Abstract:
Moral judgments are often viewed as the outcome of affective and deliberative processes that could be impacted by social factors and individual characteristics. The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction between gender and social context on moral judgment. Participants included 315 undergraduate students (67.3% female). The participants completed the Moral Decision-Making Task while seated at row tables facing the front of the room or round tables facing other participants. The results indicated that males responded in a more utilitarian manner (harm one to save five) than females for moral impersonal (MI) and moral personal (MP) dilemmas regardless of seating arrangements. When seated at round tables, all participants were more likely to respond deontologically (cause no harm) to the moral impersonal dilemmas. In addition, we calculated a moral reasoning difference score for each participant as the difference between the MI and MP scores to represent additional reactivity due to the idea of taking direct action. The moral reasoning difference score was consistent for females but indicated a more deontological response from males at round tables and a more utilitarian response from males at row tables. These results suggest that males are more utilitarian than females and are more likely to be influenced by social context when responding to moral dilemmas. More broadly, the current results indicate that moral judgments are affected by social context particularly in males in ways that have not been incorporated in many models of moral decision making.
摘要:
道德判断通常被视为情感和审议过程的结果,可能会受到社会因素和个人特征的影响。这项研究的目的是研究性别与社会背景对道德判断的相互作用。参与者包括315名本科生(67.3%为女性)。参与者完成了道德决策任务,同时坐在面对房间前面的排桌或面对其他参与者的圆桌上。结果表明,无论座位安排如何,男性在道德非个人(MI)和道德个人(MP)困境方面的反应都比女性更实用(伤害一救五)。当坐在圆桌旁时,所有参与者都更有可能对道德非人格困境做出道义上的回应(不会造成伤害)。此外,我们计算了每个参与者的道德推理差异得分,作为MI和MP得分之间的差异,以表示由于采取直接行动的想法而产生的额外反应性.女性的道德推理差异得分是一致的,但表明在圆桌会议上男性的道义反应更多,而在排表上男性的功利主义反应更多。这些结果表明,男性比女性更功利主义,并且在应对道德困境时更容易受到社会环境的影响。更广泛地说,当前的结果表明,道德判断受到社会背景的影响,尤其是在男性中,其方式尚未纳入许多道德决策模型。