Utilitarian Moral Judgments Are Cognitively Too Demanding

Silva, Sergio Da; Matsushita, Raul; Sousa, Maicon De

doi:10.4236/oalib.1102380

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…thinking process that they use Koenigs et al, 2012;Christensen et al, 2014;Da Silva et al, 2016). The moral choice tendency induced by interoceptive intensity may have been overridden by the moral choice tendency induced by these factors; alternatively, it might be the case that interoceptive intensity alone is too weak to affect moral choices regardless of these factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interoceptive Accuracy Did Not Affect Moral Decision-Making, but Affect Regret Rating for One’s Moral Choices

Tamura

Kobayashi²,

Ohira

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have revealed the effect of interoceptive accuracy (IAcc), a behavioral measure of the ability to feel physiological states and regulation for that, which origin emotion on decision-making such as gambling. Given that decision-making in moral dilemma situations is affected by emotion, it seems that IAcc also affects moral decision-making. The present study preliminarily investigates whether IAcc affects decision-making and emotional ratings such as regret for one’s own choices in moral dilemma situations. IAcc did not affect moral choice (deontological or utilitarian option), but affected regret ratings for one’s moral choice in portions of dilemma scenarios. Moreover, people with higher IAcc make deontological choices more rapidly than those with lower IAcc in self-related dilemma scenarios. These results suggest that people with higher IAcc feel stronger emotional conflicts about utilitarian choices but weaker conflicts about deontological choices than people with lower IAcc depending on the moral dilemma scenario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interoceptive Accuracy Did Not Affect Moral Decision-Making, but Affect Regret Rating for One’s Moral Choices

Tamura

Kobayashi²,

Ohira

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, future research should clarify how aversive experiences within the family or community exert their influence on adolescents’ moral decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas and, even more basically, which are the main characteristics of the adolescents choosing a deontological solution in the switch case. It would be also interesting deepen the role of cognitive variables, since previous research has evidenced that the reversal of moral preferences that can be observed when individuals face different moral scenarios, as in the switch and footbridge case, may occur because utilitarian moral judgments are cognitively too demanding ( Da Silva et al, 2016 ). Finally, future studies could be useful to deepen the practical implications of results regarding the utilitarian vs. deontological choices and to explore the possible use of sacrificial dilemma as a tool to increase moral skills ( Seider, 2009 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual and Environmental Correlates of Adolescents’ Moral Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While extensive research has been conducted on adults’ judgments in moral sacrificial dilemmas, there is little research on adolescents. The present study aimed at: (1) adding further empirical evidence about adolescents’ moral decisions (deontological vs. utilitarian) in sacrificial moral dilemmas and (2) investigating how these moral decisions relate with gender, school grade, emotional traits (callous-unemotional traits), context-related experiences (perceived parental rejection and community violence exposure), and moral-related factors (moral disengagement and universalism value). A sample of 755 Italian adolescents (54.7% females; Mean age=16.45, SD=1.61) attending the second and the fifth year of secondary school took part in the study. Two sacrificial trolley-type dilemmas (where harmful actions promote the greater good) were presented. In the “switch” scenario (impersonal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to hit a switch to save five people killing only one person. In the “footbridge” scenario (personal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to push a large man off a footbridge saving five persons. For each scenario, participants had to indicate whether the proposed action was “morally acceptable” or not. Data were analyzed performing generalized linear mixed models. Our results showed that: (1) Adolescents were more likely to indicate as admissible to hit the switch rather than to push the large man; (2) male adolescents, compared to females, were more likely to say it was morally acceptable to intervene in the footbridge dilemma, whereas younger adolescents said it was morally acceptable both in the switch and the footbridge situations; and (3) higher levels of callous-unemotional traits, perceived parental rejection, and moral disengagement, on the one hand, and lower levels of universalism, on the other hand, were associated to higher admissibility to intervene in the footbridge scenario. Higher community violence exposure was associated with a lower propensity to intervene in the switch scenario. Overall, the present study expands the research on sacrificial dilemmas involving a sample of adolescents. The findings support previous studies concerning the role of emotions in making moral decisions but, at the same, open new perspectives regarding the role of contextual experiences and moral-related factors.

show abstract

“…Because the was left to the end of the experiment, it was taken under cognitive load, and thus, ego depletion. In such an environment, one expects poor performance because cognitive load and ego depletion make those more automatic participants more prone to judge under the influence of their System 1 (Da Silva et al , 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real estate list price anchoring and cognitive ability

Silva

Matsushita

Pereira

et al. 2019

IJHMA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to revisit the issue of anchoring effects in real estate markets to consider the current dual-processing theory of mind. Design/methodology/approach The effects of high and low anchors in a price estimation task are, thus, explained by both Systems 1 and 2 as these play a key role in the guess of the “correct” list price. The authors also take into account the mediation of overconfidence in the estimates and how confidence relates to cognitive ability. Moreover, the authors nuance the field experiment by considering the decisions taken by professional real estate agents and amateur students alike because experts are expected to be less prone to cognitive biases. Findings The large anchoring index of 67 per cent found for the real estate agents suggests these professionals make their judgment unconsciously by priming (and thus, using their System 1), despite being overconfident. In contrast, an even larger anchoring index for the undergraduates (86 per cent) was found, as expected for nonexperts. However, the authors suggest the students’ judgments use their System 2 because they are clueless in their non-anchored estimates and, as result, consider the list prices as a heuristic to deliberately anchor and adjust. Originality/value Anchoring effects in real estate markets have not been approached so far by the dual-processing theory of mind.

show abstract

Utilitarian Moral Judgments Are Cognitively Too Demanding

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Interoceptive Accuracy Did Not Affect Moral Decision-Making, but Affect Regret Rating for One’s Moral Choices

Interoceptive Accuracy Did Not Affect Moral Decision-Making, but Affect Regret Rating for One’s Moral Choices

Individual and Environmental Correlates of Adolescents’ Moral Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas

Real estate list price anchoring and cognitive ability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About