Judging those who judge: Perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others' moral dilemma responses

A Theory of Wisdom Needs Theory of Mind

“…Even if we accept that considering two competing moral values (rightness of loyalty vs. wrongness of theft) in the train-ticket-wedding-rings example is an instance of PMC as defined by the authors, we are left asking how the application of such PMC led the wiser individual to recognize loyalty as a 7 situationally relevant moral value, and answering this question without invoking ToM is tricky. It cannot be the case that the wise individual prospectively realized that their friend might perceive the decision not to steal as disloyal, since that would be an act of ToM -moral meta-perception specifically (Rom et al, 2017). It cannot be the case that the wise individual considered how a hypothetical third-party would behave in this situation, or how the person they would be stealing from might feel, since those are acts of ToM.…”

Distrusting Your Moral Compass: The Impact of Distrust Mindsets on Moral Dilemma Processing and Judgments

“…For example, recent work suggests that dilemma decisions may involve an element of selfpresentation (Rom, Weiss, & Conway, 2017). It remains possible that distrust makes people more acutely aware of self-presentational concerns, thereby altering judgments.…”

“…Note that some theorists have aimed to tackle this issue by including additional dilemmas where action is coded as leading to a deontological decision and inaction is coded as leading to a utilitarian decision: the CNI Model (Gawronski et al, 2015;2017;2018). This model allows for estimation of three parameters: a C parameter tracking adherence to consequences, an N parameter is designed to track consistency with deontological norms, and an I parameter tracking systematic inaction tendencies to either act or refrain from action independent of consequences or deontological norms.…”

Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation

“…Adapting several approaches from prior research, we measure perceived trustworthiness, ethicality, and generosity (Eisenbruch & Roney, 2017;Everett, Pizarro, & Crockett, 2016;Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom, & Rand, 2016;Smith & Bird, 2000) inferences about a third-party's warmth and competence (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005) and impressions about whether a third-party's decision was governed more by affective or cognitive processing (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, Heier, 1996). Each of these judgments contributes to the overall impression of a person's character (Everett, Pizarro, & Crockett, 2016;Rom, Weiss, Conway, 2017).…”