A case of shifting moral standards: how biculturalism shapes morality = 道德標準的改變 : 雙文化背景如何影響道德
Morality has long been thought of as individual, stable and resistant to change. However, recent developments within Cultural Psychology suggest otherwise, by showing that contextual influences may shape people’s judgments. I suggest that culture is one of the most powerful contextual influences bec...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | English Chinese |
| Published: |
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/item/cuhk-1291458 |
| Summary: | Morality has long been thought of as individual, stable and resistant to change. However, recent developments within Cultural Psychology suggest otherwise, by showing that contextual influences may shape people’s judgments. I suggest that culture is one of the most powerful contextual influences because of its long term nature in shaping people’s cognitions, behaviors, perceptions and feelings. Therefore, by combining the theoretical frameworks of the Social Categorization Theory and the Dynamic Constructivist Approach, I conducted three studies to investigate if biculturalism can result in the adherence to two (different) moral frameworks. In study one, I tested this idea by investigating if Dutch Muslims’ identification with the mainstream Dutch culture and their identification with the Muslim culture are differentially related to the moral foundations – Individualizing foundations which are moral norms that protect individuals from harm and unfairness, and binding foundations which protect the integrity of the ingroup. Expected was that the Muslim identity, which is strongly rooted in moral norms, would be positively related to all moral foundations. On the other hand, the Dutch identity was expected to be unrelated to the individualizing foundations and negatively related to the binding foundations, because the Dutch culture is strongly rooted in personal freedom instead of moral norms. In study two, I implemented a frame-switching paradigm by confronting Dutch Muslims with either mainstream Dutch or Muslim cultural icons to see if cultural salience influences their adherence of the moral foundations. Lastly, in study three, I randomly assigned Dutch Muslims to two groups. Both groups were presented with similar stories portraying three moral transgressions of the individualizing foundations and three moral transgressions of the binding foundations. However, in one group the transgressors had typical Dutch names, while in the other group the transgressors had typical Muslim names. Expected was that a stereotypical name from the Dutch culture or the Muslim culture would manipulate cultural salience, and hence bicultural’s moral judgment. Expected was that in study 2 and study 3, biculturals would exhibit a stronger or weaker adherence to the moral foundations and moral judgments in line with the salient identity, respectively. The results of study 1 were as expected: the Muslim identity was positively related to both moral foundations, while the Dutch identity was unrelated to the individualizing foundations and negatively related to the binding foundations. However, study 2 and study 3 showed surprising results. Instead of a stronger or weaker adherence to the moral foundations in line with the salient identity, cultural salience had an unexpected effect. Biculturals that identified strongly with the Muslim culture endorsed the binding foundations less strongly when the Dutch culture was salient (study 2) and judged moral transgressions falling within the binding foundations less severely when the transgressor was Dutch as opposed to Muslim (study 3). However, Muslim biculturals judged moral transgressions falling within the individualizing foundations less severely when the transgressor was Muslim as opposed to Dutch (study 3). I discuss the implications of these results. === 長期以來，道德都被認為是個人的、穩定的和難以改變的。但是，最近的文化心理學研究表明環境能夠影響人們的決策。由於文化能夠對人們的認知、行為和情感帶來長期的影響，我認為文化是環境影響中最為有力的一種。因此，本研究以社會分類理論和動態建構主義理論為基礎，通過三個實驗探討雙文化背景是否會使個體遵循兩類（不同的）道德準則。 === 實驗1以在荷蘭的穆斯林人為研究對象，考察認同不同文化（荷蘭文化和對穆斯林文化）的個體是否會遵循不同類的道德準則（個體主義道德準則旨在保護個體免受傷害和不平等對待；集體主義道德準則旨在保護集體的整體性）。由於穆斯林文化以道德規範為基礎，所以實驗預期對穆斯林文化的認同會與對兩種道德準則的遵循都呈現正相關；而荷蘭文化以個人自由為基礎，所以對荷蘭文化的認同與是否遵循個體主義道德準則不相關，並與是否遵循集體主義道德負相關。實驗2採用了框架轉換範式，通過向在荷蘭的穆斯林人呈現代表荷蘭（或穆斯林）文化的標誌研究文化是否會影響他們遵循不同類的道德準則。實驗3 以在荷蘭的穆斯林人為研究對象，向每個人呈現3個違反個體主義道德的故事和3個違反集體主義道德的故事。被試被隨機分成兩組，其中一組違反道德規範的人擁有典型的荷蘭名字，而另一組則是典型的穆斯林名字。實驗假定不同文化下的典型名字會使某種文化更加突出從而影響個體的道德評價。實驗2和實驗3預期，雙文化者會更傾向於遵循與其文化身份更加一致的對道德準則，並做出一致的道德評價。實驗1的結果與預期一致，但實驗2和實驗3的結果卻出乎預料。當荷蘭文化變得更加突出時，那些強烈認同穆斯林文化的雙文化者變得較少關心集體主義道德準則約束下的相關事件（實驗2），人們對違反集體主義道德準則的荷蘭人（相對穆斯林人）做出較不嚴厲的道德評價。相反，當違反個體主義道德準則的是穆斯林人而非荷蘭人時， 雙文化背景的穆斯林人會做出較不嚴厲的道德評價。研究隨後討論了這些發現的意義。 === Bettache, Karim. === Thesis Ph.D. Chinese University of Hong Kong 2015. === Includes bibliographical references (leaves 82-90). === Abstracts also in Chinese. === Title from PDF title page (viewed on 05, October, 2016). === Bettache, Karim. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. |
|---|