Disfluent fonts lead to more utilitarian decisions in moral dilemmas

Abstract

Previous research suggests that utilitarian decisions to moral dilemmas often stem from analytic, controlled cognitive processes. Furthermore, processing disfluency can trigger analytic thinking and improve performance on tasks that require logic and cognitive reflection. In the present study we investigated how processing fluency affects the readiness with which people give utilitarian responses to both personal and impersonal dilemmas. Participants were presented in two different experimental blocks with dilemmas written in both easy-(fluent) and hard-to-read (disfluent) fonts. We expected that dilemmas written in a disfluent font would be associated with more utilitarian responses. Results supported this prediction, albeit only when the disfluent dilemmas appeared first, showing that participants endorsed more utilitarian actions in the disfluent condition than in the fluent condition across dilemma types. These data suggest that increasing processing disfluency by manipulating the font affects decisions in the moral domain.People are often faced with difficult moral dilemmas that can have important life changing consequences. Accordingly, an increasing body of work has sought to identify the different factors that affect moral judgments and decisions, as well as the processes underlying people's moral choices.

The moral foreign language effect is stable across presentation modalities

“…These training sessions were important as lack of familiarity with the procedure, especially for participants less-versed in computer use and technology, could influence responding. For example, novelty effects could have increased cognitive engagement (Spears et al, 2018), or imposed cognitive load (Białek & De Neys, 2017), both of which are suggested to affect moral decision making.…”

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

“…Main result Time constraint studies Suter & Hertwig (2011) SD Pressure increases deontological choices Cummins & Cummins (2012) SD Pressure increases deontological choices Trémolière & Bonnefon (2014) SD varying save/kill Pressure increases deontological choices for save/kill = 5 but not save/kill = 500 Cognitive load studies Greene et al (2008) SD Load increases response time of utilitarian choices Trémolière & Bonnefon (2014) SD varying save/kill Load increases deontological choices for save/kill = 5 but not save/kill = 500 Conway and Gawronski (2013) SD process dissociation Load reduces utilitarian judgments, while leaving deontological judgments unaffected Białek & De Neys (2017). SD Load reduces utilitarian judgments Hayakawa et al (2017) SD process dissociation Second language decreases deontological judgments, but has no effect on utilitarian judgments SD process dissociation Load reduces utilitarian judgments, while leaving deontological judgments unaffected Muda et al (2018) SD process dissociation Second language decreases both deontological and utilitarian judgments Conceptual primes studies Valdesolo & DeSteno (2006) SD Affect induction increases deontological judgments Paxton et al (2012) SD Deliberation induction increases utilitarian judgments Costa et al (2014) SD Second language increases utilitarian judgments Measure Main result Kvaran et al (2013) SD Emotional prime increases deontological judgments; analytical prime increases utilitarian judgments Geipel et al (2015a) SD Second language increases utilitarian judgments Cipolletti et al (2016) SD Second language increases utilitarian judgments Corey et al (2017) SD Second language increases utilitarian judgments Spears et al (2018) SD Attention prime increases utilitarian judgments Capraro et al 2019OUS Intuition increases nonutilitarian judgments in the instrumental harm dimension; intuition has no effect on beneficence dimension Ego depletion studies Trémolière et al (2012) SD Depletion increases deontological judgments Timmons & Byrne 2018SD Depletion increases deontological judgments 2-response paradigm studies SD Bago & De Neys (2018) Most utilitarian deliberative judgments were already utilitarian under intuition Note: SD stands for sacrificial dilemmas game; OUS stands for Oxford Utilitarianism Scale.…”

The Dual-Process Approach to Human Sociality: A Review

“…Load reduces utilitarian judgments, while leaving deontological judgments unaffected Conceptual primes studies Valdesolo & DeSteno (2006) Sacrificial dilemmas Affect induction increases deontological choices Kvaran et al (2013) Sacrificial dilemmas Emotional prime increases deontological choices Analytical prime increases utilitarian choices Spears et al (2018) Sacrificial dilemmas Attention prime increases utilitarian choices Capraro et al (2019) Oxford Utilitarianism Scale Priming intuition increases non-utilitarian judgments in the instrumental harm dimension, but not in the impartial beneficence dimension Ego depletion studies Trémolière et al (2012) Sacrificial dilemmas Depletion increases deontological choices Timmons & Byrne (2018) Sacrificial dilemmas Depletion increases deontological choices…”