道德判斷中的意圖判斷偏誤：副作用偏誤

Intentional Judgment Bias in Moral Judgment: Side-Effect Effect

楊嚴昇(Sheng Yangyen)

指導教授 ： 林文瑛

中原大學/理學院/心理學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201200941

摘要

道德判斷的過程中採用行為意圖與行為結果兩類線索進行判斷，但是行為意圖與行為結果之間並非是相互獨立的。Knobe（2003a）發現了在道德判斷之中，行為結果實際上也會影響到個體對於行為者意圖的判斷。若行為者具備了明確的初始意圖而從事某行為，而該行為引發一個行為者早已預知的副作用結果時，當副作用結果是好的結果，則個體傾向判斷行為者並無意圖造成副作用結果的發生，反之，在副作用結果是壞的情境中，個體傾向判斷行為者原本就具有引發壞副作用結果發生的意圖，此一不對稱的判斷現象稱為副作用偏誤（side-effect effect）。學者們對於引發此現象的原因有不同的看法，大致可分為三類，（1）心智理解觀點：Leslie等研究者認為此現象與能否理解他人心智狀態有密切的關聯性，因此，在心智能力尚未發展完備的幼童身上並未發現此現象；（2）大眾心理觀點：Knobe等研究者認為該現象反映了人們日常生活中對於道德的要求及思維，例如慣於將他人道德行為視之為義務；（3）實驗方法的問題：Adam & Steadman認為副作用偏誤現象是在實驗過程中的暗示作用，造成參與者在情境間的回答不一致。
本研究先探求此現象是否具有文化普同性，再以後續三個實驗深入探討此現象背後的機制。實驗一研究者複製Knobe（2003a）的實驗，確認在華人文化下的道德判斷亦會出現副作用偏誤的現象；實驗二操弄副作用結果所帶來幫助及傷害的程度，發現當副作用結果是好結果時，幫助程度越大越傾向判斷行為者具有讓好結果發生的意圖，壞結果時則損害程度對意圖判斷並無影響；實驗三操弄副作用結果的發生機率，結果發現發生機率並不會影響參與者對於行為意圖的判斷，但同時也發現了參與者對於機率的主觀認定上需要較大的差距來凸顯機率上的差異，因此以實驗四呈現「極不可能」的發生機率，在主觀的意外性感受上有別於實驗三的操弄組，結果顯示，機率認知會降低副作用偏誤的出現，讓參與者不會出現副作用偏誤效應。
整體而言，本研究結果對副作用偏誤的形成機制提供了新的思考方向，除了結果的好與壞是形成意圖判斷差異的主因之外，在好的結果時，結果的助益程度會調節意圖判斷的傾向，然而在壞的結果時，卻不是結果的嚴重程度，而是發生機率會有微小的調節作用。研究發現呼應了Knobe等研究者認為此現象是基於人們在日常生活中如何定義道德行為的想法，驗證人們在道德情境中的意圖判斷在結果好壞之間是透過不同的思考歷程進行判斷，因而造成在好結果發生時人們傾向將他人行為視為義務，以高規格的標準來判定他人行為是否為美德；在壞結果發生時則為規避責任而找尋替罪羔羊的心理需求，傾向認定行為者最初就具備不良的意圖的不對稱判斷情形。

關鍵字

副作用偏誤 ； 意圖判斷 ； 道德判斷

並列摘要

The process of moral judgment is usually made by adopting two clues of intention and consequence, however, intention and consequence are not mutually independent. Knobe (2003a) found that in moral judgment, consequence will actually affect an individual’s judgment on the intention of an actor., Given that the actor has clear initial intention to make certain behavior which will trigger a side effect that is already foreseen by the actor, when the side effect is positive, people tend to judge that the actor does not have the intention to cause the occurrence of the side effect, on the contrary, when the side effect is negative, people tend to judge that the actor originally has the intention to cause the occurrence of negative side effect. This asymmetric judgment phenomenon is called side-effect effect. Researchers attribute the psycholological causes of such phenomenon to : (1) mental capabaility: Leslie et al. thought that such phenomenon is highly related to whether a person can understand others’ mental state or not, therefore, such phenomenon could not be found in children with immature mental and intellectual state; (2) psychology of moral obligation: Knobe et al. thought that the phenomenon reflects people’s moral requirement and thinking in the daily life, for example, people are used to treat others’ moral behavior as obligation; (3) problem of experimental method: Adam & Steadman thought that such phenomenon was caused by suggestions of experimental process, and it could cause answering inconsistency in different situations among the participants.
This research has investigated firstly if such phenomenon has cultural universals, then the subsequent three experiments investigated in depth the mechanism behind such phenomenon. In experiment 1, the author replicated Knobe’s experiment, and it was confirmed that in Chinese culture, side-effect effect was also observed in moral judgment. In experiment 2, the influence of the extent of consequences (benefit or damage) on side-effect effect was studied. It was found that when the side effect is positive, the larger the extent of benefit, the larger the tendency to judge that the actor has the intention to let the positive side-effect result happen, however, when it is of negative result, then the extent of damage does not have effect on the intention judgment. In experiment 3, the influence of the occurrence probability forseen on the side–effect effect was studied. The result found that the occurrence probability will not affect the participant’s judgment on behavior intention, but in the mean time, it was found that the subjective anticipation of the participant on the difference of probability was larger than we expected. Hence, Experiment 4 is designed to display “very impossible” occurrence probability to manipulate the subjective accidental feeling. The result shows that probability anticipation will reduce the occurrence of side-effect.
The research results have offered new perspective on the mechanism of the side-effect effect. There is different mechanism for the positive and negative side-effect result. In positive result, the extent of the benefit will adjust the tendency of intention judgment, and in negative result, the occurrence probability of the result is the moderator instead. The research findings have verified the argument of Knobe, that is, people’s intention judgment in moral situation, between positive or negative results, is done through different thinking process. In short, when there is positive result, people tend to see others’ behavior as obligatory, that is, high standard is used to judge whether other people’s behavior is virtue or not; however, when there is negative result, , people tend to consider the actor is bad-intented based on the scapegoat psychology.

並列關鍵字

side-effect effect ； intentional judgment ； moral judgment

參考文獻

Knobe, J. (2007)“Folk Psychology: Science and Morals”in Matthew Ratcliffe and Daniel Hutto (eds.) (2007) Folk Psychology Reassessed Dordrecht: Springer.

Adams, F., & Steadman, A. (2004a). Intentional action in ordinary language: Core concept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis, 64, 173-181.

Adams, F., & Steadman, A. (2004b). Intentional action in ordinary language: still pragmatic. Analysis, 64, 268-276.

Armsby, R. E. (1971). A reexamination of the development of moral judgments in children. Child Development, 42, 1241-1248.

Beebe, J., & Buckwalter, W. (2010). The Epistemic Side-Effect Effect. Mind and Language, 25, 474–498.