Task 6 - Gut-wrenching PDF

Task 6 - Gut-wrenching Affect and Cognition: judgement and decision-making - Eysenck chapter section Trolley problem - a moral dilemma in which one needs to decide whether to divert a runaway trolley threatening the lives of 5 people onto a side-track where it will kill only 1 person...

Task 6 - Gut-wrenching Affect and Cognition: judgement and decision-making - Eysenck chapter section Trolley problem - a moral dilemma in which one needs to decide whether to divert a runaway trolley threatening the lives of 5 people onto a side-track where it will kill only 1 person. Footbridge problem - a moral dilemma in which one must decide whether to push a fat person over a bridge causing that person’s death but saving five people’s lives. Research indicates that 90% of people decide to divert the trolley but only 10% decide to push the person off the footbridge. The footbridge problem is a personal moral dilemma because we might directly harm one or more individuals through our actions. In contrast, the trolley problem is an impersonal dilemma because any harm is only indirectly due to our actions. Deontological judgements - judgements based on moral rules and/or obligations when resolving moral dilemmas. Very common with the footbridge dilemma. Assuming a classical dual-process model, in which emotion leads us to make fast, automatic decisions, whereas cognition produces slower, more considered decisions, people who make deontological judgements tend to use the first, affective system. Utilitarian judgements - judgements based on practical and pragmatic considerations when resolving moral dilemmas (e.g. maximizing the consequences). Very common with the trolley problem. Assuming a classical dual-process model as described above, people making utilitarian judgements would use the second, cognitive system. The DLPFC is associated with the cognitive system (cognitive control), while the ventromedial PFC is associated with the affective system (emotion generation). Study: repetitive TMS was applied to the DLPFC to inhibit its functioning. This resulted in reduced utilitarian judgements with moral dilemmas of high emotional intensity. Patients with VMPFC damage have reduced emotional responsiveness. They make more utilitarian judgements than controls. Deontological judgements depend more on emotional processing than utilitarian ones, but only with personal moral dilemmas. Study: anti-anxiety drug was given to participants to reduce the impact of emotion on judgements. This increased utilitarian judgements (and reduced deontological ones) only with personal moral dilemmas. Study: antisocial individuals were more likely to produce utilitarian judgements with personal moral dilemmas than other people. Later it was found out that antisocial individuals had reduced deontological inclinations rather than increased utilitarian inclinations. Deciding to sacrifice one person to save 5 others in the trolley dilemma may seem like a utilitarian choice, but it could also indicate a lack of aversion to causing harm. Likewise, choosing not to push someone off a footbridge in the footbridge problem could signal either a deontological stance or simply a preference for inaction regardless of moral norms. CNI model - such ambiguities can be resolved by manipulating 3 factors - consequences (C), moral norms (N) and preference of inaction (I). Study: individuals high in psychopathy (antisocial tendencies) had a greater preference for action over inaction, but less sensitivity to consequences and moral norms. This is a better explanation of the observed results rather than psychopathy being associated with utilitarian judgements. Judgements in real-life dilemmas may not be similar to those in hypothetical dilemmas like the trolley problem. The dual-process model is oversimplified e.g. because it assumes that the processes underlying deontological judgements occur more rapidly and with Complex Cognition Page 1 The dual-process model is oversimplified e.g. because it assumes that the processes underlying deontological judgements occur more rapidly and with less effort than those underlying utilitarian judgements. Study: participants making deontological judgements often processed information relevant to utilitarian judgements rapidly and in parallel with information relevant to deontological judgements. => The processes underlying moral judgements are often more complex than assumed by classical dual-process models. Beyond WEIRD Morality - Heidt chapter The author discusses his research in which participants are asked about morally shocking stories, which were designed to trigger moral judgments based on disgust and disrespect, even though the actions described in them were entirely harmless. For example, one of the stories involved a man engaging in a sexual act with a chicken before cooking and eating it, and participants were asked whether they believed this action was wrong. When participants stated that the actions in the stories were wrong, the author asked them to explain why, and this often led to long pauses and bewildered expressions. The working-class participants found it challenging to justify their moral judgments and some of them seemed not to understand why an explanation was needed. In contrast, college students at the University of Pennsylvania consistently adhered to the "harm principle" by John Stuart Mill, which states that power should only be used to prevent harm to others. The Penn students were willing to tolerate actions that disgusted them as long as no one was harmed, even though they found these actions bothersome. For instance, many of them expressed that the chicken story, while