“亲亲相隐”是一桩饱受争议的道德公案,实证考察其中的道德认知机制有助于深入理解中国人的道德结构。研究1直接验证了道德决策中“亲亲相隐”现象的存在,研究2进一步考察了道德判断与决策的差序效应及个体社会价值取向的调节作用,研究3探究了道德义务感的中介作用。整个研究表明,“亲亲相隐”根植于中国人“应然”和“实然”两个层面的道德认知中,不同社会关系下所感知到的人际道德义务差异在其中起到重要作用。
Abstract
Whether it is the theoretical contention in the ideological field or the legal practice in social life, the mutual concealment between relatives is a controversial moral case. The empirical study of its moral cognitive mechanism can help to understand the moral structure of Chinese people. Experimental ethics, which uses psychological experimental methods to study ethics, could provide more compelling reasons for moral judgment and behavior. Experimental ethics focuses on whether people hold the moral concept and behavioral tendency of concealing their relatives, and the psychological mechanism inside.
The first study directly verified the existence of kin concealment in moral decision-making. As interpersonal relationships become more distant, people have made more decisions to report relatives' illegal behaviors from the first and third social cognitive perspectives. Whether it's the first or the third perspective, subjects make more prosecution decisions than relatives and friends when neighbors make mistakes and there is no significant difference in decision making between relatives and friends who made mistakes. However, the results of chi-square test showed that the influence of social relation on moral judgment is not significant.
The second study further examined the differential effect of moral judgment and decision-making and the moderating effect of social value orientation. Compared with study 1, the main effect of social relation on moral decision-making is robust. The main effect of social relationship distance on moral judgment is significant. As the social relationship between the wrong situation actor and the subjects is getting closer, the subjects are increasingly disapproving of the legitimacy of the prosecution. The interaction between social value orientation and social relationship distance on moral decision-making is significant from both perspectives.
The third study explored the mediating effect of perceived moral obligation. The variance analysis results with perceived moral obligation as the dependent variable show that the main effect of social relation is significant, and the main effect of social value orientation is not significant. The interaction is significant. The mediating role of perceived moral obligation in the relationship between social relation and moral cognition is further investigated. The mediating model is established with moral judgment and decision-making as dependent variables, social relation as independent variable, and perceived moral obligation as mediating variable. Since moral judgment can positively predict moral decision-making, this path is added to the mediation model to form a chain mediation model, which is supported by data.
Collectively, findings showed that mutual concealment between relatives is implicitly rooted in the moral cognition of Chinese people at the two levels of “ought to be” and “to be” and the perceived difference in interpersonal moral obligations in the context of various social relations plays an important role. In the face of illegal violations by relatives and acquaintances, the activation of interpersonal moral obligations weakens the impact of social responsibility for safeguarding public interests on individual moral cognition, which leads to a decrease in individual recognition of the legitimacy of accusation in moral judgment and makes moral decisions with less accusation.
关键词
亲亲相隐 /
差序格局 /
道德认知 /
社会价值取向 /
道德义务感
Key words
mutual concealment between relatives /
differential mode of association /
moral cognition /
SVO /
perceived moral obligation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 卞军凤, 燕良轼. (2015). 5~12岁儿童人际关系差序性对道德公正与道德关怀的影响. 学前教育研究, 5, 38-44.
[2] 邓晓芒. (2007). 再议“亲亲相隐”的腐败倾向——评郭齐勇主编的《儒家伦理争鸣集》. 学海, 1, 5-24.
[3] 范忠信. (1997). 中西法律传统中的“亲亲相隐”. 中国社会科学, 3, 87-104.
[4] 葛枭语. (2021). 孝的多维心理结构:取向之异与古今之变. 心理学报, 53(3), 306-321.
[5] 李继刚, 张益刚. (2011). “亲亲相隐”的人性魅力解读. 道德与文明, 6, 46-51.
[6] 李拥军. (2014). “亲亲相隐”与“大义灭亲”的博弈:亲属豁免权的中国面相. 中国法学, 6, 89-108.
[7] 刘清平. (2002). 美德还是腐败?——析《孟子》中有关舜的两个案例. 哲学研究, 2, 43-47.
[8] 彭凯平, 喻丰, 柏阳. (2011). 实验伦理学:研究、贡献与挑战. 中国社会科学, 6, 15-25.
[9] 卫旭华, 邹意. (2020). 亲亲相隐何时休?关系对揭发意向影响的边界. 心理科学, 43(2), 423-429.
[10] 杨伯峻. (2006). 论语译注. 中华书局.
[11] 杨国枢. (2004). 中国人的心理与行为:本土化研究. 中国人民大学出版社.
[12] 喻丰, 许丽颖. (2018). 中国人的道德结构:道德差序圈. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), 6, 65-74.
[13] 翟学伟. (2019). “亲亲相隐”的再认识——关系向度理论的解释. 江苏行政学院学报, 1, 50-59.
[14] 张传有. (2012). 作为情感的爱与作为义务的爱. 哲学研究, 5, 106-112.
[15] 张银玲, 虞祯, 买晓琴. (2020). 社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制. 心理学报, 52(7), 895-908.
[16] Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[17] Bian J. F., Li L., Sun J. Z., Deng J., Li Q. W., Zhang X. L., & Yan L. S. (2019). The influence of self-relevance and cultural values on moral orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 292.
[18] Caviola L., Kahane G., Everett J. A. C., Teperman E., Savulescu J., & Faber N. S. (2021). Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(5), 1008-1039.
[19] Haruno M., Kimura M., & Frith C. D. (2014). Activity in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala underlies individual differences in prosocial and individualistic economic choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(8), 1861-1870.
[20] Kurzban R., Descioli P., & Fein D. (2012). Hamilton vs. Kant: Pitting adaptations for altruism against adaptations for moral judgment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 323-333.
[21] Lee, J., & Holyoak, K. J. (2020). “But he's my brother”: The impact of family obligation on moral judgments and decisions. Memory and Cognition, 48, 158-170.
[22] Lu J. G., Jin P., & English A. S. (2021). Collectivism predicts mask use during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(23), Article e2021793118.
[23] Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
[24] Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1992). Culture and moral judgment: How are conflicts between justice and interpersonal responsibilities resolved? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 541-554.
[25] Murphy R. O., Ackermann K. A., & Handgraaf M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781.
[26] Patil I., Zucchelli M. M., Kool W., Campbell S., Fornasier F., Calò M., & Cushman F. (2021). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 443-460.
[27] Pletzer J. L., Balliet D., Joireman J., Kuhlman D. M., Voelpel S. C., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(1), 62-83.
[28] Soter L. K., Berg M. K., Gelman S. A., & Kross E. (2021). What we would (but shouldn't) do for those we love: Universalism versus partiality in responding to others' moral transgressions. Cognition, 217, 104886.
[29] Sul S., Tobler P. N., Hein G., Leiberg S., Jung D., Fehr E., & Kim H. (2015). Spatial gradient in value representation along the medial prefrontal cortex reflects individual differences in prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(25), 7851-7856.
[30] Weidman A. C., Sowden W. J., Berg M. K., Kross E. (2020). Punish or protect? How close relationships shape responses to moral violations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 693-708.
[31] Yu H., Siegel J. Z., & Crockett M. J. (2019). Modeling morality in 3-d: Decision-making, judgment, and inference. Topics in cognitive science, 11(2), 409-432.
[32] Zhu Y., Zhang L., Fan J., & Han S. H. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. NeuroImage, 34(3), 1310-1316.
基金
*本研究得到国家自然科学基金面上项目(31971014)的资助
PDF(1283 KB)
