• 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

数字世界中的道德从众:人类和非人类代理作为道德品格判断的社会压力源。

Moral conformity in a digital world: Human and nonhuman agents as a source of social pressure for judgments of moral character.

机构信息

Department of Psychology in Sopot, SWPS University, Warszawa, Poland.

School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 15;19(2):e0298293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298293. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0298293
PMID:38358977
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10868870/
Abstract

Could judgments about others' moral character be changed under group pressure produced by human and virtual agents? In Study 1 (N = 103), participants first judged targets' moral character privately and two weeks later in the presence of real humans. Analysis of how many times participants changed their private moral judgments under group pressure showed that moral conformity occurred, on average, 43% of the time. In Study 2 (N = 138), we extended this using Virtual Reality, where group pressure was produced either by avatars allegedly controlled by humans or AI. While replicating the effect of moral conformity (at 28% of the time), we find that the moral conformity for the human and AI-controlled avatars did not differ. Our results suggest that human and nonhuman groups shape moral character judgments in both the physical and virtual worlds, shedding new light on the potential social consequences of moral conformity in the modern digital world.

摘要

他人的道德品质判断是否会在人类和虚拟代理产生的群体压力下发生改变?在研究 1(N=103)中,参与者首先私下对目标的道德品质进行判断,两周后在真人面前进行判断。分析参与者在群体压力下改变私人道德判断的次数表明,平均有 43%的时间会出现道德从众现象。在研究 2(N=138)中,我们通过虚拟现实扩展了这一研究,在虚拟现实中,群体压力要么是由据称由人类或 AI 控制的化身产生的。虽然复制了道德从众的效果(占 28%的时间),但我们发现人类和 AI 控制的化身的道德从众没有差异。我们的研究结果表明,人类和非人类群体在物理和虚拟世界中塑造道德品质判断,为现代数字世界中道德从众的潜在社会后果提供了新的视角。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/2ea1f4ac08e9/pone.0298293.g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/0ef2d93e779e/pone.0298293.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/8e4dede6f883/pone.0298293.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/e2db505a8c42/pone.0298293.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/25ff5f6cb5dc/pone.0298293.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/1a953d87b993/pone.0298293.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/2ea1f4ac08e9/pone.0298293.g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/0ef2d93e779e/pone.0298293.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/8e4dede6f883/pone.0298293.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/e2db505a8c42/pone.0298293.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/25ff5f6cb5dc/pone.0298293.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/1a953d87b993/pone.0298293.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0583/10868870/2ea1f4ac08e9/pone.0298293.g006.jpg

相似文献

1
Moral conformity in a digital world: Human and nonhuman agents as a source of social pressure for judgments of moral character.数字世界中的道德从众:人类和非人类代理作为道德品格判断的社会压力源。
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 15;19(2):e0298293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298293. eCollection 2024.
2
Does children's moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments.儿童的道德指南针会在社会压力下动摇吗?运用从众范式来测试学龄前儿童的道德和社会常规判断。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2016 Oct;150:241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.006. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
3
Moderators of the Liking Bias in Judgments of Moral Character.评判道德品质时喜欢偏差的调节因素。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2022 Apr;48(4):596-605. doi: 10.1177/01461672211013272. Epub 2021 May 28.
4
Inferences about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise.关于道德品质的推断会缓和结果对责备和赞扬的影响。
Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:201-211. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 May 17.
5
On being loud and proud: non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms.关于大声宣扬与自豪展现:对群体规范的不遵从与反遵从。
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;42(Pt 3):319-35. doi: 10.1348/014466603322438189.
6
Physical Attractiveness Biases Judgments Pertaining to the Moral Domain of Purity.外貌吸引力偏见影响有关纯洁道德领域的判断。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2023 Feb;49(2):282-295. doi: 10.1177/01461672211064452. Epub 2021 Dec 29.
7
The role of a "common is moral" heuristic in the stability and change of moral norms.“共同即正确”启发式在道德规范的稳定性和变化中的作用。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Feb;147(2):228-242. doi: 10.1037/xge0000365. Epub 2017 Sep 11.
8
The boundary conditions of the liking bias in moral character judgments.道德品性判断中喜欢偏差的边界条件。
Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 14;12(1):17217. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22147-7.
9
Deconstructing moral character judgments.解构道德品质判断
Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Feb;43:205-212. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.008. Epub 2021 Jul 28.
10
Conformity on moral, social conventional and decency issues in the United Kingdom and Kuwait.英国和科威特在道德、社会习俗和礼仪问题上的一致性。
Int J Psychol. 2022 Apr;57(2):261-270. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12808. Epub 2021 Sep 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Online Moral Conformity: how powerful is a Group of Strangers when influencing an Individual's Moral Judgments during a video meeting?线上道德从众:在视频会议期间,一群陌生人在影响个体道德判断时的影响力有多大?
Curr Psychol. 2023 Jun 1:1-11. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04765-0.
2
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.
3
Deconstructing moral character judgments.解构道德品质判断
Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Feb;43:205-212. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.008. Epub 2021 Jul 28.
4
Bad machines corrupt good morals.坏机器会腐蚀良好的道德。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jun;5(6):679-685. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01128-2. Epub 2021 Jun 3.
5
Artificial intelligence against hate: Intervention reducing verbal aggression in the social network environment.人工智能对抗仇恨:干预社交网络环境中的言语攻击
Aggress Behav. 2021 May;47(3):260-266. doi: 10.1002/ab.21948. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
6
The Psychology of Moral Conviction.道德信念的心理学。
Annu Rev Psychol. 2021 Jan 4;72:347-366. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612. Epub 2020 Sep 4.
7
The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence.结果主义的代价:基于工具性伤害和公正慈善的社会推断
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018 Nov;79:200-216. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004.
8
The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm.对偶道德理论:通过重新定义伤害来重塑道德判断。
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2018 Feb;22(1):32-70. doi: 10.1177/1088868317698288. Epub 2017 May 14.
9
Does children's moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments.儿童的道德指南针会在社会压力下动摇吗?运用从众范式来测试学龄前儿童的道德和社会常规判断。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2016 Oct;150:241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.006. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
10
Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments.从直观的道德判断中推断可信度。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Jun;145(6):772-87. doi: 10.1037/xge0000165. Epub 2016 Apr 7.