道德决策中是否存在方言效应？

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.01.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

同一个道德两难情境，使用不同语言(母语、外语)呈现时，会影响个体的道德选择倾向，外语条件中个体会做出更多的功利主义选择，即道德外语效应。使用不同方言呈现道德两难困境是否会影响个体的道德选择倾向？实验1和实验2都采用单因素被试内设计，在无音频(实验1)、普通话、本地方言和非本地方言条件下呈现道德两难困境。两个实验的被试分别为中国的大学生和非大学生成年群体，并分别在实验室和线上情境下完成对道德两难困境的决策，发现本地方言相比于非本地方言(实验1)和普通话(实验2)引发更少的功利主义道德选择。本研究首次发现类似道德外语效应的道德方言效应。

关键词: 道德决策, 道德方言效应, 道德外语效应

Abstract:

In the same moral dilemma scenario, when presented in different languages (native vs. foreign), people tend to make more utilitarian choices in the foreign language condition, known as the moral foreign language effect. Does present moral dilemmas in different dialects affect individuals’ moral decision-making tendencies? In order to examine this issue, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 employed within-participants design, and presented moral dilemmas under conditions of no audio (Experiment 1), Mandarin, local dialect, and non-local dialect. The participants in both experiments were Chinese university students and non-university adults, who completed moral dilemma decisions in the laboratory and online, respectively. The study validated that the local dialect condition caused fewer utilitarian moral choices compared with the conditions of non-local dialect conditions (Experiment 1) and Mandarin (Experiment 2). This study first found a moral dialect effect that was similar to the moral foreign language effect.

Key words: moral judgment, moral dialect effect, moral language effect

中图分类号:

B842

刘思远, 朱麟, 王瑞冰, 徐楚言, 王芸萍, 刘聪慧. 道德决策中是否存在方言效应？[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 31-38.

Siyuan LIU, Lin ZHU, Ruibing WANG, Chuyan XU, Yunping WANG, Conghui LIU. Is there Dialect Effect in Moral Decision-Making?[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(1): 31-38.

图/表 5

参考文献

	柏子琳, 伍海燕, 方永超, 韩红, 牛盾. 方言对社会决策及情绪的影响——来自电生理的证据. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (5): 1171- 1177.
	陈俊, 林少惠, 张积家. 潮汕话-普通话双言者的词汇习得年龄效应. 心理学报, 2011, 43 (2): 111- 122.
	范娟娟. 老年流动人口语言学习调查研究. 中国成人教育, 2021, (18): 26- 30.
	房小品. (2021). 虚拟现实下基于时间压力的道德困境类型与人格特征对道德决策的影响研究(硕士学位论文). 河北大学, 保定.
	关旭. (2017). 道德判断的外语效应: 审慎加工被增强抑或直觉加工被弱化?(硕士学位论文). 宁波大学.
	关旭, 张锋, 周楠, 尹军. 决策行为和道德判断过程的外语效应: 现状与展望. 应用心理学, 2017, 23 (1): 80- 91.
	何文广, 孟杰, 许娜. 语音控制加工经验有助于促进语音执行控制功能. 心理科学, 2022, 45 (1): 9- 15.
	黄伯荣, 李炜. (2016). 现代汉语 (上册) (第2版). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
	姜永志, 张海钟, 张鹏英. 中国老乡心理效应的理论探索与实证研究. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20 (8): 1237- 1242.
	李明晖, 饶俪琳. 解释水平视角下的道德判断. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25 (8): 1423- 1430.
	鲁永刚, 张凯. 地理距离、方言文化与劳动力空间流动. 统计研究, 2019, 36 (3): 88- 99.
	麦穗妍, 陈俊. 非熟练潮-粤双言者的语义通达: 来自听觉词加工的证据. 心理学报, 2014, 46 (2): 227- 237.
	苏泓元. (2019). 从毕生发展的角度探究个体的道德判断(硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
	王悦, 陈俊, 张积家. 方言与普通话并用: 双言心理研究述评. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20 (8): 1243- 1250.
	伍丽梅, 张积家, 孟乐, 张小林, 黄楠芯, 张金桥. 语言演变差异与族群/方言名称对族群信息加工的影响——以广东三大汉语方言为例. 心理学报, 2021, 53 (9): 944- 959.
	袁佳黎, 刘飞, 张文宏. 孝道观念、代际支持与青年群体赡养行为的变迁: 2006-2017. 中国青年研究, 2022, (1): 93- 103.
	张积家, 张凤玲. 双语和双言对图片命名和分类的不对称影响. 心理学报, 2010, 42 (4): 452- 466.
	张诗容, 胡平. 外语效应: 证据、机制与前瞻. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2017, 25 (1): 45- 49.
	朱麟, 刘瑾茹, 李静, 刘聪慧. 道德外语效应及其调节变量: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (1): 32- 50.
	Amit, E., & Greene, J. D.. You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 2012, 23 (8): 861- 868. DOI
	Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G.. Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ, 1995, 310 (6973): 170- 170. DOI
	Brouwer, S.. The auditory foreign-language effect of moral decision making in highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2019, 40 (10): 865- 878. DOI
	Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). In a foreign language, “killing 1 to save 5” may be more permissible. Scientific American. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-a-foreign-language-killing-1-to-save-5-may-be-more-permissible/
	Čavar, F., & Tytus, A. E.. Moral judgement and foreign language effect: When the foreign language becomes the second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2018, 39 (1): 17- 28. DOI
	Cipolletti, H., McFarlane, S., & Weissglass, C.. The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 2016, 29 (1): 23- 40. DOI
	Conway, P., & Gawronski, B.. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013, 104 (2): 216- 235. DOI
	Corey, J. D., Hayakawa, S., Foucart, A., Aparici, M., Botella, J., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2017). Our moral choices are foreign to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1109–1128.
	Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B.. Your morals depend on language. PLoS One, 2014, 9 (4): e94842. DOI
	Dehghani, M., Khooshabeh, P., Nazarian, A., & Gratch, J.. The subtlety of sound: Accent as a marker for culture. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2015, 34 (3): 231- 250. DOI
	Dylman, A. S., & Champoux-Larsson, M. F.. It’s (not) all Greek to me: Boundaries of the foreign language effect. Cognition, 2020, 196, 104148. DOI
	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G.. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009, 41 (4): 1149- 1160. DOI
	Ferguson, C. A.. Diglossia. Word, 1959, 15 (2): 325- 340. DOI
	Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M.. Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2017, 113 (3): 343- 376. DOI
	Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L.. How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2015, 59, 8- 17. DOI
	Gong, H., & Medin, D. L.. Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 2012, 7 (5): 628- 638. DOI
	Greene, J. D.. Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 2014, 124 (4): 695- 726. DOI
	Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D.. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 2004, 44 (2): 389- 400. DOI
	Harris, C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Ayçiçeǧi, A. (2006). When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual Minds (pp. 257–283). Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
	Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G.. The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 2012, 23 (6): 661- 668. DOI
	Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A.. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 2007, 446 (7138): 908- 911. DOI
	Liberman, N., & Trope, Y.. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 2008, 322 (5905): 1201- 1205. DOI
	Miozzo, M., Navarrete, E., Ongis, M., Mello, E., Girotto, V., & Peressotti, F. (2020). Foreign language effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? Cognition, 199, 104245.
	Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428.
	Zhang, N., Ren, J. L., Wang, M., & Jiang, N. (2023). Automatic phonological access among bilinguals with cross-script languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231198500
	Zhou, L., & Perfetti, C. (2023). Global mapping congruence influences phonological interference: ERP evidence for early and persistent ortho-phonological effects in reading Chinese for meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(7), 1176–1191.

