发表机构
The Australian National University; University of Pennsylvania; University of Chicago; University of Georgia（澳大利亚国立大学; 宾夕法尼亚大学; 芝加哥大学; 佐治亚大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究通过实验发现，未揭示论据的社会信息中的争议与群体确定性可重塑道德判断，二者的不对称影响兼具利弊。
AI 中文摘要
日常道德生活很少像电车难题那样，而是涉及家庭、人际关系、工作、金钱与照料等方面的争议，人们常在此类情境中遭遇他人的判断。本研究探究针对微妙人际困境的判断如何响应未揭示论据的集体意见类社会信息，具体研究两类信号：争议（社区判断在两种对立裁决间的分歧程度）与群体确定性（每一方表达的置信度）。研究人员从Reddit平台r/AmItheAsshole板块发布的135个困境的54827条判断中提取这些信号，并在一项预先注册的随机实验（N=2159）中单独或组合呈现这些信号。与对照组相比，所有三种处理组均同时提升了弱化（改变裁决或降低置信度）与强化（置信度提升且裁决不变）的情况。由此可见，即便没有论据，汇总的社会信息也能重塑道德判断；仅争议一项就使弱化率从5.3%升至15.9%，增幅达两倍；单独呈现某一方的确定性时，该确定性与朝向该方的判断转变相关；与争议一同呈现时，仅志同道合者的确定性仍明显与弱化减少相关。这种影响的不对称性利弊兼具：志同道合者的置信度可帮助少数群体抵御多数压力，但也可能使错误判断难以得到纠正。
英文摘要
Everyday moral life rarely resembles a trolley problem. It involves disputes about families, relationships, work, money, and care, situations in which people often encounter the judgments of others. We examined how judgments about nuanced interpersonal dilemmas respond to social information that conveys collective opinion without revealing the arguments behind it. Specifically, we studied two signals: controversy, the extent to which community judgments are divided between two opposing verdicts; and group certainty, the confidence expressed by each side. We derived these signals from 54,827 judgments on 135 dilemmas posted to Reddit's r/AmItheAsshole and presented them separately or together in a preregistered randomized experiment (N = 2,159). Relative to the control condition, all three treatments increased both weakening, a changed verdict or reduced confidence, and strengthening, increased confidence without a verdict change. Thus, aggregated social information can reshape moral judgments even without arguments. Controversy alone tripled the weakening rate, from 5.3% to 15.9%. Shown alone, certainty on either side was associated with movement toward that side. Shown alongside controversy, only like-minded certainty remained clearly associated with less weakening. This asymmetry of influence is double-edged: the confidence of like-minded others may help minorities resist majority pressure, but it may also insulate mistaken judgments from correction.
