Dissociating the Multiple Psychological Processes in Everyday Moral Decision-Making with the CAN Algorithm
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Learning Research Paradigms from Traditional Moral Dilemma Research
1.2. Learning Point 1: Structured Dilemma Scenarios Development
1.3. Learning Point 2: Parameter Estimation Method
- p1: The probability of doing an act that is egoistic and non-altruistic when faced with the egoistic and non-altruistic scenarios.
- p2: The probability of doing an act that is egoistic and altruistic when faced with the egoistic and altruistic scenarios.
- p3: The probability of doing an act that is non-egoistic and altruistic when faced with the non-egoistic and altruistic scenarios.
- p4: The probability of doing an act that is non-egoistic and non-altruistic when faced with the non-egoistic and non-altruistic scenarios.
- Altruistic Tendency (AT) = (p2 − p1 + p3 − p4)/2.
- Egoistic Tendency (ET) = (p2 − p3 + p1 − p4)/2.
- Overall Action/Inaction Preference (OP) = (p1 + p2 + p3 + p4)/4.
1.4. Current Study
2. Study 1: Development and Validation of Scenarios for the Psychological Process Dissociation in Everyday Moral Decision-Making
2.1. Materials and Methods
2.1.1. Participants
2.1.2. Development of Materials
2.1.3. Procedure
2.1.4. Analytical Strategy
2.2. Results
2.3. Discussion
3. Study 2: Example of Dissociating the Multiple Psychological Processes in Everyday Moral Decision-Making: Exploring the Relationships between Altruistic Tendencies and Social Isolation and Distress Disclosure
3.1. Materials and Methods
3.1.1. Participants
3.1.2. Measurements
- Social isolation. The 6-item Friendship Scale (FS), developed by Hawthorne [18], was used to assess the perceived social distance from others (e.g., When with other people I felt separate from them). It was rated on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree), with three reverse coded items. The higher the total score, the stronger the feeling of social isolation. The original version of the scale was in English and was translated into Chinese under the guidance of a teacher majoring in English. The McDonald’s ω coefficient was 0.82 and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale in this study was 0.81.
- Distress disclosure. The 12-item Distress Disclosure Index (DDI; [30]) was used. Participants were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = almost, to 5 = not at all) their feelings about each item (e.g., When something unpleasant happens to me, I often look for someone to talk to). Six of the items require reverse scoring. Higher scores indicate a higher level of distress disclosure. The original version of the scale was in English and was translated into Chinese under the guidance of a teacher majoring in English. The McDonald’s ω coefficient and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale in this study were both 0.88.
- Altruistic tendency in everyday moral decision-making. The 24-item scenarios of everyday moral decision-making (see Appendix A Table A1 and Table A2), developed by Study 1, was used to dissociate individuals’ altruistic tendencies in everyday moral decision-making. The material consists of six scene frameworks, and each frame contains four scenarios representing the four dimensions of everyday moral decision-making dilemmas (egoistic and non-altruistic, egoistic and altruistic, non-egoistic and altruistic, and non-egoistic and non-altruistic). Four probability data exist for each dimension separately: p1 (egoistic and non-altruistic), p2 (egoistic and altruistic), p3 (non-egoistic and altruistic), and p4 (non-egoistic and non-altruistic), representing the average degree of decision makers’ approval of the proposed behavior. After obtaining the probability data, the CAN algorithm [7] was applied to calculate the three parameters representing individuals’ everyday moral decision-making tendencies: ET, AT, and OP. The AT was then used as the dependent variable in this study. The validity of this material was tested in Study 1.
3.1.3. Procedure
- You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. If you walk over to him/her and remind him/her not to smoke in public, he/she is offended by your stopping him/her and may get into a physical confrontation with you at any time, but other diners will get a fresh dining environment. You choose to (single-choice): A. stop the smoker B. do not stop the smoker).
