바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • ENGLISH
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.34 No.3

Citation Share

타인의 고통에 대한 도덕적 의사결정의 개인차: 타인 조망수용과 인지유형

Emotional and cognitive response to the pain of others: Perspective taking and cognitive style

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2015, v.34 no.3, pp.685-707
https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2015.09.34.3.685
신홍임 (영남대학교)
신홍임. (2015). 타인의 고통에 대한 도덕적 의사결정의 개인차: 타인 조망수용과 인지유형. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 34(3), 685-707, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2015.09.34.3.685

초록

최근 도덕심리학에서는 다수의 이득을 극대화하려는 공리주의적 결정과 소수의 희생일지라도 무고한 개인을 희생시키는 것에 반대하는 의무론적 결정에 대해 관심이 모아지고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 타인에게 해를 끼치는 위해의 상황에서 인지적/정서적 측면의 개인차가 개인들의 윤리적 의사결정에 끼치는 영향을 비교하는데 있다. 이를 위해 연구 1에서는 참가자들에게 다양한 윤리적 갈등상황에 대한 글을 제시하고, 주인공의 행동이 도덕적으로 적절하다고 판단하는 정도를 찬성/반대로 응답하도록 하였다. 또한 개인의 타인조망수용과 타인에 대한 공감적 염려를 자기보고식 질문지로 측정하였다. 그 결과 개인적/비개인적 상황에서 모두 공리주의적 결정을 선호하는 집단에서 타인조망수용의 경향이 유의하게 낮게 나타났다. 연구2에서는 윤리적 의사결정과 인지유형(어휘적 표상 vs. 시각적 심상)의 개인차를 비교하였다. 그 결과, 시각적 표상경향이 높을수록 공리주의적 결정이 낮아지는 경향성이 나타났다. 논의에서는 윤리적 갈등상황에서 정서와 인지가 개입하는 과정을 토론하였고, 연구의 한계점과 후속연구의 방향에 대해 다루었다.

keywords
utilitarian, deontology, perspective taking, cognitive style, 공리주의적 관점, 의무론적 관점, 타인 조망수용, 인지유형

Abstract

Recent work in moral psychology is focused on questions about utilitarianism (i.e., saving more people’s lives) and deontology (i.e., disapproving of sacrificing one person for the greater good of others). This study aimed to answer two questions. First, which individual differences in emotional and cognitive processes have a critical impact on utilitarian and deontological judgments? Second, do cognitive styles facilitate a specific moral judgment? In Study 1, various moral dilemma scenarios were presented and the participants had to indicate how morally appropriate it would be for them to kill one person to save others. In addition, they completed a self-report questionnaire regarding empathic empathic concern, perspective-taking, need for cognition and moral identity. The results revealed that participants with preferences for utilitarian judgments showed lower perspective-taking than other participants. In Study 2, the findings revealed the relationship between verbalizer-visualizer cognitive styles and utilitarian judgments. The visualizer cognitive styles showed reduced utilitarian judgments. These results implicated the possibility that reduced empathy (i.e. perspective taking) and the verbalizer cognitive style regulated the automatic emotional process and resulted in increased utilitarian judgements. Finally, limitations of this study and future work were discussed.

keywords
utilitarian, deontology, perspective taking, cognitive style, 공리주의적 관점, 의무론적 관점, 타인 조망수용, 인지유형

참고문헌

1.

김성희, 방희정 (2008). 애착, 관계적 자아 및도덕성 간의 관계: 남녀 차이를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 13, 137-152.

2.

문은옥, 김혜리, 천영운, 김태화, 최현옥 (2014). 품행문제 청소년의 공감손상: 인지공감의손상인가 정서공감의 손상인가? 한국심리학회지: 발달, 27, 127-146.

3.

박서연, 박성연 (2012). 청소년의 도덕적 정서와 문화성향에 따른 지인 및 타인에 대한친사화적 행동에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 25, 85-106.

4.

