Literature DB >> 22618711

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

Rumen I Iliev1, Sonya Sachdeva, Douglas L Medin.   

Abstract

Harmful events often have a strong physical component-for instance, car accidents, plane crashes, fist fights, and military interventions. Yet there has been very little systematic work on the degree to which physical factors influence our moral judgments about harm. Since physical factors are related to our perception of causality, they should also influence our subsequent moral judgments. In three experiments, we tested this prediction, focusing in particular on the roles of motion and contact. In Experiment 1, we used abstract video stimuli and found that intervening on a harmful object was judged as being less bad than intervening directly on the victim, and that setting an object in motion was judged as being worse than redirecting an already moving object. Experiment 2 showed that participants were sensitive not only to the presence or absence of motion and contact, but also to the magnitudes and frequencies associated with these dimensions. Experiment 3 extended the findings from Experiment 1 to verbally presented moral dilemmas. These results suggest that domain-general processes play a larger role in moral cognition than is currently assumed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22618711     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0217-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  21 in total

1.  Perceptual causality and animacy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 2.  Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future.

Authors:  John Mikhail
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: a test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

4.  More is different.

Authors:  P W Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1972-08-04       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  The liver and the moral organ.

Authors:  Marc D Hauser
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events.

Authors:  Peter A White
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 7.  Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere.

Authors:  Liane Young; James Dungan
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 2.083

8.  Moral Psychology Must Not Be Based on Faith and Hope: Commentary on Narvaez (2010).

Authors:  Jonathan Haidt
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-03-30

Review 9.  Moral Complexity: The Fatal Attraction of Truthiness and the Importance of Mature Moral Functioning.

Authors:  Darcia Narvaez
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-03

10.  The perception of causality in infancy.

Authors:  Rebecca Saxe; Susan Carey
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2006-08-14
View more
  4 in total

1.  Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze.

Authors:  Philip Pärnamets; Petter Johansson; Lars Hall; Christian Balkenius; Michael J Spivey; Daniel C Richardson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Judgments of Morality in War: Commentary on Watkins (2020).

Authors:  Sheila B Frankfurt; Alanna Coady
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-08-26

3.  Infants' observation of tool-use events over the first year of life.

Authors:  Klaus Libertus; Marissa L Greif; Amy Work Needham; Kevin Pelphrey
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2016-08-10

4.  The Role of Self-Sacrifice in Moral Dilemmas.

Authors:  Sonya Sachdeva; Rumen Iliev; Hamed Ekhtiari; Morteza Dehghani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.