3.1.4. Analytical Strategy
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Common Method Bias Analysis
3.2.2. Correlational Analysis
3.2.3. Individual Differences: Comparing Measured Variables by the Gender and Intimate Relationship
3.3. Discussion
4. General Discussion
4.1. The Application of CAN Algorithm
4.2. The Relationship between Social Isolation, Distress Diclosure, and Altruistic Tendency in Everyday Moral Decision-Making
5. Contributions and Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Scene Framework | Egoistic | Non-Egoistic | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Altruistic | Altruistic | Altruistic | Non-Altruistic | |
p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | |
1. A friend asks to board a pet at your home | A friend is planning a business trip and would like you to help him/her take care of a pet. If you stick to your travel schedule this week, your friend’s pet cannot be properly taken care of, but you can enjoy your vacation. (You choose to: A. take care of the pet B. do not take care of the pet) | A friend is planning a business trip and wants you to take care of his/her pet. You happen to have the weekend off and like the pet. If you take care of the pet for him/her, the friend will be able to travel with peace of mind and bring you a gift when he/she returns home as a token of appreciation. (You choose to: A. take care of the pet B. do not take care of the pet) | A friend is planning a business trip and would like you to help him/her take care of a pet. If you agree to help, the friend can travel with peace of mind. However, this may take some of your time off, and the pet is a bit naughty and may cause damage to your furniture. (You choose to: A. take care of the pet B. do not take care of the pet) | A friend is planning a business trip and wants you to take care of his/her pet for a fee. If you stick to your weekend off schedule, the pet will not be taken care of, and you will lose this income that can solve your urgent needs. (You choose to: A. take care of the pet B. do not take care of the pet) |
2. A relative asks you to be a tour guide for a trip | A relative is on a trip to your city. He/she asks you to act as a tour guide because he/she is not familiar with the place. If you stick to your schedule and do not take him/her on the tour, he/she will probably not have a good trip, but you will have more rest time. (You choose to: A. stick to your schedule and do not take him/her on the tour B. adjust your schedule and take him/her on the tour) | A relative is on a trip to your city. He/she asks you to act as a tour guide because he/she is not familiar with the place. If you take him/her on a tour, the relative will have a smooth journey, and you can also have a chance to take a break and relieve the strain of work. (You choose to: A. take him/her on a tour B. do not take him/her on a tour) | A relative is on a trip to your city. He/she asks you to act as a tour guide because he/she is not familiar with the place. If you take him/her on a tour, he/she will have a smooth journey, but it will disrupt your rest schedule. (You choose to: A. take him/her on a tour B. do not take him/her on a tour) | A relative is on a trip to your city. He/she asks you to act as a tour guide because he/she is not familiar with the place. If you stick to your schedule and do not take him/her on the tour, he/she will probably not have a good trip, and your indifferent treatment may be known by other relatives, causing you to lose their concern for you and your family. (You choose to: A. stick to your schedule and do not take him/her on the tour B. adjust your schedule and take him/her on the tour) |