perverted, could be within a person's rights if done privately. The author attributes these differences to the students being more WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) than the worker class people. If WEIRD and non-WEIRD people think and see the world differently, then it's plausible that they’d have different moral concerns. If your perspective is one in which the world is perceived as comprising distinct individuals, your moral framework will prioritize safeguarding the rights and well-being of these individuals. In this context, your focus will be on issues related to harm and equity. However, if you live in a non-WEIRD society in which people are more likely to see relationships, contexts, groups, and institutions, then you won’t be so focused on protecting individuals. You’ll have a more sociocentric morality, which means that you place the needs of groups and institutions first. If you do that, then a morality based on concerns about harm and fairness won’t be sufficient. You’ll have additional concerns, and you’ll need additional virtues to bind people together. However, in a society that deviates from the WEIRD model, where individuals are more inclined to perceive relationships, contexts, groups, and institutions, there will be less emphasis on safeguarding individual interests. Instead, a more sociocentric morality takes precedence, prioritizing the welfare of groups and institutions. In such a context, relying solely on moral considerations related to harm and equity becomes inadequate. Additional concerns arise, making necessary the creation of additional virtues to bind people together. Three ethics are more descriptive than one After analyzing many interview transcripts, 3 major clusters of moral themes were found by Schweder et al.: Ethic of autonomy - based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, autonomous individuals with wants, needs, and preferences. People should be free to satisfy these wants, needs, and preferences as they see fit. Societies endorsing this ethic develop moral concepts such as rights, liberty, and justice, which allow people to coexist peacefully without interfering too much in each other’s projects. This is the dominant ethic in individualistic societies. Ethic of community - based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, members of larger entities such as families, teams, armies, companies, tribes, and nations. These larger entities are more than the sum of the people who compose them; they are real, they matter, and they must be protected. People have an obligation to play their assigned roles in these entities. Many societies therefore develop moral concepts such as duty, hierarchy, respect, reputation, and patriotism. In such societies, the Western insistence that people should design their own lives and pursue their own goals seems selfish and dangerous—a sure way to weaken the social fabric and destroy the institutions and collective entities upon which everyone depends. Ethic of divinity - based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, temporary vessels within which a divine soul has been implanted. People are not just animals with an extra serving of consciousness; they are children of God and should behave accordingly. The body is a temple. Even if it does no harm and violates nobody’s rights when a man has sex with a chicken carcass, he still shouldn’t do it because it degrades him, dishonors his creator, and violates the sacred order of the universe. Many societies therefore develop moral concepts such as sanctity and sin, purity and pollution, elevation and degradation. In such societies, the personal liberty of secular Western nations looks like libertinism, hedonism, and a celebration of humanity’s baser instincts. In the author's research, the students used almost exclusively the ethic of autonomy, while the other groups (especially the working-class groups) based their arguments on the other 3 ethics. The moral domain is unusually narrow in WEIRD cultures, where it is largely limited to the ethic of autonomy. It is broader - including the ethics of community and divinity - in most other societies, and within religious and conservative moral matrices within WEIRD societies. Moral matrices bind people together and blind them to the coherence, or even existence, of other matrices. This makes it very difficult for people to consider the possibility that there might really be more than one form of moral truth, or more than one valid framework for judging people or running a society. Immorality East and West: Are Immoral Behaviors Especially Harmful, or Especially Uncivilized? - Article Summary Chinese Morality: Being a Cultured Person Complex Cognition Page 2 Chinese Morality: Being a Cultured Person A lot of Western moral thinking and recent psychology have centered around deontological ethics, in which moral obligations are considered unbreakable rules that apply universally. On the other hand, Confucianism follows a different path known as virtue ethics, in which the focus is on developing good character as the main driver of moral actions. In particular, it is through the practice of courteous behavior toward others that one can develop and refine one’s character. The specific decorous behavior (characterized by good manners and respect for social norms and etiquette, e.g. bowing vs. shaking hands) changes depending on context. However, this variable behavior is, ideally, consistently appropriate and attentive, motivated by virtuous character. In Chinese history, the law and morality were kept separate. The law was for dealing with serious criminals whose behavior was radically uncivilized