Literature DB >> 19375075

Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment.

Joshua D Greene1, Fiery A Cushman, Lisa E Stewart, Kelly Lowenberg, Leigh E Nystrom, Jonathan D Cohen.   

Abstract

In some cases people judge it morally acceptable to sacrifice one person's life in order to save several other lives, while in other similar cases they make the opposite judgment. Researchers have identified two general factors that may explain this phenomenon at the stimulus level: (1) the agent's intention (i.e. whether the harmful event is intended as a means or merely foreseen as a side-effect) and (2) whether the agent harms the victim in a manner that is relatively "direct" or "personal". Here we integrate these two classes of findings. Two experiments examine a novel personalness/directness factor that we call personal force, present when the force that directly impacts the victim is generated by the agent's muscles (e.g., in pushing). Experiments 1a and b demonstrate the influence of personal force on moral judgment, distinguishing it from physical contact and spatial proximity. Experiments 2a and b demonstrate an interaction between personal force and intention, whereby the effect of personal force depends entirely on intention. These studies also introduce a method for controlling for people's real-world expectations in decisions involving potentially unrealistic hypothetical dilemmas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19375075     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  59 in total

1.  Judgment before principle: engagement of the frontoparietal control network in condemning harms of omission.

Authors:  Fiery Cushman; Dylan Murray; Shauna Gordon-McKeon; Sophie Wharton; Joshua D Greene
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Harming kin to save strangers: further evidence for abnormally utilitarian moral judgments after ventromedial prefrontal damage.

Authors:  Bradley C Thomas; Katie E Croft; Daniel Tranel
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.

Authors:  Joshua D Greene; Sylvia A Morelli; Kelly Lowenberg; Leigh E Nystrom; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-12-26

4.  Moral kinematics: the role of physical factors in moral judgments.

Authors:  Rumen I Iliev; Sonya Sachdeva; Douglas L Medin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-11

5.  Are 'counter-intuitive' deontological judgments really counter-intuitive? An empirical reply to.

Authors:  Joseph M Paxton; Tommaso Bruni; Joshua D Greene
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Moral contagion: Devaluation effect of immorality on hypothetical judgments of economic value.

Authors:  Jie Liu; Chong Liao; Juanzhi Lu; Yue-Jia Luo; Fang Cui
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics.

Authors:  Nils-Frederic Wagner; Georg Northoff
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2015-06

8.  Foreign Language Effect and Psychological Distance.

Authors:  Hong Im Shin; Juyoung Kim
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2017-12

9.  Cruel to be kind but not cruel for cash: Harm aversion in the dictator game.

Authors:  Pri Perera; Emina Canic; Elliot A Ludvig
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

Review 10.  Bridging cultural sociology and cognitive psychology in three contemporary research programmes.

Authors:  Laura Adler; Bo Yun Park; Xin Xiang; Michèle Lamont
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2017-11-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.