacts of sensemaking processes, such as forecasting, on ethical decision making (EDM) but only a few have considered how aspects of the ethical issue itself, such as social consensus and magnitude of consequences, might interact with sensemaking processes to influence EDM. The present effort examines both forecasting and moral intensity, as well as their interactions, during the EDM process. Participants in this study were given an ethical scenario with either a high or low degree of social consensus as well as a greater or smaller magnitude of consequences. They were then asked to forecast either many or few potential outcomes stemming from their actions before coming up with a final plan of action. Responses were rated for quality of forecasting, use of metacognitive reasoning strategies, perceived moral intensity, and ethicality. Results indicate that social consensus may not be beneficial for EDM if the magnitude of consequences is low or individuals are not engaged in extensive forecasting. Implications of these findings are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1896364","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: 0

摘要

摘要先前的研究已经考察了感知过程(如预测)对伦理决策的影响,但只有少数研究考虑了伦理问题本身的各个方面,如社会共识和后果的严重程度,可能与感知过程相互作用,从而影响EDM。本研究考察了预测和道德强度,以及它们在EDM过程中的相互作用。这项研究的参与者被赋予了一个道德场景,社会共识程度高或低,后果程度大或小。然后,在制定最终行动计划之前,他们被要求预测他们的行动可能产生的许多或少数潜在结果。根据预测质量、元认知推理策略的使用、感知道德强度和道德性对回答进行评分。结果表明,如果后果的严重程度较低或个人没有参与广泛的预测,社会共识可能对EDM不利。讨论了这些发现的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Looking around and looking ahead: forecasting and moral intensity in ethical decision-making
ABSTRACT Prior studies have examined the impacts of sensemaking processes, such as forecasting, on ethical decision making (EDM) but only a few have considered how aspects of the ethical issue itself, such as social consensus and magnitude of consequences, might interact with sensemaking processes to influence EDM. The present effort examines both forecasting and moral intensity, as well as their interactions, during the EDM process. Participants in this study were given an ethical scenario with either a high or low degree of social consensus as well as a greater or smaller magnitude of consequences. They were then asked to forecast either many or few potential outcomes stemming from their actions before coming up with a final plan of action. Responses were rated for quality of forecasting, use of metacognitive reasoning strategies, perceived moral intensity, and ethicality. Results indicate that social consensus may not be beneficial for EDM if the magnitude of consequences is low or individuals are not engaged in extensive forecasting. Implications of these findings are discussed.
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
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