and they showed no motivation to obtain virtue Morality was about how people should act in everyday life. So, being a good person in Confucianism is more about showing good manners and following social customs than avoiding serious crimes like theft or murder. Civility versus harm as morally relevant Chinese lay moral cognition may be closely tied to judgments of civility and politeness. This would be in contrast to both classic and recent psychology theories of morality, which argue that moral judgment is universally based on perceptions of harm and suffering, justice, and fairness. These theories may reflect a Western cultural bias, where communal and hierarchical relationships are less emphasized. Moral versus non-moral norms: a prototype approach One explanation of how laypeople distinguish between "moral" and "non-moral" norm violations is that they note a behavior's similarity to prototypical immoral acts, rather than to an abstract definition. The current studies use the Western and Chinese layperson-generated examples of "immoral" behaviors to examine what is most prototypical of this lay concept. The current studies Hypothesis a) Compared with Chinese, Western laypeople are more likely to identify harmful behaviors as typically immoral, whereas Chinese are more likely to identify uncivilized behaviors as typically immoral Hypothesis b) A higher degree of harmfulness distinguishes Western immoral behaviors from other kinds of unacceptable behaviors, but Chinese immoral behaviors are distinguished from non-moral wrongs by a higher degree of incivility. In study 1, Chinese & Western participants were asked to list examples of immoral behavior. In study 2, the most typical behaviors were presented to new participants who labeled them as either "immoral", "wrong, but not immoral", or "not wrong at all." In study 3, participants are asked to judge the harmfulness and incivility of the selected behaviors, and to compare behaviors labeled "immoral" with those that were "wrong, but not immoral." This served to determine whether harmfulness or incivility better characterized the "immoral" category. Study 1: Examples of immoral behaviors Method Participants were asked to complete the sentence "that person is really immoral. For example, he/she...", which was on the last page of various unrelated questionnaires. The answers were coded into 46 categories with high inter-rater agreement. Results and Discussion Although uncivil behaviors were frequently mentioned by Mainland Chinese, Western examples were more often of criminally harmful behavior. For example, “killing” was among the top 10 most frequently mentioned immoral behaviors by both Canadians and Australians, but mentioned by only 1 of the 281 Mainland Chinese participants; The opposite applies to “spitting on the street,” mentioned by 31 Mainland Chinese and 0 Westerners. Hong Kong response patterns were better correlated with Western responses, rather than with Chinese mainland Complex Cognition Page 3  Western responses, rather than with Chinese mainland responses. This might reflect Hong Kong's bicultural heritage, especially in the realm of moral education. Study 2: Explicit categorization: which behaviors are called "immoral?" Method Participants were presented with a list of behaviors, representing each of the most frequently mentioned behavior categories per city from Study 1, and were asked if these behaviors were "immoral", "wrong, but not immoral" or "not wrong at all." Results and Discussion Behaviors such as spitting, cursing, and littering were more likely to be called immoral by Beijing than Western participants, whereas criminal behaviors such as killing, stealing, and hurting others were more likely to be called immoral by Western participants. For example, although 70% of Beijing participants called to spit on the public street “immoral” (compared to 11% of Westeners), only 42% of Beijing participants called to kill a person “immoral” (81% of Westeners). Study 3: Are Immoral Behaviors Particularly Harmful, or Particularly Uncivilized? Studies 1 and 2 show that the greatest cultural contrasts occur on behaviors that are very harmful (termed immoral by Westerners) versus uncivilized (termed immoral by Mainland Chinese). This may be because Westeners have a prototype of serious harm when considering immoral behaviors, while the prototype used by the Chinese incorporates incivility. However, it is also possible that e.g. Chinese are also considering harm, but they consider spitting or littering to be harmful to society as whole, and thus more serious than harm caused against individuals. Method Participants rate study 2's behaviors 3 times, by selecting "immoral", "wrong, but immoral is not the best word", or "not wrong at all." Then they rated each behavior on harmfulness (1 = extremely harmful - 6 = not harmful at all) and incivility (1 = extremely uncivilized - 6 = has nothing to do with being (un)civilized). For each participant, the average harmfulness rating of behaviors that he/she had categorized as wrong was subtracted from the average harmfulness rating of behaviors he/she had categorized as immoral (harmfulness-difference), and the average incivility rating of wrong behaviors was subtracted from the average incivility rating of immoral behaviors (incivility-difference). Larger numbers indicate a larger difference between “immoral” and “wrong” categories on that criterion. Results The results of study 2 were replicated. Both Chinese and Americans rated “immoral” behaviors as both more harmful and more uncivil than “wrong” behaviors. However, as predicted, for Americans, the difference between immoral and wrong behaviors