Literature DB >> 21859189

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

Giuseppe Ugazio1, Claus Lamm, Tania Singer.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21859189     DOI: 10.1037/a0024611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emotion        ISSN: 1528-3542


  19 in total

1.  Morality: incomplete without the cerebellum?

Authors:  Asli Demirtas-Tatlidede; Jeremy D Schmahmann
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 13.501

2.  Cognitive processes in imaginative moral shifts: How judgments of morally unacceptable actions change.

Authors:  Beyza Tepe; Ruth M J Byrne
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-05-09

3.  Practical implications of empirically studying moral decision-making.

Authors:  Nora Heinzelmann; Giuseppe Ugazio; Philippe N Tobler
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  The impact of autism spectrum disorder and alexithymia on judgments of moral acceptability.

Authors:  Rebecca Brewer; Abigail A Marsh; Caroline Catmur; Elise M Cardinale; Sarah Stoycos; Richard Cook; Geoffrey Bird
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2015-08

5.  Moral judgment modulation by disgust is bi-directionally moderated by individual sensitivity.

Authors:  How Hwee Ong; O'Dhaniel A Mullette-Gillman; Kenneth Kwok; Julian Lim
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-03-06

Review 6.  How serotonin shapes moral judgment and behavior.

Authors:  Jenifer Z Siegel; Molly J Crockett
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.691

7.  The human factor: behavioral and neural correlates of humanized perception in moral decision making.

Authors:  Jasminka Majdandžić; Herbert Bauer; Christian Windischberger; Ewald Moser; Elisabeth Engl; Claus Lamm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Modulation of incentivized dishonesty by disgust facial expressions.

Authors:  Julian Lim; Paul M Ho; O'Dhaniel A Mullette-Gillman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Valence of emotions and moral decision-making: increased pleasantness to pleasant images and decreased unpleasantness to unpleasant images are associated with utilitarian choices in healthy adults.

Authors:  Martina Carmona-Perera; Celia Martí-García; Miguel Pérez-García; Antonio Verdejo-García
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Compassion fade: affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need.

Authors:  Daniel Västfjäll; Paul Slovic; Marcus Mayorga; Ellen Peters
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.