	n	年龄(岁)	性别比例(女)	听本地方言	说本地方言
成都方言	36	20.17±2.02	80.6%	4.50±0.65	4.36±0.68
关中方言	21	21.00±2.18	81.0%	4.38±0.59	3.86±0.96
天津方言	19	23.00±5.55	57.9%	4.00±0.82	3.74±0.87
总计	76	21.14±3.50	75.0%	4.34±0.70	4.16±0.85

	n	年龄(岁)	性别比例(女)	听本地方言	说本地方言
成都方言	36	20.17±2.02	80.6%	4.50±0.65	4.36±0.68
关中方言	21	21.00±2.18	81.0%	4.38±0.59	3.86±0.96
天津方言	19	23.00±5.55	57.9%	4.00±0.82	3.74±0.87
总计	76	21.14±3.50	75.0%	4.34±0.70	4.16±0.85

	n	年龄(岁)	性别比例(女)	听本地方言	说本地方言	听普通话	说普通话
成都方言	30	26.96±4.24	40.0%	4.37±0.76	4.30±0.75	4.83±0.38	4.72±0.57
关中方言	26	22.48±3.75	45.5%	4.12±0.71	3.79±0.78	4.72±0.46	4.39±0.78
天津方言	25	25.82±3.54	63.6%	4.36±0.64	3.84±0.69	4.69±0.60	4.50±0.63
总计	81	25.15±4.28	49.3%	4.28±0.71	4.00±0.77	4.75±0.48	4.54±0.67

	n	年龄(岁)	性别比例(女)	听本地方言	说本地方言	听普通话	说普通话
成都方言	30	26.96±4.24	40.0%	4.37±0.76	4.30±0.75	4.83±0.38	4.72±0.57
关中方言	26	22.48±3.75	45.5%	4.12±0.71	3.79±0.78	4.72±0.46	4.39±0.78
天津方言	25	25.82±3.54	63.6%	4.36±0.64	3.84±0.69	4.69±0.60	4.50±0.63
总计	81	25.15±4.28	49.3%	4.28±0.71	4.00±0.77	4.75±0.48	4.54±0.67