doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01423

Advances in Psychological Science (心理科学进展) 2017/25:8 PP.1423-1430

Moral judgment from construal level theory perspective


Abstract:
Moral judgment is critical for social cooperation. Research on moral judgment has been rapidly growing in the last 20 years. Empirical evidence has been accumulating to challenge the assumptions underlying the Social Intuitionist Model and Dual-process Model, which are the dominant models of moral judgment. Recently, construal level theory (CLT) has provided a new perspective for research on moral judgment. This article reviewed CLT-based research on moral judgment by classifying studies into two different categories, namely, moral judgment on moral dilemmas and moral judgment on moral and immoral actions. Evidence from the former arrived at a consistent conclusion, whereas that from the latter is inconclusive. We proposed that construal levels may affect moral judgment through turning people's attention to different principles. Future research should focus on cross-cultural comparisons and exploring the mechanism underlying the relationship between CLT and moral judgment to clarify the controversy and provide additional empirical evidence.

Key words:moral judgment,construal level theory,moral dilemma,moral transgression,moral action

ReleaseDate:2017-08-31 10:17:36



宋希仁 (主编). (1989). 伦理学大辞典. 长春:吉林人民出版社.

叶红燕, 张凤华. (2015). 从具身视角看道德判断. 心理科学进展, 23, 1480-1488.

喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳. (2011). 道德困境之困境——情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展, 19, 1702-1712.

Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009). Temporal distance and moral concerns:Future morally questionable behavior is perceived as more wrong and evokes stronger prosocial intentions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 49-59.

Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2013). Why people with an eye toward the future are more moral:The role of abstract thinking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 373-381.

Agerström, J., Björklund, F., & Carlsson, R. (2013). Look at yourself! Visual perspective influences moral judgment by level of mental construal. Social Psychology, 44, 42-46.

Aguilar, P., Brussino, S., & Fernández-Dols, J.-M. (2013). Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 449-452.

Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 138, 400-415.

Amit, E., & Greene, J. D. (2012). You see, the ends don't justify the means:Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23, 861-868.

Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level:Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 135, 609-622.

Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381-417.

Cohen, D. J., & Ahn, M. (2016). A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 145, 1359-1381.

Cui, F., Ma, N., & Luo, Y. J. (2016). Moral judgment modulates neural responses to the perception of other's pain:An ERP study. Scientific Report, 6, 20851.

Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment:Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082-1089.

Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 145, 772-787.

Eyal, T., & Liberman, N. (2012). Morality and psychological distance:A construal level theory perspective. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality:Exploring the causes of good and evil. Herzliya series on personality and social psychology (pp. 185-202). Washington, DC, US:American Psychological Association.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209.

Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 101-106.

Gong, H., Iliev, R., & Sachdeva, S. (2012). Consequences are far away:Psychological distance affects modes of moral decision making. Cognition, doi:10.1016/j. cognition. 2012.09.005.

Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment:Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 628-638.

Gong, H., Medin, D. L., Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Žeželj, I. L., & Jokić, B. R. (2014). Commentaries and rejoinder on Žeželj and Jokić (2014). Social Psychology, 45, 327-334.

Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517-523.

Greene, J. D. (2003). From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’:What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 846-850.

Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons:The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111, 364-371.

Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1154.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108.

Guglielmo, S. (2015). Moral judgment as information processing:An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1637.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail:A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.

Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 281-297.

Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628.

Kant, I. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals, and what is enlightenment. New York:Macmillan.

Kim, J., Kim, P. B., Kim, J.-E., & Magnini, V. P. (2016). Application of construal-level theory to promotional strategies in the hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 340-352.

Körner, A., & Volk, S. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology:Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139-145.

Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-534.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364-369.

Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension:Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.

Mill, J. S. (1907). Utilitarianism (15th ed.). London:Longmans, Green And Co.

Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory:Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1088-1097.

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees:Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578-596.

Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance:A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268-280.

Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231-255.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.

Wakslak, C. J. (2012). The experience of cognitive dissonance in important and trivial domains:A construal-level theory approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1361-1364.

Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely:Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 135, 641-653.

Wilson, J., Crisp, C. B., & Mortensen, M. (2013). Extending construal-level theory to distributed groups:Understanding the effects of virtuality. Organization Science, 24, 629-644.

Žeželj, I. L., & Jokić, B. R. (2014). Replication of experiments evaluating impact of psychological distance on moral judgment. Social Psychology, 45, 223-231.