公正研究中的道德信念整合理论
Integrated Theory of Moral Conviction in Justice Research
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2014.44079, PDF, HTML,  被引量 下载: 2,695  浏览: 9,973  国家科技经费支持
作者: 胡金生, 王红霞, 叶 春, 富云露：辽宁师范大学心理学院，大连
关键词: 道德信念；独立权威假说；试金石假设；情绪假说；Moral Conviction； Authority Independence Hypothesis； Litmus Test Hypothesis； Emotion Hypothesis
摘要: 不同于“经济人”和“社会人”隐喻的公正研究，道德信念整合理论关注公正判断和公正动机的道德属性，强调个体道德信念具有普世正当、非理智性、非他律性和非容忍性。该理论的核心观点包括道德价值保护模型、权威独立假说、试金石假说和情绪假说。道德信念整合理论在解释利他性惩罚以及拒绝有利不公正时有一定的理论优势，是“经济人”和“社会人”公正取向研究的有益补充。该理论整合了道德发展与社会心理对公正的研究，丰富了公正动机的研究并推动研究主体由当事人向第三方转换。未来，道德信念影响公正判断的机制以及不同取向公正动机如何权变的研究还需加强。
Abstract: Unlike justice research guided by metaphors of “homo economicus” and “homo socialis”, integrated theory of moral conviction (ITMC) concerns about moral attribute of justice judgment and justice motives. ITMC proposes that individual’s moral conviction is of universality, irrationality, autonomy and intolerance. The key assumptions of ITMC include value protection model, the authority independence hypothesis, the litmus test hypothesis and the emotion hypothesis. The theory complements with “homo economicus” and “homo socialis” approaches of justice research, and explains phenomena like altruistic punishment and rejecting advantageous inequity better than other theories. By integrating justice research in moral development and social psychology, ITMC enriches the justice motives research and helps to shift the perspective of research from parties involved to the third party. More emphasis should focus on the mechanism of how moral conviction influences justice judgment and the contingent nature of justice motives in future research.
文章引用：胡金生, 王红霞, 叶春, 富云露 (2014). 公正研究中的道德信念整合理论. 心理学进展, 4(4), 585-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AP.2014.44079

参考文献

[1] Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed II, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123-141.
[2] Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7, 21-34.
[3] Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L. A., Stocks, E., Fleming, D. Y. A., Marzette, C. M., & Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1272-1285.
[4] Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2009). Moral disagreement and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 40-49.
[5] Blake, P. R., & McAuliffe, K. (2011). “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition, 120, 215-224.
[6] Bos, M. W., Dijksterhuis, A., & Baaren, R. B. (2008). On the goal-dependency of unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1114-1120.
[7] Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
[8] Daly, J. P., Williams, D. R., O’Connor, S. J., & Pouder, R. W. (2009). Interpersonal aspects of justice in relationships between consumers and service providers: A confirmatory factor analysis. Social Justice Research, 22, 335-350.
[9] De Cremer, D., Wubben, M. J. J., & Brebels, L. (2008). When unfair treatment leads to anger: The effects of other people’s emotions and ambiguous unfair procedures. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2518-2549.
[10] Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
[11] Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63-87.
[12] Geraci, A., & Surian, L. (2011). The developmental roots of fairness: Infants’ reactions to equal and unequal distributions of resources. Developmental Science, 14, 1012-1020.
[13] Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106, 1339-1366.
[14] Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., & Henrich, N. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767-1770.
[15] Hornsey, M. J., Smith, J. R., & Begg, D. (2007). Effects of norms among those with moral conviction: Counter-conformity emerges on intentions but not behaviors. Social Influence, 2, 244-268.
[16] Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, 285-300.
[17] Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & O’Brien, E. (2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 75-84.
[18] Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. Justice and Social Interaction, 3, 167-218.
[19] Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cogni-tive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 199-249.
[20] Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-223.
[21] LoBue, V., Nishida, T., Chiong, C., DeLoache, J. S., & Haidt, J. (2009). When getting something good is bad: Even three- year-olds react to inequality. Social Development, 20, 154-170.
[22] Lodewijkx, H. F. M., Kersten, G. L. E., & van Zomeren, M. (2008). Dual pathways to engage in “silent marches” against violence: Moral outrage, moral cleansing and modes of identification. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 153-167.
[23] Maas, M., & Bos, K. (2009). An affective-experiential perspective on reactions to fair and unfair events: Individual differences in affect intensity moderated by experiential mindsets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 667-675.
[24] Mulder, L. B. (2008). The difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral concerns in social decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1436-1443.
[25] Mullen, E., & Nadler, J. (2008). Moral spillovers: The effect of moral violations on deviant behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1239-1245.
[26] Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2006). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 629-643.
[27] Prinz, J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[28] Robinson, P. H., Kurzban, R., & Jones, O. D. (2007). The origins of shared intuitions of justice. Vanderbult Law Review, 60, 1633-1875.
[29] Rupp, D. E. (2003). Testing the moral violation component of fairness theory: Moral maturity as a moderator of the deontological effect. In The Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology. Orlando, FL.
[30] Rupp, D. E., & Bell, C. M. (2010). Extending the deontic model of justice: Moral self-regulation in third-party responses to injustice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 89-106.
[31] Shaw, A., & Olson, K. (2012). Children discard a resource to avoid inequity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 382-395.
[32] Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational Justice: The role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 944-952.
[33] Skitka, L. (2006). Legislating morality: How deep is the US Supreme Court’s reservoir of good will. In The Meeting of the International Society for Justice Research. Berlin.
[34] Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588-597.
[35] Skitka, L. J. (2009). Exploring the “lost and found” of justice theory and research. Social Justice Research, 22, 98-116.
[36] Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267-281.
[37] Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2008). Morality and justice: An expanded theoretical perspective and empirical review. Advances in Group Processes, 25, 1-27.
[38] Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895-917.
[39] Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14, 305-326.
[40] Skitka, L. J., Liu, J. H., Yang, Y., Chen, H., Liu, L., & Xu, L. (2012). Exploring the cross-cultural generalizability and scope of morally motivated intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 1-8.
[41] Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419-1429.
[42] Sutter, M. (2007). Outcomes versus intentions: On the nature of fair behavior and its development with age. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 69-78.
[43] Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853-870.
[44] Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 839-865.
[45] Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
[46] Wright, J. C., Cullum, J., & Schwab, N. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1461-1476.