Bacchini Dario, De Angelis Grazia, Dragone Mirella, Esposito Concetta, Affuso Gaetana
Department of Humanities, University of Study of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Department of Psychology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Caserta, Italy.
Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 24;12:770891. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.770891. eCollection 2021.
While extensive research has been conducted on adults' judgments in moral sacrificial dilemmas, there is little research on adolescents. The present study aimed at: (1) adding further empirical evidence about adolescents' moral decisions (deontological vs. utilitarian) in sacrificial moral dilemmas and (2) investigating how these moral decisions relate with gender, school grade, emotional traits (callous-unemotional traits), context-related experiences (perceived parental rejection and community violence exposure), and moral-related factors (moral disengagement and universalism value). A sample of 755 Italian adolescents (54.7% females; Mean age=16.45, 1.61) attending the second and the fifth year of secondary school took part in the study. Two sacrificial trolley-type dilemmas (where harmful actions promote the greater good) were presented. In the "switch" scenario (impersonal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to hit a switch to save five people killing only one person. In the "footbridge" scenario (personal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to push a large man off a footbridge saving five persons. For each scenario, participants had to indicate whether the proposed action was "morally acceptable" or not. Data were analyzed performing generalized linear mixed models. Our results showed that: (1) Adolescents were more likely to indicate as admissible to hit the switch rather than to push the large man; (2) male adolescents, compared to females, were more likely to say it was morally acceptable to intervene in the footbridge dilemma, whereas younger adolescents said it was morally acceptable both in the switch and the footbridge situations; and (3) higher levels of callous-unemotional traits, perceived parental rejection, and moral disengagement, on the one hand, and lower levels of universalism, on the other hand, were associated to higher admissibility to intervene in the footbridge scenario. Higher community violence exposure was associated with a lower propensity to intervene in the switch scenario. Overall, the present study expands the research on sacrificial dilemmas involving a sample of adolescents. The findings support previous studies concerning the role of emotions in making moral decisions but, at the same, open new perspectives regarding the role of contextual experiences and moral-related factors.
虽然针对成年人在道德牺牲困境中的判断已开展了广泛研究,但针对青少年的此类研究却很少。本研究旨在:(1)为青少年在牺牲性道德困境中的道德决策(道义论与功利主义)增添更多实证证据;(2)探究这些道德决策如何与性别、年级、情绪特质(冷漠-无情特质)、与情境相关的经历(感知到的父母拒绝和社区暴力暴露)以及与道德相关的因素(道德推脱和普遍主义价值观)相关联。755名就读于意大利中学二年级和五年级的青少年(54.7%为女性;平均年龄 = 16.45岁,标准差1.61岁)参与了本研究。研究呈现了两个牺牲性电车类型的困境(有害行为能带来更大利益)。在“切换”情境(非个人牺牲困境)中,选择是是否按下开关以拯救五人而仅杀死一人。在“人行天桥”情境(个人牺牲困境)中,选择是是否将一名大个子男子推下人行天桥以拯救五人。对于每个情境,参与者必须表明所提议的行为是否“在道德上可接受”。研究通过执行广义线性混合模型对数据进行了分析。我们的结果表明:(1)青少年更有可能认为按下开关是可接受的,而非推大个子男子;(2)与女性相比,男性青少年更有可能表示在人行天桥困境中进行干预在道德上是可接受的,而年龄较小的青少年表示在切换和人行天桥情境中进行干预在道德上都是可接受的;(3)一方面,较高水平的冷漠-无情特质、感知到的父母拒绝和道德推脱,另一方面,较低水平的普遍主义,都与在人行天桥情境中进行干预的较高可接受性相关联。较高的社区暴力暴露与在切换情境中进行干预的较低倾向相关联。总体而言,本研究扩展了涉及青少年样本的牺牲困境研究。这些发现支持了先前关于情绪在道德决策中作用的研究,但同时也开启了关于情境经历和与道德相关因素作用的新视角。