Center for Decision Research, University of Chicago.
Department of Marketing, University of Chicago.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Nov;147(11):1748-1761. doi: 10.1037/xge0000404. Epub 2018 Mar 19.
We propose that methods from the study of category-based induction can be used to test the descriptive accuracy of theories of moral judgment. We had participants rate the likelihood that a person would engage in a variety of actions, given information about a previous behavior. From these likelihood ratings, we extracted a hierarchical, taxonomic model of how moral violations relate to each other (Study 1). We then tested the descriptive adequacy of this model against an alternative model inspired by Moral Foundations Theory, using classic tasks from induction research (Studies 2a and 2b), and using a measure of confirmation, which accounts for the baseline frequency of these violations (Study 3). Lastly, we conducted focused tests of combinations of violations where the models make differing predictions (Study 4). This research provides new insight into how people represent moral concepts, connecting classic methods from cognitive science with contemporary themes in moral psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
我们提出,可以采用基于范畴的归纳研究方法来检验道德判断理论的描述准确性。我们让参与者根据之前的行为信息,对一个人从事各种行为的可能性进行评级。从这些可能性评级中,我们提取了一个层次化的分类模型,用以描述道德违规行为之间的相互关系(研究 1)。然后,我们使用 induction 研究中的经典任务(研究 2a 和 2b),以及一种能够说明这些违规行为基线频率的确认度量标准(研究 3),来检验该模型对受道德基础理论启发的替代模型的描述充分性。最后,我们对模型做出不同预测的违规行为组合进行了重点测试(研究 4)。这项研究为人们如何表示道德概念提供了新的见解,将认知科学中的经典方法与当代道德心理学主题联系起来。(APA,2018,所有权利保留)。