Yilmaz Onurcan, Bahçekapili Hasan G
Department of Psychology, Dogus University, 34722, Acibadem, Istanbul, Turkey.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 11;10(9):e0137499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137499. eCollection 2015.
Scientific and religious thinking compete with each other on several levels. For example, activating one generally weakens the other. Since priming religion is known to increase moral behaviour and moral sensitivity, priming science might be expected to have the opposite effect. However, it was recently demonstrated that, on the contrary, science priming increases moral sensitivity as well. The present set of studies sought to replicate this effect and test two explanations for it. Study 1 used a sentence unscrambling task for implicitly priming the concept of science but failed to replicate its effect on moral sensitivity, presumably due to a ceiling effect. Study 2 replicated the effect with a new measure of moral sensitivity. Study 3 tested whether science-related words create this effect by activating the idea of secular authority or by activating analytic thinking. It was demonstrated that words related to secular authority, but not words related to analytic thinking, produced a similar increase in moral sensitivity. Religiosity level of the participants did not influence this basic finding. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that science as a secular institution has overtaken some of the functions of religion in modern societies.
科学思维和宗教思维在多个层面上相互竞争。例如,激活其中一种思维通常会削弱另一种思维。由于已知启动宗教思维会增加道德行为和道德敏感度,因此启动科学思维可能会产生相反的效果。然而,最近有研究表明,事实恰恰相反,启动科学思维也会增加道德敏感度。本系列研究旨在重复这一效应并检验对此的两种解释。研究1使用了一个句子重组任务来隐性启动科学概念,但未能重复其对道德敏感度的影响,可能是由于天花板效应。研究2用一种新的道德敏感度测量方法重复了这一效应。研究3测试了与科学相关的词汇是通过激活世俗权威观念还是通过激活分析思维来产生这种效应的。结果表明,与世俗权威相关的词汇而非与分析思维相关的词汇,会使道德敏感度产生类似的提高。参与者的宗教虔诚程度并未影响这一基本发现。这些结果与以下假设一致:在现代社会中,科学作为一种世俗机构已经取代了宗教的一些功能。