3. A colleague faces an examination | You are an employee of the human resources of a company. You receive a notice from your supervisor that a random inspection will be conducted tomorrow in department A to punish employees who fail the inspection. You are asked to keep this inspection to yourself. A colleague with whom you have a good relationship happens to work in department A. If you keep the news, you will be rewarded by the supervisor for performing your duties properly. However, your colleagues may be punished for failing the inspection. (You choose to: A. keep the news B. break the news to him/her) | You are an employee of the human resources of a company. You receive a notice from your supervisor that a random inspection will be conducted tomorrow in department A to punish employees who fail the inspection. A colleague with whom you have a good relationship happens to work in department A. If you break the news to him/her, he/she will be ready to pass the spot check perfectly. Also, you will get stronger support from him/her in your future work. (You choose to: A. break the news to him/her B. do not break the news to him/her) | You are an employee of the human resources of a company. You receive a notice from your supervisor that a random inspection will be conducted tomorrow in department A to punish employees who fail the inspection. You are asked to keep this inspection. A colleague with whom you have a good relationship happens to work in department A. If you break the news to him/her, he/she will be ready to pass the spot check perfectly. However, you will be punished for violating your duties once your supervisor learns that you leaked the information. (You choose to: A. break the news to him/her B. do not break the news to him/her) | You are an employee of the human resources of a company. You receive a notice from your supervisor that a random inspection will be conducted tomorrow in department A to reward employees with excellent appraisals. A colleague with whom you have a good relationship happens to work in department A. If you keep the news to yourself, he/she will miss this opportunity for promotion, and you will be complained about by him/her and lose his/her support in the future. (You choose to: A. keep the news B. break the news to him/her) |
4. A stranger is smoking in public | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. If you leave alone, you can have a fresh dining environment without any conflict with the smoker, but other diners will continue to inhale second-hand smoke. (You choose to: A. leave alone B. do not leave alone) | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. Others in the restaurant did not try to stop him/her. If you stop the smoker, he/she will extinguish the cigarette as a sign of apology, and everyone will praise you for your behavior. (You choose to: A. stop the smoker B. do not stop the smoker) | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. If you walk over to him/her and remind him/her not to smoke in public, he/she is offended by your stopping him/her and may get into a physical confrontation with you at any time, but other diners will get a fresh dining environment. (You choose to: A. stop the smoker B. do not stop the smoker) | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. Others in the restaurant did not try to stop him/her. If you choose to remain silent, you and other diners will continue to inhale second-hand smoke and suffer health consequences. (You choose to: A. leave alone B. do not leave alone) |
