Contextualizing sacrificial dilemmas within Covid-19 for the study of moral judgment

Abstract

"Sacrificial dilemmas" are the scenarios typically used to study moral judgment and human morality. However, these dilemmas have been criticized regarding their lack of ecological validity. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a relevant context to further examine individuals’ moral judgment and choice of action with more realistic sacrificial dilemmas. Using this context, the purpose of the present study is to investigate how moral responses are influenced by the contextualization of the dilemma (i.e., contextualized or not within the Covid-19 pandemic). By comparing two versions of one dilemma, Experiment 1 revealed that the more realistic version (the one contextualized within the Covid-19 pandemic) did not elicit more utilitarian responses than the less realistic version (the one not contextualized within the Covid-19 pandemic). In Experiment 2, we examined more specifically whether both the perceived realism of the dilemma and the plausibility of a utilitarian action influence moral responses. Results confirmed that the contextualization of the dilemma does not make any difference in moral responses. However, the plausibility of an action appears to exert an influence on the choice of action. Indeed, participants were more inclined to choose the utilitarian action in the plausible action versions than in the implausible action versions of the dilemma. Overall, these results shed light on the importance for future research of using mundane and dramatic realistic dilemmas displaying full information regarding a sacrificial action and its consequences.

Bilinguals on the footbridge: the role of foreign-language proficiency in moral decision making

“…Typical dilemmas allow for tight control of important variables but they are distant from the dilemmas that people face daily. If, as recently proposed, moral decisions are influenced by the plausibility of dilemmas (Carron et al, 2022 ; Kneer & Hannikainen, 2022 ; Körner et al, 2019 ) and participant engagement (Körner & Deutsch, 2023 ), then current notions about the MFLE could be enriched or even challenged by more ecological paradigms. Third, utilitarian decisions seem to increase when made by groups rather than by individuals, arguably because group increases detachment from social norms (Keshmirian et al, 2022 ) and from rational views in welfare discussions (Curşeu et al, 2020 ).…”

The effect of foreign language and psychological distance on moral judgment in Turkish–English bilinguals

“…It has been argued that events are regarded as part of one's direct experience as they are perceived to be likely to occur in one's life (Wakslak et al, 2006). Although studies using realistic scenarios exist (e.g., Champoux-Larsson & Knežević Cvelbar, 2021;Kyriakou & Mavrou, 2023), the hypothetical dimension has not been investigated extensively in moral judgment research (but see Carron et al, 2022;Körner et al, 2019, for exceptions). However, based on the arguments of the CLT, we would expect events with higher probability to be perceived as psychologically less distant, thereby promoting self-interested judgments more.…”

The Oxford Utilitarianism Scale: Psychometric properties of a French adaptation (OUS-Fr)

“…The recent replication crisis (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), in combination with research that has criticized traditional tools in moral psychology such as the previously mentioned trolley dilemma (see Kahane, 2015;Bauman et al, 2014;Dahl & Oftedal, 2019;Carron et al, 2022), has engendered a movement to revisit the scientific integrity of moral psychology and current methodologies (Ellemers et al, 2019). Especially in light of the replication crisis in psychology that is increasingly taken seriously and in which studies are scrutinized for their empirical soundness, it is of paramount importance for moral psychology to cohere and develop the best scientific practices possible.…”