Díaz Rodrigo, Viciana Hugo, Gomila Antoni
Psychology, Evolution and Cognition (IFISC-CSIC), University of the Balearic IslandsPalma, Spain; Institute for Philosophy, University of BernBern, Switzerland.
Psychology, Evolution and Cognition (IFISC-CSIC), University of the Balearic IslandsPalma, Spain; Institute for Advanced Social Studies-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasCórdoba, Spain.
Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 28;8:295. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00295. eCollection 2017.
Research has consistently shown that people consider harmful side effects of an action more intentional than helpful side effects. This phenomenon is known as the side-effect effect (SEE), which refers to the influence of moral considerations in judgments of intentionality and other non-moral concepts. There is an ongoing debate about how to explain this asymmetric pattern of judgment and the psychological factors involved in it. It has been posited that affective reactions to agents that bring about harmful side-effects could bias intentionality attributions in these cases, explaining the asymmetric pattern of intentionality judgments that we observe in the SEE. We call this the affective bias hypothesis (ABH). Evidence for the ABH is mixed, with some findings suggesting a role for affective processes, while others suggesting that affective processes play no role in the SEE. A possible explanation for these apparently contradictory results points to affective processes involved in the SEE being confined to anger. In a series of empirical studies, we systematically measured and manipulated participants' anger in order to test this possibility. Our findings suggest that anger play no role in intentionality judgments in SEE cases, while providing support for a non-emotional motivation to blame as a factor underlying the SEE.
研究一直表明，人们认为一种行为的有害副作用比有益副作用更具故意性。这种现象被称为副作用效应（SEE），它指的是道德考量在故意性判断及其他非道德概念判断中的影响。关于如何解释这种不对称的判断模式以及其中涉及的心理因素，目前仍在进行辩论。有人认为，对产生有害副作用的行为主体的情感反应可能会在这些情况下使故意性归因产生偏差，从而解释了我们在副作用效应中观察到的故意性判断的不对称模式。我们将此称为情感偏差假说（ABH）。支持ABH的证据并不一致，一些研究结果表明情感过程起到了作用，而另一些则表明情感过程在副作用效应中不起作用。对这些明显相互矛盾的结果的一种可能解释是，副作用效应中涉及的情感过程仅限于愤怒。在一系列实证研究中，我们系统地测量并操控了参与者的愤怒情绪，以检验这种可能性。我们的研究结果表明，愤怒在副作用效应案例的故意性判断中不起作用，同时为将指责的非情感动机作为副作用效应背后的一个因素提供了支持。
