Comparing the Effects of Hypothetical Moral Preferences on Real-Life and Hypothetical Behavior: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).
作者信息
Evans Anthony M, Brandt Mark J
机构信息
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University.
出版信息
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1380-1382. doi: 10.1177/0956797618815482. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Comparing the Effects of Hypothetical Moral Preferences on Real-Life and Hypothetical Behavior: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).比较假设的道德偏好对现实生活和假设行为的影响：对博斯汀、塞文汉特和罗茨（2018年）的评论
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1380-1382. doi: 10.1177/0956797618815482. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
2
Comparing Hypothetical and Real-Life Trolley Problems: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).比较假设性与现实生活中的电车难题：对博斯汀、塞文汉特和罗茨（2018年）的评论
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1386-1388. doi: 10.1177/0956797619827880. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
3
Overlooked Evidence and a Misunderstanding of What Trolley Dilemmas Do Best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).被忽视的证据以及对电车难题最佳用途的误解：对博斯汀、塞文汉特和罗茨（2018年）的评论
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1389-1391. doi: 10.1177/0956797619827914. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
4
What Is the Right Question for Moral Psychology to Answer? Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).道德心理学要回答的正确问题是什么？对博斯汀、塞文汉特和罗茨（2018年）的评论
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1383-1385. doi: 10.1177/0956797618815171. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
5
Corrigendum: Comparing the Effects of Hypothetical Moral Preferences on Real-Life and Hypothetical Behavior: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018).勘误：比较假设性道德偏好对现实生活和假设性行为的影响：对博斯汀、塞文汉特和罗茨（2018年）的评论
Psychol Sci. 2019 Sep;30(9):1410. doi: 10.1177/0956797619872961. Epub 2019 Aug 15.
6
Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas.《老鼠、男人和电车：在电车式道德困境中，假设判断与现实行为》。
Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;29(7):1084-1093. doi: 10.1177/0956797617752640. Epub 2018 May 9.
7
The role of empathy in trolley problems and variants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.同理心在电车问题及其变体中的作用：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Br J Soc Psychol. 2023 Oct;62(4):1753-1781. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12654. Epub 2023 Jun 14.
8
Machines and humans in sacrificial moral dilemmas: Required similarly but judged differently?机器和人类在牺牲道德困境中的角色：需要相似但评判不同？
Cognition. 2023 Oct;239:105575. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105575. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
9
Intuitive Probabilities and the Limitation of Moral Imagination.直观概率与道德想象力的局限
Cogn Sci. 2018 May;42 Suppl 1:38-68. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12598. Epub 2018 Feb 16.
10
Trolley Dilemmas Fail to Predict Ethical Judgment in a Hypothetical Vaccination Context.电车难题无法预测在假设的疫苗接种情境中的道德判断。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Feb;14(1):23-32. doi: 10.1177/1556264618808175. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
引用本文的文献
1
Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic; a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.与 COVID-19 大流行期间 COVID-19 疫苗接种意愿相关的因素：横断面研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Public Health. 2022 Sep 2;22(1):1667. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14029-4.
2
The phenomenology of remembering our moral transgressions.回忆我们的道德过失的现象学。
Mem Cognit. 2020 Feb;48(2):277-286. doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-01009-0.
本文引用的文献
1
Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas.《老鼠、男人和电车：在电车式道德困境中，假设判断与现实行为》。
Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;29(7):1084-1093. doi: 10.1177/0956797617752640. Epub 2018 May 9.
2
Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.超越牺牲性伤害：功利心理学的二维模型。
Psychol Rev. 2018 Mar;125(2):131-164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000093. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
3
Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior?心理学作为自我报告和手指运动的科学：实际行为到底发生了什么？
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007 Dec;2(4):396-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x.
4
Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment.被手推车带偏：为什么牺牲性道德困境对功利主义判断的揭示甚少（或毫无揭示）。
Soc Neurosci. 2015;10(5):551-60. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400. Epub 2015 Mar 20.
5
Differential neural circuitry and self-interest in real vs hypothetical moral decisions.真实与假设道德决策中的差异神经回路和自利。
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Oct;7(7):743-51. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss069. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
6
What we say and what we do: the relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices.言行一致：真实与假设道德选择之间的关系。
Cognition. 2012 Jun;123(3):434-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001. Epub 2012 Mar 9.
7
Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance.神经科学中交互作用的错误分析：一个重要的问题。
Nat Neurosci. 2011 Aug 26;14(9):1105-7. doi: 10.1038/nn.2886.
8
Hypothetical intertemporal choice and real economic behavior: delay discounting predicts voucher redemptions during contingency-management procedures.假设跨期选择与实际经济行为：延迟折扣预测了应急管理程序中代金券的赎回。
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010 Dec;18(6):546-52. doi: 10.1037/a0021739.
9
Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method.贝叶斯假设检验对心理学家来说：萨维奇-迪基方法教程。
Cogn Psychol. 2010 May;60(3):158-89. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.12.001. Epub 2010 Jan 12.
10
The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks.框架、反思、概率和收益对选择任务中风险偏好的影响。
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Jun;78(3):204-231. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2830.
Zotero 插件