轻重隐喻与重量大小对道德判断的影响研究
The Influence of Weight Metaphor and Weight on Moral Judgment
摘要: 本实验采取2 (重量：重量大vs.重量小) × 2 (隐喻：轻隐喻vs.重隐喻)的组间实验设计，使用不同重量的纸板控制身体的负重感，在材料内容中添加不同类型的隐喻词操作心理隐喻，研究重量大小与轻重隐喻对道德判断的影响。结果发现：1) 重量大小对道德事件与两难事件的重要性判断有显著性影响，负重更大的被试更倾向于认为道德事件更重要；2) 重的纸板对两难问题的道德判断有显著的影响，负重更大的被试对两难问题中的人物道德评分更高；3) 轻重隐喻对道德判断没有显著影响。
Abstract: This experiment takes 2 (weight: heavy cardboard vs. lightweight cardboard) × 2 (metaphor: light vs. heavy) randomized experiment. We use different weight cardboards to control the sense of body weight, add different types of metaphors for the operation of psychological metaphor in the content of the material, and study the influence of weight and the weight of metaphor on moral judgment. The results showed that 1) Heavy cardboard has a significant impact on the importance of moral events, heavy cardboard makes the subjects feel more important about the moral events; 2) Heavy cardboard has a significant impact on the moral dilemma. The subjects feel more moral when they hold a heavy cardboard. 3) There is no significant effect on moral judgment of the light and heavy metaphor.
文章引用：谢子燊 (2019). 轻重隐喻与重量大小对道德判断的影响研究. 心理学进展, 9(6), 1008-1018. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2019.96124

参考文献

[1] 陈丽竹(2018). 重量对道德概念与道德判断的影响及其机制. 广州: 广州大学.
[2] 韩冬, 祁禄, 杨文登(2013). 心理负荷如何影响身体负担: 一种具身的视角. 心理学与创新能力提升——第十六届全国心理学学术会议(页码461-462). 南京: 中国心理学会.
[3] 韩冬, 叶浩生(2014). 重中之“重”——具身视角下重的体验与表征. 心理科学进展, 22(6), 918-925.
[4] 李宏翰, 许闯(2012). 道德隐喻: 道德研究的隐喻视角. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 48(5), 111-117.
[5] 王汉林, 莫雷(2017). 重要还是笨重?——概念表征对重量具身效应的影响. 心理科学, No. 5, 32-38.
[6] 王锃, 鲁忠义(2013). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响. 心理学报, 45(5), 538-545.
[7] 吴念阳(2009). 隐喻的心理学研究. 上海: 上海百家出版社.
[8] 殷融, 叶浩生(2014). 道德概念的黑白隐喻表征及其对道德认知的影响. 心理学报, No. 9, 1331-1346.
[9] 张琳(2012). 具身视域下: 重量与重要性的双向研究. 硕士论文, 苏州: 苏州大学.
[10] Greene, J. (2003). From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 846.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Greene, J. D. (2007). Why Are VMPFC Patients More Utilitarian? A Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgment Explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322-323.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron, 44, 389-400.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and Where) Does Moral Judgment Work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517-523.[CrossRef] 
[14] Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814.[CrossRef] 
[15] Johnson, D. J., Cheung, F., & Donnellan, M. B. (2014). Does Cleanliness Influence Moral Judgments? Social Psychology, 45, 209-215.[CrossRef] 
[16] Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an Embodiment of Importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169-1174.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[18] Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Moll, F. T., Ignácio, F. A., Bramati, I. E., Caparelli-Dáquer, E. M., & Eslinger, P. J. (2005). The Moral Affiliations of Disgust: A Functional MRI Study. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 18, 68-78.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Moll, J., Oliveira-Souza, R. D., Garrido, G. J., Bramati, I. E., Caparelli-Daquer, E. M., Paiva, M. L., Grafman, J. et al. (2007). The Self as a Moral Agent: Linking the Neural Bases of Social Agency and Moral Sensitivity. Social Neuroscience, 2, 336-352.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a Clean Conscience: Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219-1222.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096-1109.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Schneider, I. K., Rutjens, B. T., Jostmann, N. B., & Lakens, D. (2011). Weighty Matters: Importance Literally Feels Heavy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 474-478.[CrossRef] 
[23] Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2009). The Color of Sin: White and Black Are Perceptual Symbols of Moral Purity and Pollution. Psychological Science, 20, 1019-1025.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780-784.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Zarkadi, T., & Schnall, S. (2013). “Black and White” Thinking: Visual Contrast Polarizes Moral Judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 355-359.[CrossRef] 
[27] Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing. Science, 313, 1451-1452.[CrossRef] [PubMed]