was greater on “harmfulness” than “incivility,” whereas for Chinese, the difference was greater on “incivility” than “harmfulness.” The percentage of Americans who rated a behavior immoral was most highly correlated with the behaviors’ average harmfulness ratings (r =.92, vs. r =.75 for incivility ratings), whereas the percentage of Chinese who rated a behavior immoral was most highly correlated with their average incivility ratings (r =.83, vs. r =.27 for harmfulness ratings). Chinese and Americans had quite high agreement on which behaviors were harmful (r =.80), showing that the main cultural difference is in the definition of immorality, not harmfulness. General discussion The studies indicate that although Western participants think of immorality as primarily about serious harm, Chinese participants are more likely to focus on the uncivilized nature of behaviors when making moral judgments. This evidence suggests that moral judgments cannot be described as universally and only characterized by the perception of harm and suffering. Complex Cognition Page 4 This evidence suggests that moral judgments cannot be described as universally and only characterized by the perception of harm and suffering. Instead, it aligns better with the idea that moral judgments have multiple and culturally influenced focal concerns that can change over time. It is consistent with a description of Chinese morality as primarily a form of virtue ethics in which immoral behaviors are those that show one's character to be insufficiently polished. Criminal behaviors, however, are too extreme to fit the definition of this virtue. 3 interpretations and future research Even though the content of what is considered "immoral" is different in Chinese culture compared to Western cultures, there may still be some similarities in the way people think about and respond to these behaviors. For instance, both cultures may perceive "immoral" actions as violating certain values, leading to social ostracism, and evoking emotional responses. Even if killing is peripheralized as a moral concern, Chinese society does not permit random murders, as evidenced by the serious “social sanction” of the death penalty. Norms against criminal behavior may not be strongly relevant to moral norms; instead, the realm of law is seen as more appropriate for preventing and punishing crimes. The categorization of social norms into "moral" and "conventional" may not be universal but specific to Western culture. The Moral Ties That Bind … Even to Out-Groups: The Interactive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations - Article Summary Strong commitment to moral principles such as obedience to authority, loyalty & patriotism can lead to prejudice, out-group derogation and even genocide. Notions of purity are also linked to stigmatization of and discrimination of various outgroups. Still, commitments to such principles has the function of uniting individuals into collectives that allow families, communities, and ultimately, societies to thrive. Moral Foundations Theory and the Binding Foundations Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) - states that there are 5 psychological moral foundations on which most cultures and individuals build their systems of morality: Binding foundations - they encompass a group- or collective-oriented view of morality: Loyalty/betrayal - calls for complete faithfulness to one’s obligations regarding group membership. Authority/subversion - promotes the proper display of obedience and deference as they relate to hierarchical relationships. Purity/degradation - protects against physical and spiritual contamination and contagion. Individualizing foundations - they focus on the provision and protection of individual rights (care/harm, fairness/cheating). Care/harm Fairness/cheating Although the binding foundations may increase people's commitments to helping other people, such help may be restricted to in-group members. Strongly endorsing the binding foundations may lead people to justify harming out-group members if it benefits their in-group or if a leader commands them to do so. However, it is also possible that people sometimes apply the binding foundations to a set of people broader than their immediate in-group. The current study proposes that people with a strong moral identity are motivated to expand the scope of their moral concern, even if they also have a commitment to the binding foundations. Moral Identity and Circle of Moral Regard Moral identity - a self-schema that is composed of an associated network of moral traits, scripts, and values. People whose moral identities are more accessible within the working self-concept are more likely to behave in a manner consistent with their conceptions of morality. People with a strong moral identity are characterized by a high level of concern and respect for the rights and welfare of others. People with a strong moral identity are likely to experience a relatively expansive circle of moral regard (the psychological boundaries that people draw around all the people they deem worthy of moral consideration). Whereas in-group members are likely to fall within one’s circle of moral regard, people with a strong moral identity can believe that outgroup members are similarly deserving of moral regard. On the basis of the link between moral identity and the expansiveness of one's circle of moral regard, the authors predict that the out-group derogation, which is often found among people who strongly endorse the binding moral foundations, can be mitigated among people who have a strong moral identity. Studies 1a and 1b Study 1a tests the moderating effect of moral