• 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

Don't be rash: how effort, religion, and decision-type influence judgments of morality.

作者信息

Bergstrom Veronica N Z, Robinson Jeffrey S, Curtin Aisling, Chasteen Alison L

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Soc Psychol. 2024 Oct 16:1-20. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2024.2413500.

DOI:10.1080/00224545.2024.2413500
PMID:39411980
Abstract

The present study explored how knowledge (Study 1) and inferences (Study 2) about religiosity influence impressions of morality depending on whether effort is exerted to reach a morally controversial decision. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a [religious/nonreligious] doctor who exerted [little/great] effort into their decision to euthanize a patient. Results indicated that when the doctor was nonreligious or exerted low effort, they were considered less moral compared to when they were religious or exerted high effort. In Study 2, Turk Prime participants evaluated a doctor who decided in favor or against euthanizing a patient, with the same effort manipulation as Study 1. Results indicated that the doctor who favored euthanasia was considered less religious than the doctor who did not. As in Study 1, greater morality was associated with the doctor who exerted greater effort, particularly when they favored euthanasia. When the doctor favored euthanasia, they were rated as more moral when their background was inferred to be more religious; however, the opposite pattern of results emerged when the doctor decided against euthanasia.

摘要

相似文献

1
Don't be rash: how effort, religion, and decision-type influence judgments of morality.
J Soc Psychol. 2024 Oct 16:1-20. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2024.2413500.
2
Adults Show Positive Moral Evaluations of Curiosity About Religion.成年人对宗教好奇心表现出积极的道德评价。
Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2024 Aug;15(6):670-681. doi: 10.1177/19485506231195915. Epub 2023 Sep 21.
3
Religious moral righteousness over care: a review and a meta-analysis.宗教道德义凌驾于关怀之上:综述和荟萃分析。
Curr Opin Psychol. 2021 Aug;40:79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.002. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
Religious Identity and Morality: Evidence for Religious Residue and Decay in Moral Foundations.宗教身份与道德:道德基础中宗教残留与衰退的证据。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2021 Nov;47(11):1550-1564. doi: 10.1177/0146167220970814. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
5
Moral Controversy and Working with Colleagues with a Shared Ethical/Moral Outlook: A National Survey of US Primary Care Physicians.道德争议与与具有共同伦理/道德观念的同事合作:一项针对美国初级保健医生的全国性调查。
South Med J. 2019 Aug;112(8):457-461. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001003.
6
Whose Moral Community? Religiosity, Secularity, and Self-rated Health across Communal Religious Contexts.谁的道德共同体?宗教信仰、世俗主义与共同宗教背景下的自我健康评估
J Health Soc Behav. 2018 Jun;59(2):185-199. doi: 10.1177/0022146518755698. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
7
Religious prosociality and morality across cultures: how social enforcement of religion shapes the effects of personal religiosity on prosocial and moral attitudes and behaviors.跨文化背景下的宗教亲社会性与道德:宗教的社会强制如何塑造个人宗教信仰对亲社会及道德态度与行为的影响。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014 Mar;40(3):315-33. doi: 10.1177/0146167213510951. Epub 2013 Nov 11.
8
Fertilizing morality: How religiosity and orientations toward science shape the morality, immorality, and amorality of reproductive technologies.赋予道德以生命力:宗教信仰和对科学的态度如何塑造生殖技术的道德、不道德和非道德性。
Public Underst Sci. 2022 May;31(4):376-393. doi: 10.1177/09636625211035925. Epub 2021 Aug 16.
9
Good for God? Religious motivation reduces perceived responsibility for and morality of good deeds.对上帝有益?宗教动机降低了对善行的感知责任和道德感。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Aug;143(4):1616-26. doi: 10.1037/a0036678. Epub 2014 Apr 28.
10
What Makes You So Sure? Dogmatism, Fundamentalism, Analytic Thinking, Perspective Taking and Moral Concern in the Religious and Nonreligious.你为何如此确定?宗教与非宗教中的教条主义、原教旨主义、分析性思维、观点采择与道德关怀
J Relig Health. 2018 Feb;57(1):157-190. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0433-x.