Department of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstrasse 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 16;14(1):16378. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67268-3.
The deliberate-morality account implies that moral punishment should be decreased with time pressure and increased with deliberation while the intuitive-morality account predicts the opposite. In three experiments, moral punishment was examined in a simultaneous one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma game with a costly punishment option. The players cooperated or defected and then decided whether or not to punish their partners. In Experiment 1, the punishment decisions were made without or with time pressure. In Experiment 2, the punishment decisions were immediate or delayed by pauses in which participants deliberated their decisions. In Experiment 3, participants were asked to deliberate self-interest or fairness before deciding whether to punish their partners. Different types of punishment were distinguished using the cooperation-and-punishment model. In Experiment 1, time pressure decreased moral punishment. In Experiment 2, deliberation increased moral punishment. So far, the evidence supports the deliberate-morality account. Experiment 3 demonstrates that the effect of deliberation depends on what is deliberated. When participants deliberated self-interest rather than fairness, moral punishment was decreased. The results suggest that unguided deliberation increases moral punishment, but the effects of deliberation are modulated by the type of deliberation that takes place. These results strengthen a process-based account of punishment which offers a more nuanced understanding of the context-specific effect of deliberation on moral punishment than the deliberate-morality account.
故意道德解释暗示，随着时间压力的增加和深思熟虑的增加，道德惩罚应该减少，而直觉道德解释则预测相反的情况。在三个实验中，在一个具有代价高昂的惩罚选择的同时进行的一次性囚徒困境游戏中，考察了道德惩罚。玩家合作或背叛，然后决定是否惩罚他们的伙伴。在实验 1 中，在没有或有时间压力的情况下做出惩罚决策。在实验 2 中，惩罚决策是即时的，或者通过停顿来延迟，参与者在停顿中深思熟虑他们的决策。在实验 3 中，要求参与者在决定是否惩罚他们的伙伴之前，考虑自身利益或公平。使用合作和惩罚模型区分了不同类型的惩罚。在实验 1 中，时间压力降低了道德惩罚。在实验 2 中，深思熟虑增加了道德惩罚。到目前为止，证据支持故意道德解释。实验 3 表明，深思熟虑的效果取决于深思熟虑的内容。当参与者考虑自身利益而不是公平性时，道德惩罚就会减少。结果表明，无指导的深思熟虑会增加道德惩罚，但深思熟虑的效果受到所进行的深思熟虑类型的调节。这些结果加强了惩罚的基于过程的解释，该解释比故意道德解释更细致地理解了深思熟虑对道德惩罚的特定于上下文的影响。
