社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

不道德行为具有广泛性，体现在其形式多样化、领域多元化和人群广泛性三个方面。近年来，有关道德的研究开始从道德判断、道德推理转向直接关注道德或不道德行为，并从道德自我概念、道德失调的视角去解读心理过程和行为结果。不道德行为的发生往往受到个体特质、个体当下状态和情境因素的交互影响，本文以过去行为记忆唤起（个体当下状态）对当下不道德行为的影响为主线，探索二者之间的中介机制和潜在调节变量（个体真实性和情境隐蔽性），共包括两个实验研究。
研究 1 招募了 153 名中学生，使用数字矩阵任务捕捉个体不道德行为。旨在探索过去（不）道德记忆唤起对当下不道德行为的影响的中介机制。实验结果发现，以不道德行为记忆唤起为参照组，唤起道德行为记忆时，被试的不道德行为增多，并且这一效应通过道德自我概念来中介。但是研究 1中，有三点不足：①.在不道德行为诱发因素中，只考虑了个体的状态性差异，即是否唤醒（不）道德行为记忆，并没有考虑个体特质性差异和情境特征对个体行为的影响，以及它们与过去行为记忆唤起之间的交互如何影响当下行为决策，因此在研究 2中加入了真实性（个体特质性）和情境隐蔽性（情境特征）两个调节变量；②.研究1只考虑了唤起过去行为记忆类型的差异（即道德和不道德），没有考虑是否唤起过去行为记忆对当下不道德行为的影响，因此在研究2中加入控制组，即不唤起任何有关过去（不）道德行为的记忆；③.对不道德行为的捕捉是在不涉及他人利益损失的情境中完成，这一效应在具有他人利益损害为代价的不道德行为情境中是否存在？因此在研究 2 中将不道德行为的测量范式变为最后通牒任务，该任务的特点是获取自身更多的利益是以他人利益损失为代价的。
研究 2招募155 名大学生，使用最后通牒范式捕捉个体不道德行为。 旨在探索：①.唤起（不）道德行为记忆对当下不道德行为的影响作用是否受到个体真实性和情境隐蔽性的调节；②.相比唤起不道德行为记忆，唤起道德行为记忆会诱发更多不道德行为的效应在以他人利益损失为代价的情境中是否依旧存在。实验结果表明：①.当以伤害他人利益为代价时，相比控制组，唤起道德行为记忆与不道德行为记忆都能显著减少个体的不道德行为，但道德记忆唤起与不道德记忆唤起两组之间的差异消失了；②.个体真实性调节过去行为记忆唤起与当下不道德行为的关系。当个体真实性低时，控制组比唤起过去道德/不道德行为组有更大程度的不道德行为；但当个体真实性高时，控制组与唤起过去道德/不道德行为组之间的不道德行为程度无差异。③.情境隐蔽性越高，不道德行为越多，但是情境隐蔽性不影响过去行为记忆唤起与当下不道德行为之间的关系。④.道德推脱和道德自我概念在唤起过去行为记忆与当下不道德行为之间不起中介效应。
被试群体和实验范式的差异可能是两个研究结论有不一致的原因，未来研究可以进一步探索过去行为记忆对当下不道德行为影响方向及其路径机制和边界条件。

Unethical behaviors, which appear in a variety of  forms and in diversified domains, are ubiquitous in our daily life and relate to everyone. Recent studies about morality and ethics begin to turn  focus from the topics of moral judgement and moral reasoning to (un)ethical behavior, because the gap between attitudes and behaviors can’t be overlooked. At the same time, the psychological mechanisms  and outcomes of conducting unethical behavior gain much more attention. Previous researches tried  to explain the mechanisms from the perspective of moral self-concept and moral dissonance and explored how different factors including individual factors and situational factors interact to induce  unethical behavior. This paper focused on the impact of past (un)ethical behavior on current unethical behavior and conducted two experiments, trying to verify the potential mechanisms of the effect based on moral self-concept maintenance theory and moral dissonance theory and exploring how individual authenticity and ambiguity of situation moderated this effect.  
In Study 1, we recruited 153 middle school students and used number matrix task to catch participants’ lying behaviors. The results showed that compared to arousing unethical behavior memory, arousing past ethical behavior memory could induced more current lying behavior and this effect was mediated only by moral self-concept. But  there were three shortcomings in the study 1: ①.Only trait factors were considered but state factors as well as situation factors were excluded in the model.  ②. Participants were only asked to recall past ethical and unethical behavior memory.  ③. The unethical behaviors in Study 1 were only self-interest without hurting others’ interests. In Study 2 number matrix task would be replaced by the ultimatum paradigm in which extra personal gains were at the expense of depriving others’ benefits.  
In Study 2, 155 undergraduates were recruited and the major findings were as follows: . When hurting others’ benefits, the participants who were asked to recall ethical/unethical behavior memory,  compared to those in control group,  conducted significantly less unethical behaviors. But the difference between the groups of recalling unethical behavior and ethical behavior was not significant, which differed  from  the results in Study 1. ②. Authenticity moderated the effect of past (un)ethical behavior memory on current unethical behavior. Specifically, when authenticity was  lower, participants  in control group would conduct significantly more unethical behavior than those in other conditions;  When authenticity  was  higher, participants in three conditions  didn’t perform  differently.  ③. Ambiguity of situation could significantly predict unethical behavior, but didn’t moderate the relation between past (un)ethical behavior and current unethical behavior.  ④. Both moral self-concept and moral disengagement could not mediate between past (un)ethical behavior and current unethical behavior.
The difference between participants and experiment paradigms may cause the inconsistency between two studies. Future studies are expected to give more emphasis on exploring psychological mechanisms and boundary conditions in this field.