5. A salesperson asks you to sign up for a membership | You are shopping when a salesperson stops you and asks you to sign up for a free membership to a restaurant. This requires you to fill in personal information (e.g., name and phone number). If you do not sign up for the membership, this salesperson will not complete the task on time, but you will avoid the risk of personal information being leaked. (You choose to: A. not sign up for the membership B. sign up for the membership) | You are shopping when a salesperson stops you and asks you to sign up for a free membership to a restaurant. You happen to be interested in this restaurant. If you sign up for membership, you will get a coupon for the restaurant and help the salesperson to get the job done. (You choose to: A. sign up for the membership B. not sign up for the membership) | You are shopping when a salesperson stops you and asks you to sign up for a free membership to a restaurant. This requires you to fill in personal information (e.g., name and phone number). If you sign up for a membership, you can help this salesperson get the job done as quickly as possible, but your personal information may be leaked. (You choose to: A. sign up for the membership B. not sign up for the membership) | You are shopping when a salesperson stops you and asks you to sign up for a free membership to a restaurant you are interested in. If you do not sign up for the membership, you will not be able to enjoy the discounts of that restaurant and this salesperson will not be able to complete the task on time. (You choose to: A. not sign up for the membership B. sign up for the membership) |
6. A blogger made a mistake in the post | A blogger you followed published an article, and you find that some of its details violate the rules of the social platform. If you report to the platform about this blogger, he/she cannot earn income from posting over a period, but you will get the rewards from the platform. (You choose to: A. report to the platform B. do not report to the platform) | A blogger you followed published an article and you find some mistakes in the details. If you contact him/her privately to point out these mistakes, he/she will fix the details and avoid making a big mistake, and you will get a gift of gratitude from him/her. (You choose to: A. point out the mistakes B. do not point out the mistakes) | A blogger you followed published an article and you find some mistakes in the details. If you leave a comment pointing out these mistakes, he/she will fix the details and avoid making a big mistake, but you will be abused by his/her fans (for damaging the blogger’s reputation). (You choose to: A. point out the mistakes B. do not point out the mistakes) | A blogger you followed published an article and you find some mistakes in the details. If you leave a comment pointing out these mistakes, he/she will be accused of ignorance, and you will be abused by his/her fans (for damaging the blogger’s reputation). (You choose to: A. point out the mistakes B. do not point out the mistakes) |
情境框架 | 利己 | 不利己 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
不利他 | 利他 | 利他 | 不利他 | |
p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | |
1. 朋友的宠物需要寄养 | 你的好朋友周末要出差,请你照顾ta养的一只宠物。如果你坚持这周的出游安排,朋友的宠物无法得到妥善照顾,但你可以享受自己的假期。 (你选择:A. 坚持出游安排, 不替ta照顾宠物 B.放弃出游安排,替ta照顾宠物) | 你的好朋友周末要出差,请你照顾ta养的一只宠物。刚好你周末休息,同时也很喜欢这只宠物,如果替ta照顾,那么朋友能安心出差,回家后也会给你带一份伴手礼以示感激。 (你选择:A.替ta照顾宠物 B.不替ta照顾宠物) | 你的好朋友周末要出差,请你照顾ta养的一只宠物。如果选择替ta照顾宠物,朋友能安心出差,但会占用你休息的时间,并可能给你的家具造成一些破坏。 (你选择:A.替ta照顾宠物 B.不替ta照顾宠物) | 你的好朋友周末要出差,因此请你照顾ta养的一只宠物,并打算付给你一定酬劳。如果你坚持周末休息,不替朋友照顾宠物,那么朋友不能安心出差,你也会失去这笔能解决燃眉之急的收入。 (你选择:A.替ta照顾宠物 B.不替ta照顾宠物) |
2.亲戚需要导游 | 家一位亲戚来到你所在的城市旅游,ta因为人生地不熟,所以请你充当ta的导游。如果你坚持自己的生活安排,不带ta游玩,ta这趟旅游必然会不那么顺利,并且会遭遇骗子,但你将拥有更多休息时间。 (你选择:A.坚持自己的安排,不带ta游玩 B.调整自己的安排,带ta游玩) | 老家一位亲戚来到你所在的城市旅游,ta因为人生地不熟,所以请你充当ta的导游。如果带ta游玩,亲戚能玩得更顺利,以后更加关照你,你也可以借此机会散散心,缓解工作的劳累。 (你选择:A.带ta游玩 B.不带ta游玩) | 老家一位亲戚来到你所在的城市旅游,ta因为人生地不熟,所以请你充当导游带ta游玩几天,这样ta能玩得更顺利,但会打乱你下班后的休息安排。 (你选择:A.带ta游玩 B.不带ta游玩) | 老家一位亲戚来到你所在的城市旅游,ta因为人生地不熟,所以请你充当ta的导游。如果你坚持生活安排,不带ta游玩,亲戚这趟旅游必然不会那么顺利,并且可能遭遇骗子,而你的“冷漠对待”可能传到其他亲戚耳中,从而使你失去他们的关照。 (你选择:A.坚持自己的安排,不带ta游玩 B.调整自己的安排,带ta游玩) |
