Turiel E, Hildebrandt C, Wainryb C
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1991;56(2):1-103.
The three studies reported in this Monograph examine high school and college students' reasoning about the issues of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and incest. The studies stemmed from previous research on reasoning in the "prototypical" moral, social conventional, and personal domains. We postulated that abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and incest are nonprototypical issues. We expected that reasoning about nonprototypical and prototypical issues would differ and that reasoning about nonprototypical issues would be inconsistent and involve ambiguities in informational assumptions. Two groups were preselected in Study 1, those who negatively and those who positively evaluated the nonprototypical issues. Assessments were made of criterion judgments (evaluations, rule contingency, and generalizability) and justifications regarding moral, personal, and nonprototypical issues. The groups differed in judgments about the nonprototypical issues but not the moral issues. Both groups gave noncontigent and generalized judgments about moral issues, with justifications of justice and rights. Subjects who evaluated nonprototypical acts negatively used varied and often inconsistent configurations of criterion judgments. Responses coded for general reasoning types often entailed juxtapositions of prescriptive judgments and assertions of personal choice. Subjects who evaluated nonprototypical acts positively judged that they should be legal and nongeneralized and gave justifications based on personal choice. Using similar procedures, Study 2 was conducted with practicing Catholics attending parochial high schools. The findings paralleled those of Study 1, including a split among subjects in their evaluations of the nonprototypical issues. The results suggested a bidirectional relation between individual judgments and group positions. The findings of Studies 1 and 2 suggested that variations in evaluations and judgments about the nonprototypical issues were associated with variations in ambiguously held informational assumptions. Study 3 examined the role of such informational assumptions. It was found that assumptions associated with judgments about abortion and homosexuality were ambiguous and inconsistently applied. Thus, we propose that ambiguity around assumptions is a central component of the nonprototypicality of these issues.
本专题报告的三项研究考察了高中生和大学生对堕胎、同性恋、色情作品和乱伦问题的推理。这些研究源于之前对 “典型” 道德、社会习俗和个人领域推理的研究。我们假设堕胎、同性恋、色情作品和乱伦是非典型问题。我们预计，对非典型问题和典型问题的推理会有所不同，并且对非典型问题的推理会不一致，并且在信息假设上存在模糊性。在研究1中预先选择了两组，一组对非典型问题持负面评价，另一组持正面评价。对标准判断（评价、规则偶然性和普遍性）以及关于道德、个人和非典型问题的理由进行了评估。两组在对非典型问题的判断上存在差异，但在道德问题上没有差异。两组都对道德问题给出了非偶然和普遍的判断，并以正义和权利为理由。对非典型行为持负面评价的受试者使用了各种且往往不一致的标准判断组合。编码为一般推理类型的回答通常需要将规范性判断与个人选择的主张并列。对非典型行为持正面评价的受试者判断这些行为应该合法且不具有普遍性，并基于个人选择给出理由。使用类似的程序，对就读于教区高中的在职天主教徒进行了研究2。研究结果与研究1相似，包括受试者在对非典型问题的评价上出现分歧。结果表明个体判断与群体立场之间存在双向关系。研究1和2的结果表明，对非典型问题的评价和判断的差异与模糊持有的信息假设的差异有关。研究3考察了此类信息假设的作用。研究发现，与堕胎和同性恋判断相关的假设是模糊的且应用不一致。因此，我们提出假设的模糊性是这些问题非典型性的核心组成部分。
