水平和垂直的空间朝向对道德判断的影响

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.05.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究中国被试对道德困境的判断是否会受到不同方位空间感知及动作的影响，以及水平和垂直两个轴向的影响是否相同，进行了两项研究共6个实验，分别通过视野位置、心理行走方向和身体朝向诱发被试在水平或垂直方向的空间感知。结果发现：相比于右侧，向左侧的心理行走和身体朝向使被试更容易接受功利行为；垂直方位中向上比向下时更容易接受功利行为。结果表明，中国被试在水平和垂直方向均存在道德判断倾向的具身联结，垂直方向的隐喻联结更加稳定。

关键词: 空间隐喻, 道德判断, 具身认知理论

Abstract:

The present study was to investigate whether Chinese participants’ judgments of moral dilemmas is affected by spatial perception and actions in different orientations and whether the effects of horizontal and vertical axes are similar. In specific, 6 experiments were conducted to evoke participants’ spatial perception in horizontal or vertical orientation through the position of the visual field, the direction of mental walking, and the orientation of the body. The results showed that compared to the right side, the mental walking and body orientation to the left caused the participants more likely to accept utilitarian behaviors. It was easier to accept utilitarian behaviors when the vertical orientation was going up than when it was downward. The study indicates an embodied connection between spatial orientation and moral judgment among Chinese participants, with a more stable metaphorical connection in the vertical dimension.

Key words: spatial metaphor, moral judgment, embodied cognitive theory

国速, 靖淑针, 范宁. 水平和垂直的空间朝向对道德判断的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(5): 609-616.

Su GUO, Shuzhen JING, Ning FAN. The Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Spatial Orientations on Moral Judgments[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(5): 609-616.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	丁凤琴, 王喜梅, 刘钊. 道德概念净脏隐喻及其对道德判断的影响. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33 (6): 666- 674.
	董月晴, 范宁, 鲁忠义. 身体动作趋势对道德词空间——效价一致性效应的影响. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (6): 1345- 1352.
	郝海平, 范宁. 反应模式对时间空间一致性效应的影响. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17 (2): 178- 184.
	贾宁, 冯新明, 鲁忠义. 道德概念垂直空间隐喻对空间关系判断的影响. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35 (3): 267- 273.
	黎晓丹, 杜建政, 叶浩生. 中国礼文化的具身隐喻效应: 蜷缩的身体使人更卑微. 心理学报, 2016, 48 (6): 746- 756.
	李莹, 张灿, 王悦. 道德情绪在道德隐喻映射中的作用及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27 (7): 1224- 1231.
	刘传军, 廖江群. 具身效应何处寻: 解决可重复性危机的分析性途径. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26 (12): 2260- 2271.
	鲁忠义, 贾利宁, 翟冬雪. 道德概念垂直空间隐喻理解中的映射: 双向性及不平衡性. 心理学报, 2017, 49 (2): 186- 196.
	王丛兴, 马建平, 邓珏, 杨众望, 叶一舵. 概念加工深度影响道德概念水平方位隐喻联结. 心理学报, 2020, 52 (4): 426- 439.
	杨继平, 郭秀梅, 王兴超. 道德概念的隐喻表征——从红白颜色、左右位置和正斜字体的维度. 心理学报, 2017, 49 (7): 875- 885.
	叶浩生. 具身认知: 认知心理学的新取向. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18 (5): 705- 710.
	Casasanto, D. Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2009, 138 (3): 351- 367. DOI
	Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 2018, 179, 241- 265. DOI
	Elkjær, E., Mikkelsen, M. B., Michalak, J., Mennin, D. S., & O’Toole, M. S. Expansive and contractive postures and movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of motor displays on affective and behavioral responses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2022, 17 (1): 276- 304. DOI
	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 2007, 39 (2): 175- 191. DOI
	Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”. Social Neuroscience, 2017, 12 (6): 626- 632.
	Glaser, T., & Hellmann, J. H. Heading right and judging harsher: Spatial orientation toward the right side and moral judgments. Social Psychology, 2017, 48 (5): 253- 264. DOI
	Gottwald, J. M., Elsner, B., & Pollatos, O. Good is up-spatial metaphors in action observation. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, 1605.
	Halali, E., Meiran, N., & Shalev, I. Keep it cool: Temperature priming effect on cognitive control. Psychological Research, 2017, 81 (2): 343- 354. DOI
	Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. The ups and downs of the moral personality: Why it’s not so black and white. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009, 43 (3): 520- 523. DOI
	Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Zhong, C. B. Drunk, powerful, and in the dark: How general processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2011, 6 (5): 415- 427. 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
	Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 2010, 136 (6): 1045- 1067. DOI
	Li, H., & Cao, Y. Who’s holding the moral higher ground: Religiosity and the vertical conception of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017, 106, 178- 182. DOI
	Liu, C. J., & Liao, J. Q. Stand up to action: The postural effect of moral dilemma decision-making and the moderating role of dual processes. PsyCh Journal, 2021, 10 (4): 587- 597. DOI
	Liu, Y. J., Li, K., Li, L. N., Zhang, J., Lin, Y. R., DiFabrizio, B., & Wang, H. Morphological metaphor mapping of moral concepts in Chinese culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11, 554061. DOI
	Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., & Sarlo, M. A new set of moral dilemmas: Norms for moral acceptability, decision times, and emotional salience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2014, 27 (1): 57- 65. DOI
	Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, 93 (5): 699- 710. DOI
	Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M., & Wygant, D. B. Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 2007, 43 (4): 757- 767. DOI
	Prete, G. Spatializing emotions besides magnitudes: Is there a left-to-right valence or intensity mapping. Symmetry, 2020, 12 (5): 775. DOI
	Ścigała, K., & Indurkhya, B. (2016). The influence of verticality metaphor on moral judgment and intuition. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international conference on cognitive infocommunications (pp. 205–212). Wrocław, Poland: IEEE.
	Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. London and New York: Rutledge.
	Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion, 2018, 18 (2): 277- 289. DOI
	. . 2012, 367 (1594): 1310- 1321. DOI
	Yeung, N., & Summerfield, C. Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2012, 367 (1594): 1310- 1321. DOI

