The role of emotions for moral judgments depends on the type of emotion and moral scenario.

Abstract

Emotions seem to play a critical role in moral judgment. However, the way in which emotions exert their influence on moral judgments is still poorly understood. This study proposes a novel theoretical approach suggesting that emotions influence moral judgments based on their motivational dimension. We tested the effects of two types of induced emotions with equal valence but with different motivational implications (anger and disgust), and four types of moral scenarios (disgust-related, impersonal, personal, and beliefs) on moral judgments. We hypothesized and found that approach motivation associated with anger would make moral judgments more permissible, while disgust, associated with withdrawal motivation, would make them less permissible. Moreover, these effects varied as a function of the type of scenario: the induced emotions only affected moral judgments concerning impersonal and personal scenarios, while we observed no effects for the other scenarios. These findings suggest that emotions can play an important role in moral judgment, but that their specific effects depend upon the type of emotion induced. Furthermore, induced emotion effects were more prevalent for moral decisions in personal and impersonal scenarios, possibly because these require the performance of an action rather than making an abstract judgment. We conclude that the effects of induced emotions on moral judgments can be predicted by taking their motivational dimension into account. This finding has important implications for moral psychology, as it points toward a previously overlooked mechanism linking emotions to moral judgments.

Impaired Decoding of Fear and Disgust Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgment in Alcohol-Dependent Individuals

“…As such, the current results are also consistent with the proposed role of emotion in deontological judgments (Schnall et al, 2008;Van Dillen et al, 2012;Wheatley and Haidt, 2005). More specifically, the successful induction of avoidance-related emotions (e.g., disgust or fear) may lead to deontological moral judgments (Harle and Sanfey, 2010;Ugazio et al, 2012). Furthermore, according to the somatic-marker theory of addiction, the medial prefrontal cortex is the key brain region for generating and integrating emotional signals (somatic-markers), which arise in anticipation of the affective and social consequences of different courses of action (e.g., utilitarian vs. deontological), crucially guiding decision-making (Verdejo-Garcıa and Bechara, 2009).…”

“…Although future work is required to explore these effects, we suggest that the perception of fear in specific individuals may lead to an aversion to harming those individuals even when doing so may lead to saving other people, as in high-conflict scenarios (Crockett et al, 2010). On the other hand, low-conflict scenarios (e.g., causing harm for selfish benefit) may trigger moral disgust (Ugazio et al, 2012;Wheatley and Haidt, 2005).…”

“…For example, studies have identified traits associated with impaired moral cognition, including antisociality and impulsivity (Bartels and Pizarro, 2011;Marsh et al, 2011). Induction of negative emotional states, such as disgust, has also been shown to reduce utilitarian bias choice in healthy individuals (Harle and Sanfey, 2010;Schnall et al, 2008;Ugazio et al, 2012), while patients with focal damage to brain regions that support emotional responding tend to endorse utilitarian moral judgments to a greater extent (Koenigs et al, 2007;Moretto et al, 2010). Moreover, depression and anxiety levels in non-clinical samples are positively also associated with utilitarian choice (Bartels and Pizarro, 2011;Starcke et al, 2011;Youssef et al, 2012).…”

On Disgust and Moral Judgments: A Review

“…Another study comparing disgust with anger (Ugazio et al, 2012) indicated that people's choices when judging a moral story depended on the type of emotions elicited, whilst the influence the emotions exert on their judgments depended on the motivational aspect (i.e., approach and withdrawal). More precisely, when people are angry, they tended to judge moral situations in a more tolerant manner; whereas when they were under the influence of disgust, they judged the situation in the opposite manner (i.e., less tolerant).…”

Separating the Relevant From the Irrelevant: The Sri Learning Model

“…It is necessary to train students how to value the material, to identify what is important and not to learn everything. Researches also show that emotions and moral judgment about the material significantly influence students' motivation (Ugazio, Lamm, & Singer, 2012). While testing the preconceptions of students about whether their actions will have a negative or neutral outcome, the results show that preconceptions affect motivation but are unreliable (Young, Camprodon, Hauser, Pascual-Leone, & Saxe, 2010).…”