identity on the relationship between reliance on the binding foundations and the condemnation of torture as a means of getting information from a suspected terrorist. Terrorists pose a threat to the in-group => it is expected that people with high binding-foundations scores are less condemning of torture than people with low scores. More, it is hypothesized that this relationship would be weaker among people with a strong moral identity. Complex Cognition Page 5  More, it is hypothesized that this relationship would be weaker among people with a strong moral identity. Study 1b replicates study 1a with an alternative measure of moral foundations. Study 1a method Condemnation of torture was measured by asking participants to rate the extent to which they believed that the use of torture is justifiable as a technique for interrogating suspected terrorists. The extent to which respondents relied on the binding foundations was measured using the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale, which provides a separate score for each moral foundation based on the amount of money it would take to get respondents to engage in hypothetical behaviors (e.g., “leave the social group, club, or team that you most value” or “sign a piece of paper that says, ‘I hereby sell my soul, after my death, to whoever has this piece of paper’”). Moral identity was measured with a self-report scale. Study 1a results and discussion As expected, reliance on the binding foundations negatively predicted condemnation of torture. Among people with low moral-identity scores (i.e., 1 SD below the mean), high binding- foundations scores (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) were associated with less condemnation of torture compared with low binding-foundations scores. However, the negative effect of reliance on the binding foundations on condemnation of torture was weakened among people with high moral-identity scores. Study 1b method All variables were measured in the same way as in study 1a, except that reliance on the moral foundations was measured using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). Study 1b results and discussion Findings of study 1a were replicated, although the weakening effect of moral identity was not as strong. Study 2 Method Each participant was assigned to 1 of 2 groups (moral prime or control). In the moral-prime condition, participants were asked to write a story about themselves using a list of words previously found to be fairly universally consistent with people's notions of morality (e.g. fair, helpful, honest). In the control condition, participants were asked to write a story about themselves using more neutral words (e.g. pen, desk, book). After completing the writing task, all participants read a scenario in which they were asked to imagine themselves on a camping trip in the mountains with a few family members and friends. They become stranded after an avalanche, and they soon discover that another group of people (foreigners who speak a different language) is stranded as well. Each group has a young child, and children have greater risk of dying from dehydration, compared with adults, because of their smaller bodies. Both groups have run out of water. The participants’ group luckily finds four full bottles of water, presumably left behind by previous campers. Should the water be shared with the foreigners? The lives of both children are potentially on the line: Sharing the water threatens the survival Complex Cognition Page 6  Should the water be shared with the foreigners? The lives of both children are potentially on the line: Sharing the water threatens the survival of the child in the participants’ own group, and not sharing the water threatens the survival of the foreign child. After reading the instructions for imagining the scenario, participants answered several questions measuring their support for a group decision to share the water with the foreigners. Participants' moral identity & reliance on moral foundations were also measured. Results and discussions As predicted, in the moral-prime condition, high binding-foundations scores (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) were associated with decreased sharing compared with low binding-foundations scores (i.e., 1 SD below the mean), but only for participants who also had low moral-identity scores. For participants with high moral-identity scores, reliance on the binding foundations did not significantly affect sharing. Thus, when morality was salient, a strong moral identity mitigated the tendency of people who strongly relied on the binding foundations to favor their in-group at the expense of the out-group. General discussion The findings show that principles such as loyalty, respect for authority, and purity do not necessarily lead to in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Most participants were WEIRD. Extra information from the Internet Social intuitionist model - suggests that people often make moral judgments based on their immediate emotional reactions or intuitions, and these intuitions are influenced by social and cultural factors. Moral reasoning often comes after the initial moral judgment and is used to justify or rationalize the intuitive judgment. Dumbfounding - a term used to describe situations in which people are unable to provide rational or logical explanations for their moral judgments or decisions. Often used as evidence for the social intuitionist model. It suggests that our moral judgments are often driven by intuitive emotional responses, and when asked to justify those judgments, we may struggle to provide coherent reasons. Complex Cognition Page 7