• 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

道德课程是否会影响学生的行为?案例研究:教授吃肉的道德规范。

Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat.

机构信息

University of California at Riverside, USA.

University of Kansas, USA.

出版信息

Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.

DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397
PMID:32721655
Abstract

Do university ethics classes influence students' real-world moral choices? We aimed to conduct the first controlled study of the effects of ordinary philosophical ethics classes on real-world moral choices, using non-self-report, non-laboratory behavior as the dependent measure. We assigned 1332 students in four large philosophy classes to either an experimental group on the ethics of eating meat or a control group on the ethics of charitable giving. Students in each group read a philosophy article on their assigned topic and optionally viewed a related video, then met with teaching assistants for 50-minute group discussion sections. They expressed their opinions about meat ethics and charitable giving in a follow-up questionnaire (1032 respondents after exclusions). We obtained 13,642 food purchase receipts from campus restaurants for 495 of the students, before and after the intervention. Purchase of meat products declined in the experimental group (52% of purchases of at least $4.99 contained meat before the intervention, compared to 45% after) but remained the same in the control group (52% both before and after). Ethical opinion also differed, with 43% of students in the experimental group agreeing that eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical compared to 29% in the control group. We also attempted to measure food choice using vouchers, but voucher redemption rates were low and no effect was statistically detectable. It remains unclear what aspect of instruction influenced behavior.

摘要

大学伦理课程是否会影响学生的现实道德选择?我们旨在进行第一项关于普通哲学伦理课程对现实世界道德选择影响的对照研究,采用非自我报告、非实验室行为作为因变量。我们将 1332 名学生分为四组哲学课,分别为食用肉类伦理课实验组和慈善捐赠伦理课对照组。两组学生都阅读了一篇关于其指定主题的哲学文章,并可选择观看相关视频,然后与助教进行 50 分钟的小组讨论。他们在后续问卷调查中表达了对肉类伦理和慈善捐赠的看法(排除后有 1032 名受访者)。我们在干预前后从校园餐厅获得了 495 名学生的 13642 份食品购买收据。实验组(52%的至少 4.99 美元的购买额中包含肉类,干预前相比,干预后为 45%)购买肉类产品的比例下降,但对照组(干预前后均为 52%)则保持不变。道德观点也存在差异,实验组有 43%的学生认为食用工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的,而对照组则为 29%。我们还试图使用代金券来衡量食物选择,但代金券的兑换率很低,且没有统计学上可检测到的效果。教学的哪个方面影响了行为尚不清楚。

相似文献

1
Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat.道德课程是否会影响学生的行为?案例研究:教授吃肉的道德规范。
Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.
2
Students Eat Less Meat After Studying Meat Ethics.学习肉类伦理后,学生减少肉类摄入。
Rev Philos Psychol. 2023;14(1):113-138. doi: 10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0. Epub 2021 Nov 6.
3
Assessing Veterinary and Animal Science Students' Moral Judgment Development on Animal Ethics Issues.评估兽医和动物科学专业学生在动物伦理问题上的道德判断发展。
J Vet Med Educ. 2015 Fall;42(3):206-16. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0215-022R. Epub 2015 Jul 22.
4
Teaching ethics using games: Impact on Iranian nursing students' moral sensitivity.通过游戏教授伦理学:对伊朗护理专业学生道德敏感性的影响
Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Jan-Mar;4(1):14-20. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2018.056. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
5
Principle-based structured case discussions: do they foster moral competence in medical students? - A pilot study.基于原则的结构化病例讨论:它们能培养医学生的道德能力吗?——一项试点研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 3;18(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0181-1.
6
Teaching medical ethics to first-year students by using film discussion to develop their moral reasoning.通过电影讨论向一年级学生传授医学伦理学,以培养他们的道德推理能力。
Acad Med. 1993 May;68(5):383-5. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199305000-00025.
7
Evaluation of teaching medical ethics by an assessment of moral reasoning.通过道德推理评估来评价医学伦理学教学。
Med Educ. 1992 May;26(3):178-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00151.x.
8
Comparison of the Moral Sensitivity, Judgment, and Actions of Australian and Turkish Veterinary Students in Relation to Animal Ethics Issues.澳大利亚和土耳其兽医专业学生在动物伦理问题上的道德敏感性、判断力及行为比较
J Vet Med Educ. 2020 Feb;47(1):8-17. doi: 10.3138/jvme.1117-178r1. Epub 2019 Apr 22.
9
The impact of a dental ethics curriculum on moral reasoning.牙科伦理课程对道德推理的影响。
J Dent Educ. 1994 Sep;58(9):684-92.
10
Evaluating the effect of three teaching strategies on student nurses' moral sensitivity.评估三种教学策略对实习护士道德敏感性的影响。
Nurs Ethics. 2017 Sep;24(6):732-743. doi: 10.1177/0969733015623095. Epub 2016 Jan 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Teaching epistemic integrity to promote reliable scientific communication.传授认知诚信以促进可靠的科学交流。
Front Psychol. 2024 Apr 5;15:1308304. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1308304. eCollection 2024.
2
The Consequentialist Scale: Translation and empirical investigation in a Greek sample.结果主义量表:希腊样本中的翻译与实证研究
Heliyon. 2023 Jul 17;9(7):e18386. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18386. eCollection 2023 Jul.
3
Low-cost climate-change informational intervention reduces meat consumption among students for 3 years.
低成本的气候变化信息干预措施在三年内减少了学生的肉类消费。
Nat Food. 2023 Mar;4(3):218-222. doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00712-1. Epub 2023 Mar 2.
4
How Stable are Moral Judgments?道德判断有多稳定?
Rev Philos Psychol. 2022 Jul 29:1-27. doi: 10.1007/s13164-022-00649-7.
5
Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption.与我们相似的动物:利用拟人化中的消极偏见来减少牛肉消费。
Foods. 2021 Sep 10;10(9):2147. doi: 10.3390/foods10092147.
6
Changing Hearts and Plates: The Effect of Animal-Advocacy Pamphlets on Meat Consumption.改变心意与餐盘:动物权益宣传手册对肉类消费的影响。
Front Psychol. 2021 May 31;12:668674. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668674. eCollection 2021.