		接受次数		道德评分
		高冲突	低冲突	高冲突	低冲突
a.视野位置	左	3.18±1.95	4.80±2.33	4.11±1.32	5.39±1.11
	右	2.28±1.95	4.88±1.93	4.07±1.16	5.27±1.05
b.心理行走方向	左	3.13±1.87	5.05±2.06	4.11±1.43	5.40±1.56
	右	2.25±1.64	4.13±2.45	4.19±1.53	5.17±1.24
c.身体朝向	左	2.85±1.73	4.88±2.25	4.67±1.24	5.18±1.47
	右	2.13±1.50	4.15±2.01	4.02±1.11	5.77±1.13

		接受次数		道德评分
		高冲突	低冲突	高冲突	低冲突
a.视野位置	左	3.18±1.95	4.80±2.33	4.11±1.32	5.39±1.11
	右	2.28±1.95	4.88±1.93	4.07±1.16	5.27±1.05
b.心理行走方向	左	3.13±1.87	5.05±2.06	4.11±1.43	5.40±1.56
	右	2.25±1.64	4.13±2.45	4.19±1.53	5.17±1.24
c.身体朝向	左	2.85±1.73	4.88±2.25	4.67±1.24	5.18±1.47
	右	2.13±1.50	4.15±2.01	4.02±1.11	5.77±1.13

		接受次数		道德评分
		高冲突	低冲突	高冲突	低冲突
a.视野位置	上	3.68±2.66	6.00±2.10	4.80±1.43	5.70±1.59
	下	2.47±1.96	4.91±2.17	3.74±0.56	5.06±0.61
b.心理行走方向	上	3.28±1.57	5.83±1.61	4.80±1.39	5.77±1.51
	下	2.53±1.78	4.95±1.87	3.79±0.65	5.21±0.69
c.身体朝向	上	3.58±2.22	5.93±2.01	4.68±1.37	5.88±1.69
	下	2.41±1.85	4.91±1.96	3.61±0.61	5.15±0.76

		接受次数		道德评分
		高冲突	低冲突	高冲突	低冲突
a.视野位置	上	3.68±2.66	6.00±2.10	4.80±1.43	5.70±1.59
	下	2.47±1.96	4.91±2.17	3.74±0.56	5.06±0.61
b.心理行走方向	上	3.28±1.57	5.83±1.61	4.80±1.39	5.77±1.51
	下	2.53±1.78	4.95±1.87	3.79±0.65	5.21±0.69
c.身体朝向	上	3.58±2.22	5.93±2.01	4.68±1.37	5.88±1.69
	下	2.41±1.85	4.91±1.96	3.61±0.61	5.15±0.76

[1]	徐科朋, 陈佳莉, 吴家虹, 杨凌倩, 欧倩倩, 罗冬丽, 张姝玥. 行为者的忠诚偏向效应：道德价值启动对道德行为及道德判断的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(4): 464-470.
[2]	丁凤琴, 马小红. 净脏启动对道德判断的影响：有调节的中介效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(2): 193-199.
[3]	赵思怡, 李莹, 王悦. 情绪效价−空间动作隐喻联结对成人和儿童外语情绪词学习的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 153-159.
[4]	谢晓明, 贺伟婕, 肖前国. 弱势群体判断对不同价值语义启动下道德判断的调节效应研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(5): 644-649,693.
[5]	张颖颖, 于方静, 周治金, 陈宝国. 汉语时间-空间隐喻加工垂直偏向性的稳固性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(4): 446-462.
[6]	吴念阳，陈纤纤，吴燕，钱海燕. 5-7岁儿童绘画中社会地位的“大/小”隐喻表征^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(1): 50-56.
[7]	汪新筱, 张积家, 王悦. 时间空间隐喻在汉语动词语义加工中的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 744-750.