이민우, 설선혜, 김학진 (2014). 도덕적 딜레마에서의 판단경향성이 인상형성에 미치는영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28, 201-223.

5.

이재호, 조긍호 (2014). 정치성향에 따른 도덕판단기준의 차이. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및성격, 28, 1-26.

6.

정명숙 (2002). 친사회적 도덕추론의 발달. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 15, 113-127.

7.

정은경 (2013). 누가 결과주의적 결정을 내리는가? 권력이 윤리적/정책적 의사결정에미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 32, 489-509.

8.

조긍호, 김지용, 홍미화, 김지현 (2002). 문화성향과 공감 및 고독의 수준. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 16, 15-34.

9.

하영희, 김경연 (2003). 청소년의 도덕적 금지행동과 개인 및 가정환경 변인간의 인과관계. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 17, 17-30.

10.

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

11.

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

12.

Amit E., Gottlieb S., & Greene J. D. (2014). Visual versus Verbal Thinking and Dual-Process Moral Cognition. In: J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.)Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 340-354). New York London: The Guileford Press.

13.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440.

14.

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

15.

Bartels, D. M., & Pizzaro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154-161.

16.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

17.

Carney, D. R., & Mason, M. F. (2010). Moral decisions and testosterone: When the ends justify the means. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 668-671.

18.

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclination in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235.

19.

Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (2012). Emotion and deliberative reasoning in moral judgement. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-16.

20.

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.

21.

Cushman, F. A., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Finding faults: How moral dilemmas reveal cognitive structure. Social Neuroscience, 7, 269-279.

22.

Davis. M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

23.

Einolf, C. J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37, 1267-1279.

24.

Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22, 295-299.

25.

Epstein, S., Pacini, M.,, Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 22-37.

26.

Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLOS ONE, 8, 1-9.

27.

Greene, J. D. (2015). The rise of moral cognition. Cognition, 135, 39-42.

28.

Greene, J. D. (2011). Emotion and morality: A tasting menu. Emotion Review, 3, 1-3.

29.

Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322-323.

30.

Greene, J. D., Sommervile, 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.

31.

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.

32.

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

33.

Hofmann, W., & Baumert, A. (2010). Immediate affect as a basis for intuitive moral judgment:An adaptation of the affect misattribution procedure. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 522-535.

34.

Holmes, E. A., & Mathews, A. (2005). Mental imagery and emotion: A special relationship? Emotion, 5, 489-497.

35.

Holmes, E. A., Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B., & Dalgleish, T. (2008). The causal effect of mental imagery on emotion assessed using picture-word cues. Emotion, 8, 395-409.

36.

Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513-541.

37.

Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2006). Processing emotional pictures and words: Effects of valence and arousal. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 110-126.

38.

Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446, 908-911.

39.

Kraemer, D. M., Rosenberg, L. M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). The neural correlates of visual and verbal cognitive style. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 3792-3798.

40.

Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464-481.

41.

Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy;Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 42-58.

42.

Messik, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning (pp.4-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

43.

Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 549-557.

44.

Pask, G. (1972). A fresh look at cognition and the individual. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4, 211-216.

45.

Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception:The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 181-192.

46.

Payne, B. K. (2006). Weapon bias: Split second decisions and unintended stereotyping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 287-291.

47.

Prinz, J. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9, 29-43.

48.

Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer, a cognitive style dimension. Journal of mental imagery, 1, 109-126.

49.

Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096-1109.

50.

Schneider W, Eschmann A, Zuccolotto A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Psychology Software Tools, Inc.; Pittsburgh, PA.

51.

Shariff, A. F., Greene, J. D., Karremans, J. C., Luguri, J. B., Clark, C. J., Schooler, J. W., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2014). Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science, in press.

52.

Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. Hamish Hamilton, Ltd: London.

53.

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

54.

Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498-505.

55.

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment, Psychological Science, 17, 476-477.

56.

Waldmann, M. R., & Dieterich, J. H. (2007). Throwing a bomb on a person versus throwing a person on a bomb: Intervention Myopia in moral intuitions. Psychological Science, 18, 247-253.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책