• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

儿童的道德指南针会在社会压力下动摇吗?运用从众范式来测试学龄前儿童的道德和社会常规判断。

Does children's moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments.

作者信息

Kim Elizabeth B, Chen Chuansheng, Smetana Judith G, Greenberger Ellen

机构信息

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

出版信息

J Exp Child Psychol. 2016 Oct;150:241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.006. Epub 2016 Jun 28.

DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.006
PMID:27367300
Abstract

The current study tested whether preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments change under social pressure using Asch's conformity paradigm. A sample of 132 preschoolers (Mage=3.83years, SD=0.85) rated the acceptability of moral and social-conventional events and also completed a visual judgment task (i.e., comparing line length) both independently and after having viewed two peers who consistently made immoral, unconventional, or visually inaccurate judgments. Results showed evidence of conformity on all three tasks, but conformity was stronger on the social-conventional task than on the moral and visual tasks. Older children were less susceptible to pressure for social conformity for the moral and visual tasks but not for the conventional task.

摘要

当前的研究使用阿施从众范式,测试了学龄前儿童的道德和社会习俗判断在社会压力下是否会发生变化。132名学龄前儿童(平均年龄=3.83岁,标准差=0.85)组成的样本对道德和社会习俗事件的可接受性进行了评分,并且在独立完成以及观看了两名同伴始终做出不道德、反传统或视觉判断不准确的行为后,还完成了一项视觉判断任务(即比较线的长度)。结果显示在所有三项任务中都存在从众证据,但在社会习俗任务中的从众现象比在道德和视觉任务中更强。年龄较大的儿童在道德和视觉任务中较不易受到社会从众压力的影响,但在传统任务中并非如此。

相似文献

1
Does children's moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments.儿童的道德指南针会在社会压力下动摇吗?运用从众范式来测试学龄前儿童的道德和社会常规判断。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2016 Oct;150:241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.006. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
2
Following My Head and My Heart: Integrating Preschoolers' Empathy, Theory of Mind, and Moral Judgments.追随本心:融合学龄前儿童的同理心、心理理论和道德判断
Child Dev. 2017 Mar;88(2):597-611. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12605. Epub 2016 Aug 25.
3
Moral conformity in a digital world: Human and nonhuman agents as a source of social pressure for judgments of moral character.数字世界中的道德从众:人类和非人类代理作为道德品格判断的社会压力源。
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 15;19(2):e0298293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298293. eCollection 2024.
4
Are young children's preferences and evaluations of moral and conventional transgressors associated with domain distinctions in judgments?幼儿对道德和传统违规者的偏好和评价是否与判断中的领域区别有关?
J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 Sep;173:284-303. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.04.008. Epub 2018 May 14.
5
Moral development in context: Associations of neighborhood and maternal discipline with preschoolers' moral judgments.情境中的道德发展:邻里环境和母亲的教育方式与学龄前儿童道德判断的关系。
Dev Psychol. 2017 Oct;53(10):1881-1894. doi: 10.1037/dev0000378. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
6
Preschoolers' social and moral judgments of third-party helpers and hinderers align with infants' social evaluations.学龄前儿童对第三方帮助者和阻碍者的社会及道德判断与婴儿的社会评价一致。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2017 Dec;164:136-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.07.004. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
7
Children's interpretive understanding, moral judgments, and emotion attributions: relations to social behaviour.儿童的解释性理解、道德判断和情感归因:与社会行为的关系。
Br J Dev Psychol. 2010 Jun;28(Pt 2):275-92. doi: 10.1348/026151009x403838.
8
Young Children's Moral Judgments, Justifications, and Emotion Attributions in Peer Relationship Contexts.幼儿在同伴关系背景下的道德判断、辩护和情绪归因。
Child Dev. 2018 Nov;89(6):2245-2263. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12846. Epub 2017 Jun 6.
9
The role of a "common is moral" heuristic in the stability and change of moral norms.“共同即正确”启发式在道德规范的稳定性和变化中的作用。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Feb;147(2):228-242. doi: 10.1037/xge0000365. Epub 2017 Sep 11.
10
Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect.有意行为与副作用效应。
Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):421-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01722.x.

引用本文的文献

1
When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest a better empirical test for that claim.当孩子们能够解释他们为什么相信某一说法时,他们会为该说法提出一个更好的实证检验方法。
R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Dec 11;11(12):241875. doi: 10.1098/rsos.241875. eCollection 2024 Dec.
2
The influence of observers on children's conformity in moral judgment behavior.观察者对儿童道德判断行为中从众心理的影响。
Front Psychol. 2024 Jun 13;15:1289292. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1289292. eCollection 2024.
3
Moral conformity in a digital world: Human and nonhuman agents as a source of social pressure for judgments of moral character.
数字世界中的道德从众:人类和非人类代理作为道德品格判断的社会压力源。
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 15;19(2):e0298293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298293. eCollection 2024.
4
How Do Children Socially Learn from Narrative Fiction: Getting the Lesson, Simulating Social Worlds, or Dialogic Inquiry?儿童如何从叙事性虚构作品中进行社会性学习:汲取经验、模拟社会世界还是进行对话式探究?
Educ Psychol Rev. 2022;34(3):1445-1475. doi: 10.1007/s10648-022-09667-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
5
Majority and popularity effects on norm formation in adolescence.多数人和大众效应对青少年规范形成的影响。
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 18;11(1):12884. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92482-8.
6
Moral orientations in psychology: contrasting theoretical perspectives.心理学中的道德取向:对比理论观点。
BMC Psychol. 2019 Feb 22;7(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s40359-019-0287-y.
7
Group Influences on Engaging Self-Control: Children Delay Gratification and Value It More When Their In-Group Delays and Their Out-Group Doesn't.群体对自我控制的影响:当孩子的群体延迟满足,而他们的群体外的群体没有时,他们会更重视延迟满足。
Psychol Sci. 2018 May;29(5):738-748. doi: 10.1177/0956797617747367. Epub 2018 Apr 6.
8
What Makes Children Defy Majorities? The Role of Dissenters in Chinese and Spanish Preschoolers' Social Judgments.是什么让孩子违抗多数人?持不同意见者在中国和西班牙学龄前儿童社会判断中的作用。
Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 27;7:1695. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01695. eCollection 2016.