Loading...
Publication
Pensamento contrafactual sobre dilemas morais: atores versus leitores
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Este trabalho teve como objetivo estudar o pensamento contrafactual perante
dilemas morais quando em duas posições distintas: atores vs. leitores e que emoções
surgiam após a tomada de decisão e após o pensamento contrafactual. Escolhemos dois
tipos de dilema: impessoal e pessoal sendo que a diferença entre os dois residia na forma
como era causado o dano ao próximo: no dilema impessoal o dano era causado através
de um meio e no dilema pessoal o dano era causado diretamente pelo participante.
Na posição de ator, os participantes estavam perante uma maquete que simulava
os dois dilemas, no caso, tipo comboio (impessoal) e o tipo ponte (pessoal). A maquete
era composta por carris, um comboio, uma ponte e seis bonecos que representavam os
trabalhadores. Era-lhes explicado cada dilema e, depois, tinham de escolher entre matar
uma pessoa ou matar cinco. Após a ação sobre a maquete, respondiam a questões
relacionadas ao pensamento contrafactual e emoções.
Na posição de leitor, apresentámos um enunciado onde explicávamos os dois
dilemas em que tinham as mesmas opções que os atores, diferentemente, não
manipulavam a maquete e tinham apenas de imaginar que seriam atores. As questões
seguintes eram iguais às colocadas aos atores.
Os resultados indicam que os participantes agem mais no dilema moral impessoal
do que no pessoal, tal como se esperava. Além disso, sentiram maioritariamente emoções
negativas, existindo diferenças entre a posição ator e leitor. Por fim, verificou-se que os
atores evitam contrafactuais com foco no próprio.
The present study aimed to study the counterfactual thinking faced with moral dilemmas in two different positions: actors vs. readers and what emotions arose after the decision and after counterfactual thoughts. We choose two types of dilemma: impersonal and personal, the difference between the two lies in how harm is caused to others: in impersonal dilemma the damage is caused by something and in personal dilemma the damage is directly caused by the participant. In the actor’s position, the participants were facing a model that simulated the two dilemmas: type train (impersonal) and the bridge type (personal). The model was composed of rails, a train, a bridge and six human toys that simulated the workers. Each dilemma was explained to them and then they had to choose between killing a person or killing five. After the action on the model, they responded to questions related to counterfactual thinking and emotions. In the reader's position, we present an enunciate where we explained the two dilemmas in which they had the same options that the actors, differently, did not manipulate the model and had only to imagine that they would be actors. The following questions were the same as those placed on the actors. The results indicate that the participants acted more in the moral dilemma impersonal than in the staff, as expected. In addition, they felt mostly negative emotions, and there were differences between the actor and reader positions. Finally, it was found that the actors avoid counterfactual with a focus on their own.
The present study aimed to study the counterfactual thinking faced with moral dilemmas in two different positions: actors vs. readers and what emotions arose after the decision and after counterfactual thoughts. We choose two types of dilemma: impersonal and personal, the difference between the two lies in how harm is caused to others: in impersonal dilemma the damage is caused by something and in personal dilemma the damage is directly caused by the participant. In the actor’s position, the participants were facing a model that simulated the two dilemmas: type train (impersonal) and the bridge type (personal). The model was composed of rails, a train, a bridge and six human toys that simulated the workers. Each dilemma was explained to them and then they had to choose between killing a person or killing five. After the action on the model, they responded to questions related to counterfactual thinking and emotions. In the reader's position, we present an enunciate where we explained the two dilemmas in which they had the same options that the actors, differently, did not manipulate the model and had only to imagine that they would be actors. The following questions were the same as those placed on the actors. The results indicate that the participants acted more in the moral dilemma impersonal than in the staff, as expected. In addition, they felt mostly negative emotions, and there were differences between the actor and reader positions. Finally, it was found that the actors avoid counterfactual with a focus on their own.
Description
Dissertação de Mestrado
apresentada no ISPA – Instituto
Universitário para obtenção de grau de
Mestre na especialidade de Psicologia
Clínica.
Keywords
Pensamento contrafactual Dilemas morais Atores vs leitores Emoções Counterfactual thinking Moral dilemmas Actors vs. readers Emotions