幼儿在不同规范标准下的意图判断：“副作用”效应

心理与行为研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (2): 237-243.

幼儿在不同规范标准下的意图判断：“副作用”效应

刘希平^1,2,3, 云薏霏², 柴凯轩², 李楠⁴, 唐卫海^1,2,3

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300387;
2. 天津师范大学心理学部，天津 300387;
3. 学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室，天津 300387;
4. 广东培正学院，广州 510830

收稿日期:2019-09-12 出版日期:2021-03-20 发布日期:2021-03-20
通讯作者: 唐卫海,E-mail:twhpsy@126.com

Children’s Intention Judgment Under Different Norms: The Side-Effect Effect

LIU Xiping^1,2,3, YUN Yifei², CHAI Kaixuan², LI Nan⁴, TANG Weihai^1,2,3

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. Faculty of Psychology,Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
3. Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387;
4. Guang Dong Peizheng College, Guangzhou 510830

Received:2019-09-12 Online:2021-03-20 Published:2021-03-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在幼儿对主人公的行为意图做出判断后加入奖惩任务，用意图“有无”判断和星星分配的数量作为考察“副作用”效应的指标，探讨幼儿在不同规范标准下能否利用理性策略对主人公的心理状态进行推断。结果发现：（1）幼儿对带来积极和消极“副作用”的行为意图“有无”判断没有差异；（2）相比于消极“副作用”，幼儿倾向于给带来积极“副作用”的行为者分配更多的星星作为奖励；（3）“副作用”效价对4、5、6岁幼儿分配行为的影响是一致的；（4）在道德规范标准和约定规范标准下，“副作用”效价对4、5、6岁幼儿分配行为的影响是一致的。结果表明：（1）使用星星分配数量作为指标考察幼儿的行为意图判断更敏感。（2）幼儿会把违背规范的行为推断为有意的，遵守规范的行为推断为无意的。且这种表现在4～6岁之间具有稳定性。不同规范标准下，幼儿的这一表现没有差异。（3）研究结果支持了意图判断“副作用”效应的理性推理观点。

关键词: 副作用效应, 意图判断, 规范标准, 理性推理

Abstract: The present study examined whether preschoolers could use a rational strategy to infer the mental state of the protagonist under different norms. Preschoolers accepted a “reward and punishment task” after judging the behavior intention of the protagonist. Their judgment of “with or without” intention and the number of stars assigned to the protagonist were the indicators of side-effect effect. Results showed that: 1) preschoolers performed equally well in the judgment of “with or without” intention for the behaviors that brought about the positive and negative “side effects”; 2) they tended to reward the actor who brought about positive “side effects” more stars than those who brought about negative “side effects”; 3) the influence of “side effects” valence on distributive behavior was consistent among four-, five-, and six-year-old children; 4) the influence of side-effect valence on distributive behavior of four-, five-, and six-year-old children was also consistent under both moral and conventional norms. These results indicate that: 1) The number of assigning stars is a more sensitive indicator to study the intention judgment of young children. 2) Young children judge the behaviors that violated the norms as intentional while judging the behaviors that conformed to the norms as unintentional. Moreover, this kind of asymmetrical inference is stable among four- to six-year-olds. In addition, there is no difference of such performance across different norms. 3) The results provide support for the rational accounts view of side-effect effect for the intentional judgment.

Key words: side-effect effect, intentional judgment, norms, rationality accounts

中图分类号:

B844

刘希平, 云薏霏, 柴凯轩, 李楠, 唐卫海. 幼儿在不同规范标准下的意图判断：“副作用”效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 237-243.

LIU Xiping, YUN Yifei, CHAI Kaixuan, LI Nan, TANG Weihai. Children’s Intention Judgment Under Different Norms: The Side-Effect Effect[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(2): 237-243.

参考文献

陈友庆, 陶君. (2016). 重要他人情境对青少年意图判断诺布效应的影响. 心理与行为研究, 14(4), 471–478, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2016.04.007
张靖昊. (2017). 行为态度与道德效价对意图判断的影响: 期望与规范预期的中介作用. 第二十届全国心理学学术会议——心理学与国民心理健康, 重庆.
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556.
Danovitch, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Young Humeans: The role of emotions in children’s evaluation of moral reasoning abilities. Developmental Science, 11(1), 33–39, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00657.x.
Feltz, A. (2007). The Knobe effect: A brief overview. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 28(3–4), 265–277.
Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523, doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.
Heiphetz, L., & Young, L. L. (2017). Can only one person be right? The development of objectivism and social preferences regarding widely shared and controversial moral beliefs. Cognition, 167, 78–90, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.014.
Holton, R. (2010). Norms and the Knobe effect. Analysis, 70(3), 417–424, doi: 10.1093/analys/anq037.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002–1012, doi: 10.1177/01461672002610009.
Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63(3), 190–194, doi: 10.1093/analys/63.3.190.
Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130(2), 203–231, doi: 10.1007/s11098-004-4510-0.
Knobe, J. (2007). Reason explanation in folk psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31(1), 90–106, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00146.x.
Lahat, A., Helwig, C. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2013). An event-related potential study of adolescents’ and young adults’ judgments of moral and social conventional violations. Child Development, 84(3), 955–969, doi: 10.1111/cdev.12001.
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x.
Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17(5), 421–427, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01722.x.
Lindström, B., Jangard, S., Selbing, I., & Olsson, A. (2018). The role of a “common is moral” heuristic in the stability and change of moral norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(2), 228–242, doi: 10.1037/xge0000365.
Mammen, M., Köymen, B., & Tomasello, M. (2018). The reasons young children give to peers when explaining their judgments of moral and conventional rules. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 254–262, doi: 10.1037/dev0000424.
Michelin, C., Pellizzoni, S., Tallandini, M. A., & Siegal, M. (2010). Evidence for the side-effect effect in young children: Influence of bilingualism and task presentation format. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(6), 641–652, doi: 10.1080/17405620902969989.
Nichols, S. (2002). Norms with feeling: Towards a psychological account of moral judgment. Cognition, 84(2), 221–236, doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00048-3.
Nichols, S., & Mallon, R. (2006). Moral dilemmas and moral rules. Cognition, 100(3), 530–542, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.005.
Nichols, S., & Ulatowski, J. (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: The Knobe effect revisited. Mind and Language, 22(4), 346–365, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00312.x.
Pellizzoni, S., Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2009). Foreknowledge, caring, and the side-effect effect in young children. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 289–295, doi: 10.1037/a0014165.
Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2003). The intelligence of the moral intuitions: A comment on Haidt (2001). Psychological Review, 110(1), 193–196, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.193.
Rakoczy, H., Behne, T., Clüver, A., Dallmann, S., Weidner, S., & Waldmann, M. R. (2015). The side-effect effect in children is robust and not specific to the moral status of action effects. PLoS One, 10(7), e0132933, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132933.
Susskind, J. E., & Hodges, C. (2007). Decoupling children’s gender-based in-group positivity from out-group negativity. Sex Roles, 56(11–12), 707–716.
Uttich, K., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition, 116(1), 87–100, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.003.
Xiao, S. X., Cook, R. E., Martin, C. L., Nielson, M. G., & Field, R. D. (2019). Will they listen to me? An examination of in-group gender bias in children’s communication beliefs. Sex Roles, 80, 172–185, doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0924-6.
Yucel, M., Hepach, R., & Vaish, A. (2020). Young children and adults show differential arousal to moral and conventional transgressions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 548, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00548.