Suppr超能文献

不道德的无神论者?对不信教的文化、动机和认知前因及其对道德的影响的跨国考察。

The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 24;16(2):e0246593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246593. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

There is a widespread cross-cultural stereotype suggesting that atheists are untrustworthy and lack a moral compass. Is there any truth to this notion? Building on theory about the cultural, (de)motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, the present research investigated whether there are reliable similarities as well as differences between believers and disbelievers in the moral values and principles they endorse. Four studies examined how religious disbelief (vs. belief) relates to endorsement of various moral values and principles in a predominately religious (vs. irreligious) country (the U.S. vs. Sweden). Two U.S. M-Turk studies (Studies 1A and 1B, N = 429) and two large cross-national studies (Studies 2-3, N = 4,193), consistently show that disbelievers (vs. believers) are less inclined to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion (the binding moral foundations). By contrast, only minor differences between believers and disbelievers were found in endorsement of other moral values (individualizing moral foundations, epistemic rationality). It is also demonstrated that presumed cultural and demotivational antecedents of disbelief (limited exposure to credibility-enhancing displays, low existential threat) are associated with disbelief. Furthermore, these factors are associated with weaker endorsement of the binding moral foundations in both countries (Study 2). Most of these findings were replicated in Study 3, and results also show that disbelievers (vs. believers) have a more consequentialist view of morality in both countries. A consequentialist view of morality was also associated with another presumed antecedent of disbelief-analytic cognitive style.

摘要

有一种普遍的跨文化刻板印象认为无神论者不可信,缺乏道德指南针。这种说法有什么依据吗?基于对不信的文化、(去)动机和认知前因的理论,本研究调查了在信仰者和无神论者之间,他们所支持的道德价值观和原则是否存在可靠的相似之处和差异。四项研究考察了在一个以宗教为主导(美国)和非宗教为主导(瑞典)的国家中,宗教不信(与信仰相比)如何与对各种道德价值观和原则的支持相关。两项美国 M-Turk 研究(研究 1A 和 1B,N=429)和两项大型跨国研究(研究 2-3,N=4193)一致表明,无神论者(与信仰者相比)不太倾向于支持促进群体凝聚力的道德价值观(有约束力的道德基础)。相比之下,信仰者和无神论者在对其他道德价值观(个人化道德基础、认知理性)的支持上只有较小的差异。还表明,不信的假定文化和去动机前因(有限接触增强可信度的表现、低生存威胁)与不信有关。此外,这些因素与两个国家中较弱的有约束力的道德基础的支持有关(研究 2)。这些发现中的大多数在研究 3 中得到了复制,结果还表明,在两个国家中,无神论者(与信仰者相比)对道德有更功利的看法。对道德的功利主义看法也与不信的另一个假定前因——分析认知风格有关。

相似文献

2
Moral foundations theory, political identity, and the depiction of morality in children's movies.
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 26;16(3):e0248928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248928. eCollection 2021.
4
Group-focused morality is associated with limited conflict detection and resolution capacity: Neuroanatomical evidence.
Biol Psychol. 2017 Feb;123:235-240. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.12.018. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
5
Religious Identity and Morality: Evidence for Religious Residue and Decay in Moral Foundations.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2021 Nov;47(11):1550-1564. doi: 10.1177/0146167220970814. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
6
Locomotion concerns with moral usefulness: When liberals endorse binding moral foundations.
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2014 Jan;50. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.007.
7
The origins of religious disbelief.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Jan;17(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.006. Epub 2012 Dec 13.
8
Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern.
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 23;11(3):e0149989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149989. eCollection 2016.
9
Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2023 Nov;125(5):1157-1188. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000470. Epub 2023 Aug 17.
10
Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries.
Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Oct 28;287(1937):20201201. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1201. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Feb;120(2):443-460. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000281. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
3
Moral self-regulation, moral identity, and religiosity.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018 Sep;115(3):495-525. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000207. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
4
Mentalizing skills do not differentiate believers from non-believers, but credibility enhancing displays do.
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 23;12(8):e0182764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182764. eCollection 2017.
5
Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue.
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 16;11(11):e0166332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166332. eCollection 2016.
6
Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis.
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 7;11(4):e0153039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153039. eCollection 2016.
7
Stable gray soliton pinned by a defect in a microcavity-polariton condensate.
Opt Express. 2015 Sep 21;23(19):24974-83. doi: 10.1364/OE.23.024974.
8
The Unifying Moral Dyad: Liberals and Conservatives Share the Same Harm-Based Moral Template.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015 Aug;41(8):1147-63. doi: 10.1177/0146167215591501. Epub 2015 Jun 19.
9
Morality in everyday life.
Science. 2014 Sep 12;345(6202):1340-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1251560. Epub 2014 Sep 11.
10
Good for God? Religious motivation reduces perceived responsibility for and morality of good deeds.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Aug;143(4):1616-26. doi: 10.1037/a0036678. Epub 2014 Apr 28.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验