3. 同事面临考核 | 你是某公司的HR,今天你收到主管通知,明天将对A部门进行突击抽查考核,惩罚考察不合格的员工,并且要求你对这次考核保密。与你关系很好的一位同事刚好在A部门工作。如果你保守考核秘密,那么你会因正常履行了自己的工作职责而受到领导嘉奖,但同事可能因为考察不合格而受到惩罚。 (你选择:A.保守秘密,不告诉ta考核的消息 B.告诉ta考核的消息) | 你是某公司的HR,今天你收到主管通知,明天将对A部门进行突击抽查考核,惩罚考察不合格的员工。与你关系很好的一位同事刚好在A部门工作,如果你将考核的消息告诉ta,那么ta将做好准备,完美通过突击考察,并且你们的关系将更加亲密,你在以后的工作中也能获得更强有力的支持。 (你选择:A.告诉ta考核的消息 B.不告诉ta考核的消息) | 你是某公司的HR,今天你收到主管通知,明天将对A部门进行突击抽查考核,惩罚考察不合格的员工,并且要求你对这次考核保密。与你关系很好的一位同事刚好在A部门工作,如果你将考核的事情告诉ta,那么ta将做好准备,完美通过突击考察,但你违反了自己的工作职责,并且一旦主管得知你泄露了消息,将因此处罚你。 (你选择:A.告诉ta考核的消息 B. 不告诉ta考核的消息) | 你是某公司的HR,今天你收到主管通知,明天将对A部门进行突击抽查考核,对考核优秀的员工予以奖励。与你关系很好的一位同事刚好在A部门工作。如果你保守工考核秘密,不告诉ta考核的事情,那么ta将错过这个晋升的机会,你也会被ta埋怨,并在以后的工作中被ta穿小鞋。 (你选择:A.保守秘密,不告诉ta考核的消息 B.告诉ta考核的消息) |
4.陌生人公共场合吸烟 | 你在餐厅吃饭时,看到一个人在餐桌前抽烟。如果你独自离开,可以获得一个清新的就餐环境,且不会和吸烟者发生任何冲突,但其他就餐者将继续吸入二手烟。 (你选择:A.独自离开 B.不独自离开) | 你在餐厅吃饭时,看到一个人在餐桌前抽烟,餐厅里没有人去制止吸烟者。如果你去制止吸烟者,ta会掐灭烟卷以示歉意,大家都将拥有一个清新的就餐环境,并赞扬你的高素质行为。 (你选择:A.制止吸烟者 B.不制止吸烟者) | 你在餐厅吃饭时,看到一个人在餐桌前抽烟。此时你走过去,提醒ta不要在公共场合吸烟,而ta对你的制止感到不快,随时会和你产生肢体冲突,但其他就餐者都会获得一个清新的就餐环境。 (你选择:A.制止吸烟者 B.不制止吸烟者) | 你在餐厅吃饭时,看到一个人在餐桌前抽烟,餐厅里没有人去制止吸烟者。如果你选择沉默,那么你和周围人都将继续吸入二手烟,健康受到影响。 (你选择:A.制止吸烟者 B.不制止吸烟者) |
5. 推销人员请求注册会员 | 逛街时,一名推销人员拦住你,请你免费注册某火锅店会员,并需要你填写姓名、电话号码等信息。如果你不注册会员,这名推销人员将需要更多时间来完成任务,但你不用花费时间填写信息,同时避免了隐私泄露的可能。 (你选择:A. 放弃优惠,不注册会员 B.注册会员) | 逛街时,一名推销人员拦住你,请你免费注册某火锅店会员,刚好你对这家火锅店很感兴趣,注册会员后将获得该火锅店的优惠券,同时帮助这名推销人员完成工作任务。 (你选择:A.注册会员 B.不注册会员) | 逛街时,一名推销人员拦住你,请你免费注册某火锅店会员,并需要你填写姓名、电话号码等信息。如果你注册会员,可以帮这名推销人员尽快完成任务,但你的个人信息可能会被泄露。 (你选择:A.注册会员 B.不注册会员) | 逛街时,一名推销人员拦住你,请你免费注册某家你感兴趣的火锅店会员。如果你不注册会员,将无法享受该火锅店的折扣优惠,这名推销人员也不能尽早完成任务。 (你选择:A.放弃优惠,不注册会员 B.注册会员) |
6.举报某博主的文章错误 | 你关注的一位博主发表了一篇文章,你发现其中有些细节错误违反了该社交平台的规定。如果你向平台投诉这位博主,那么ta在一段时间内不能发表文章,也无法取得相关收益,但你将获得平台的奖励。 (你选择:A.向平台投诉B. 不向平台投诉) | 你关注的一位博主发表了一篇文章,你发现其中有些细节错误,如果你私聊ta指出错误之处,ta会与你讨论并修正文章,从而避免因小失大,同时给你寄送礼物以表感激。 (你选择:A.指出细节错误 B.不指出细节错误) | 你关注的一位博主发表了一篇文章,你发现其中有些细节错误。如果你留言指出这些错误,ta将避免因小失大,但你会被ta的粉丝骂成杠精。 (你选择:A.指出细节错误 B.不指出细节错误) | 你关注的一位博主发表了一篇文章,你发现其中有些细节错误。如果你直接在评论区留言指出这些错误,ta将因此被骂学识浅薄,而你也会被ta的粉丝骂成杠精。 (你选择:A.指出细节错误 B.不指出细节错误) |
References
- Christensen, J.F.; Gomila, A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012, 36, 1249–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf. Rev. 1967, 2, 152–161. [Google Scholar]
- Thomson, J.J. Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. Monist 1976, 59, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 113, 343–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korner, A.; Deutsch, R.; Gawronski, B. Using the CNI model to investigate individual differences in moral dilemma judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 46, 1392–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, J.; Goodwin, G.P. Consequences, norms, and inaction: A critical analysis. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2020, 15, 421–442. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.J.; Liao, J.Q. CAN algorithm: An individual level approach to identify consequence and norm sensitivities and overall action/inaction preferences in moral decision-making. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 547916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, C.; Liu, C. Resolving the limitations of the CNI model in moral decision-making by the CAN algorithm: A methodological contrast. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauman, C.W.; McGraw, A.P.; Bartels, D.M.; Warren, C. Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2014, 8, 536–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singer, N.; Kreuzpointner, L.; Sommer, M.; Wüst, S.; Kudielka, B.M. Decision-making in everyday moral conflict situations: Development and validation of a new measure. