Feltz Adam, May Joshua
Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, United States.
Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 900 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294-1260, USA.
Cognition. 2017 Sep;166:314-327. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.027. Epub 2017 Jun 7.
Experimental research suggests that people draw a moral distinction between bad outcomes brought about as a means versus a side effect (or byproduct). Such findings have informed multiple psychological and philosophical debates about moral cognition, including its computational structure, its sensitivity to the famous Doctrine of Double Effect, its reliability, and its status as a universal and innate mental module akin to universal grammar. But some studies have failed to replicate the means/byproduct effect especially in the absence of other factors, such as personal contact. So we aimed to determine how robust the means/byproduct effect is by conducting a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished studies (k=101; 24,058 participants). We found that while there is an overall small difference between moral judgments of means and byproducts (standardized mean difference=0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.06; standardized mean change=0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.69; log odds ratio=1.59, 95% CI 1.15-2.02), the mean effect size is primarily moderated by whether the outcome is brought about by personal contact, which typically involves the use of personal force.
实验研究表明，人们在因手段导致的不良后果与副作用（或副产品）导致的不良后果之间会做出道德区分。这些发现为关于道德认知的多种心理学和哲学辩论提供了依据，包括其计算结构、对著名的双重效应原则的敏感性、其可靠性以及它作为类似于普遍语法的普遍且先天心理模块的地位。但一些研究未能重复手段/副产品效应，尤其是在没有其他因素（如个人接触）的情况下。因此，我们旨在通过对已发表和未发表的研究进行荟萃分析（k = 101；24,058名参与者）来确定手段/副产品效应的稳健程度。我们发现，虽然在手段和副产品的道德判断之间总体存在微小差异（标准化平均差异 = 0.87，95%置信区间0.67 - 1.06；标准化平均变化 = 0.57，95%置信区间0.44 - 0.69；对数优势比 = 1.59，95%置信区间1.15 - 2.02），但平均效应大小主要受结果是否由个人接触导致的调节，个人接触通常涉及使用个人力量。
