全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

对合作任务责任判断的加法解释
An Addition Account of Responsibility Judgments in the Cooperation Task

DOI: 10.12677/AP.2022.126236, PP. 1997-2006

Keywords: 合作任务,原因的作用,责任判断,加法解释
Cooperation Tasks
, The Role of Causes, Responsibility Judgments, Addition Account

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

目的:先前的研究发现,人们在对合作任务中的原因进行责任判断时,判断每个原因都要对结果负全部责任。这不符合现实经验。提出合作任务责任判断的加法解释。加法解释预测:在合作任务中,原因的作用越大,对原因的责任判断会越多;并且合作任务中所有原因的责任的总和等于全部责任。方法:被试为某普通大学的在校本科大学生120人,通过两个纸笔情境实验分别考察了合作任务结果发生前和发生后原因的作用对责任判断的影响。结果:两个实验结果一致表明,被试根据原因在导致结果中的作用来做相应的责任判断,对原因的责任判断随原因作用增加而增加;并且合作任务中所有原因的责任的总和接近全部责任。结论:合作任务中的责任判断符合加法原则。
Objective: Previous studies conclude that for a cooperation task involving multiple causes and a joint outcome, each cause bears the full responsibility for the outcome. This is not consistent with human practices. According to practical experience, the authors propose an addition account for responsibility judgments in the cooperation task. The addition account involves two points: The correlation principle that responsibility judgments should increase with the role of causes in a cooperation task, and the addition principle that the sum of responsibility judgments for multiple causes should be equal to the full responsibility. Methods: Two experiments tested the two principles in prospective and retrospective responsibility judgment, respectively. 120 college students participated in the experiments. Results: The two experiments consistently demonstrate that for each of the unequal-role problems, responsibility ratings increased with the role of causes. And for each problem, the sum of mean responsibility ratings for each cause approximated the full responsibility. Conclusion: Responsibility judgments in the cooperation task followed the addition principle.

References

[1]  况志华(2012). 基于日常经验取向的责任心理结构研究. 心理科学, 35(2), 430-435.
https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.02.035
[2]  李安(2004). 注意对冲突责任判断的影响的实验研究. 心理科学, 27(4), 881-883.
https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2004.04.029
[3]  李鹏, 陈璟, 王晶, 李红(2015). 信念与结果对道德、法律责任判断的影响. 心理科学, 38(4), 916-922.
https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2015.04.021
[4]  林钟敏(2001). 大学生对学习行为的责任归因. 心理学报, 33(1), 37-42.
[5]  张爱卿, 刘华山(2003). 人际责任推断与行为应对策略的归因分析. 心理学报, 35(2), 231-236.
[6]  Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004). Responsibility and Blame: A Structural-Model Approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 93-115.
https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1391
[7]  Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2010). Spreading the Blame: The Allocation of Responsibility amongst Multiple Agents. Cognition, 115, 166-171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.011
[8]  Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2012). When Contributions Make a Difference: Explaining Order Effects in Responsibility Attribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 729-736.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0256-4
[9]  Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2014). Attributing Responsibility: Actual and Counterfactual Worlds. In J. Knobe, T. Lombrozo, & S. Nichols (Eds.), Oxford Studies of Experimental Philosophy (pp. 91-130). Oxford University Press.
[10]  Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
[11]  Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of Cause and Blame: The Effects of Intentionality and Foreseeability. Cognition, 108, 754-770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.009
[12]  Lagnado, D. A., Gerstenberg, T., & Zultan, R. I. (2013). Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals. Cognitive Science, 37, 1036-1073.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12054
[13]  Rapoport, A. (1987). Research Paradigms and Expected Utility Models for the Provision of Step-Level Public Goods. Psychological Review, 94, 74-83.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.74
[14]  Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome Severity and Judgments of “Responsibility”: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575-2609.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x
[15]  Zultan, R. I., Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2012). Finding Fault: Causality and Counterfactuals in Group Attributions. Cognition, 125, 429-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.014

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133