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Starcke, K.; Polzer, C.; Wolf, O.T.; Brand, M. Does stress alter everyday moral decision-making? Psychoneuroendocrinology 2011, 36, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sommer, M.; Rothmayr, C.; Döhnel, K.; Meinhardt, J.; Schwerdtner, J.; Sodian, B.; Hajak, G. How should I decide? The neural correlates of everyday moral reasoning. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48, 2018–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, C.; Liao, J. Is the more psychopathic more concerned with human beings overall? A data reanalysis exploration. Curr. Psychol. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.J.; Xie, Z.J.; Wang, X.Y. Will Incidental Happiness Reduce the Agent’s Moral Norms Sensitivity? Stud. Psychol. Behav. 2021, 19, 687–694. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Warneken, F.; Tomasello, M. The roots of human altruism. Br. J. Psychol. 2009, 100, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- DeScioli, P.; Krishna, S. Giving to whom? Altruism in different types of relationships. J. Econ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, S.G. Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2005, 12, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawthorne, G. Measuring social isolation in older adults: Development and initial validation of the friendship scale. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 77, 521–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barger, S.D.; Donoho, C.J.; Wayment, H.A. The relative contributions of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health, and social relationships to life satisfaction in the United States. Qual. Life Res. 2009, 18, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Child, S.T.; Lawton, L. Loneliness and social isolation among young and late middle-age adults: Associations with personal networks and social participation. Aging Ment. Health 2019, 23, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdani, N.; Siedlecki, K.L. Mediators of the relationship between cognition and subjective well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 22, 3091–3109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawthorne, G.; Osborne, R. Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2005, 29, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jourard, S.M.; Lasakow, P. Some factors in self-disclosure. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1958, 56, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahn, J.H.; Hessling, R.M. Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose psychological distress. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2001, 20, 41–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenland, K.; Scourfield, J.; Maxwell, N.; Prior, L.; Scourfield, J. Theoretical antecedents of distress disclosure in a community sample of young people. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 39, 2045–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aknin, L.B.; Van de Vondervoort, J.W.; Hamlin, J.K. Positive feelings reward and promote prosocial behavior. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2018, 20, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oppenheimer, D.M.; Meyvis, T.; Davidenko, N. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Larcker. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attrill, A.; Jalil, R. Revealing only the superficial me: Exploring categorical self-disclosure online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1634–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Long, L.R. Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 12, 942–950. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Teoh, Y.Y.; Yao, Z.; Cunningham, W.A.; Hutcherson, C.A. Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, D.T.; Effron, D.A. Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 43, 115–155. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, W. A Review of the Research on Moral Psychological Licensin. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 29, 1233–1241. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lykes, V.A.; Kemmelmeier, M. What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2014, 45, 468–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, H.R.; Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1991, 98, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthes, J.; Hayes, A.F.; Rojas, H.; Shen, F.; Min, S.J.; Dylko, I.B. Exemplifying a dispositional approach to cross-cultural spiral of silence research: Fear of social isolation and the inclination to self-censor. Int. J. Public Opinion Res. 2012, 24, 287–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, C.; Meisenhelder, J.B.; Ma, Y.; Reed, G. Altruistic social interest behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosom. Med. 2003, 65, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tashjian, S.M.; Rahal, D.; Karan, M.; Eisenberger, N.; Galván, A.; Cole, S.W.; Fuligni, A.J. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial that altruism moderates the effect of prosocial acts on adolescent well-being. J. Youth Adolesc. 2021, 50, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cozby, P.C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychol. Bull. 1973, 79, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nederhof, A.J. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 15, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Egoistic | Non-Egoistic | ||
---|---|---|---|
Non-Altruistic | Altruistic | Altruistic | Non-Altruistic |
p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 |
You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. If you leave alone, you can have a fresh dining environment without any conflict with the smoker, but other diners will continue to inhale secondhand smoke. | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. Others in the restaurant did not try to stop him/her. If you stop the smoker, he/she will extinguish the cigarette as a sign of apology, and everyone will praise you for your behavior. | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. If you walk over to him/her and remind him/her not to smoke in public, he/she is offended by your stopping him/her and may get into a physical confrontation with you at any time, but other diners will get a fresh dining environment. | You are eating at a restaurant and you see a person smoking at the table. Others in the restaurant did not try to stop him/her. If you choose to remain silent, you and other diners will continue to inhale secondhand smoke and suffer health consequences. |
Scene Frameworks a | Egoistic | Non-Egoistic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Altruistic | Altruistic | Altruistic | Non-Altruistic | |||||
p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | |||||
n b (%) | χ2 | n b (%) | χ2 | n b (%) | χ2 | n b (%) | χ2 | |
Friend 1 | 178 (85) | 103.39 *** | 124 (59) | 7.28 ** | 131 (63) | 13.44 *** | 117 (56) | 2.99 |
Friend2 | 131 (63) | 13.44 *** | 181 (87) | 112.01 *** | 151 (72) | 41.38 *** | 111 (53) | 0.81 |
Relative 1 | 102 (49) | 0.12 | 168 (80) | 77.17 *** | 134 (64) | 16.66 *** | 145 (69) | 31.39 *** |
Relative 2 | 116 (56) | 2.53 | 181 (87) | 112.01 *** | 158 (76) | 54.78 *** | 128 (61) | 10.57 *** |
Colleague 1 | 58 (28) | 41.38 *** | 172 (82) | 87.20 *** | 154 (74) | 46.90 *** | 120 (57) | 4.60 * |
Colleague 2 | 133 (64) | 15.55 *** | 160 (77) | 58.95 *** | 130 (62) | 12.45 *** | 124 (59) | 7.28 * |
Neighbor 1 | 119 (57) | 4.02 * | 184 (88) | 120.96 *** | 152 (73) | 43.18 *** | 64 (31) | 31.39 *** |
Neighbor 2 | 146 (70) | 32.96 *** | 162 (78) | 63.28 *** | 143 (68) | 28.37 *** | 104 (50) | 0.01 |
Stranger | 118 (56) | 3.49 * | 175 (84) | 95.12 *** | 139 (67) | 22.78 *** | 126 (60) | 8.85 *** |
Supermarket staff | 104 (50) | 0.01 | 182 (88) | 117.00 *** | 95 (45) | 1.73 | 128 (61) | 10.57 *** |
Salesperson | 145 (69) | 58.95 *** | 185 (89) | 124.02 *** | 153 (73) | 45.02 *** | 117 (56) | 2.99 |
Blogger | 125 (60) | 8.04 *** | 181 (87) | 112.01 *** | 145 (69) | 31.39 *** | 133 (64) | 15.55 *** |
Online purchase | 94 (45) | 2.11 | 166 (79) | 72.39 *** | 102 (49) | 0.12 | 62 (30) | 34.57 *** |
Factor | Item | Standardized Item Loading | CR | AVE | McDonald’s ω | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Friendship Scale | FS1 | 0.724 | 0.82 | 0.51 | 0.88 | 0.88 |
FS2 | 0.517 | |||||
FS3 | 0.538 | |||||
FS4 | 0.802 | |||||
FS5 | 0.828 | |||||
Distress Disclosure Index | DDI1 | 0.626 | 0.88 | 0.54 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
DDI2 | 0.660 | |||||
DDI3 | 0.695 | |||||
DDI4 | 0.838 | |||||
DDI5 | 0.817 | |||||
DDI6 | 0.759 |
Variables | M ± SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. SI | 18.74 ± 4.17 | 1.00 | |||||
2. DD | 17.42 ± 5.20 | 0.48 *** | 1.00 | ||||
3. AT | 0.22 ± 0.25 | 0.27 *** | 0.19 *** | 1.00 | |||
4. ET | 0.31 ± 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.07 * | −0.12 ** | 1.00 | ||
5. OP | 0.57 ± 0.11 | −0.11 ** | −0.14 *** | −0.07 | −0.27 *** | 1.00 | |
6. AC | 0.46 ± 0.18 | 0.05 | −0.01 | 0.55 *** | −0.68 *** | 0.61 ** | 1.00 |
7. Age | 26.66 ± 6.53 | −0.00 | −0.01 | −0.04 | −0.16 *** | 0.06 | 0.09 * |
Variables | Male (M ± SD) | Female (M ± SD) | t | Sig. | Cohen’s d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SI | 18.84 ± 4.02 | 18.67 ± 4.27 | 0.56 | 0.578 | 0.042 |
DD | 17.2 ± 5.22 | 17.57 ± 5.19 | −0.95 | 0.342 | −0.071 |
AT | 0.21 ± 0.26 | 0.23 ± 0.25 | −0.86 | 0.392 | −0.064 |
ET | 0.28 ± 0.23 | 0.33 ± 0.22 | −2.94 ** | 0.003 | −0.220 |
OP | 0.58 ± 0.09 | 0.57±0.12 | 2.25 * | 0.025 | 0.168 |
AC | 0.53 ± 0.24 | 0.49 ± 0.25 | 1.88 | 0.061 | 0.140 |
Variables | Single (M ± SD) | Non-Single (M ± SD) | t | Sig. | Cohen’s d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SI | 18.51 ± 4.23 | 18.96 ± 4.10 | −1.46 | 0.144 | −0.108 |
DD | 17.36 ± 5.09 | 17.47 ± 5.32 | −0.28 | 0.780 | −0.021 |
AT | 0.22 ± 0.23 | 0.22 ± 0.27 | −0.03 | 0.973 | −0.002 |
ET | 0.33 ± 0.23 | 0.29 ± 0.22 | 2.30 * | 0.022 | 0.170 |
OP | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 0.58 ± 0.11 | −0.89 | 0.376 | −0.065 |
AC | 0.49 ± 0.24 | 0.52 ± 0.25 | −1.65 | 0.100 | −0.121 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xie, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Zheng, Z.; Liu, C. Dissociating the Multiple Psychological Processes in Everyday Moral Decision-Making with the CAN Algorithm. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12120501
Xie Z, Wu J, Wang X, Zheng Z, Liu C. Dissociating the Multiple Psychological Processes in Everyday Moral Decision-Making with the CAN Algorithm. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(12):501. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12120501
Chicago/Turabian StyleXie, Zhongju, Junhong Wu, Xingyuan Wang, Ziyi Zheng, and Chuanjun Liu. 2022. "Dissociating the Multiple Psychological Processes in Everyday Moral Decision-Making with the CAN Algorithm" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 12: 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12120501