Literature DB >> 24976510

Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context.

Edward B Royzman1, Justin F Landy, Robert F Leeman.   

Abstract

Recent theorizing about the cognitive underpinnings of dilemmatic moral judgment has equated slow, deliberative thinking with the utilitarian disposition and fast, automatic thinking with the deontological disposition. However, evidence for the reflective utilitarian hypothesis-the hypothesized link between utilitarian judgment and individual differences in the capacity for rational reflection (gauged here by the Cognitive Reflection Test [CRT; Frederick, 2005]) has been inconsistent and difficult to interpret in light of several design flaws. In two studies aimed at addressing some of the flaws, we found robust evidence for a reflective minimalist hypothesis-high CRT performers' tendency to regard utility-optimizing acts as largely a matter of personal prerogative, permissible both to perform and to leave undone. This relationship between CRT and the "minimalist" orientation remained intact after controlling for age, sex, trait affect, social desirability, and educational attainment. No significant association was found between CRT and the strict utilitarian response pattern or CRT and the strict deontological response pattern, nor did we find any significant association between CRT and willingness to act in the utility-optimizing manner. However, we found an inverse association between empathic concern and a willingness to act in the utility-optimizing manner, but there was no comparable association between empathic concern and the deontological judgment pattern. Theoretical, methodological, and normative implications of the findings are discussed.
Copyright © 2014 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive Reflection Test; Deontology; Moral dilemma; Morality; Utilitarianism

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24976510     DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Sci        ISSN: 0364-0213


  8 in total

1.  Bright mind, moral mind? Intelligence is unrelated to consequentialist moral judgment in sacrificial moral dilemmas.

Authors:  D H Bostyn; J De Keersmaecker; J Van Assche; A Roets
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

2.  Individual differences in competent consumer choice: the role of cognitive reflection and numeracy skills.

Authors:  Michele Graffeo; Luca Polonio; Nicolao Bonini
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-17

3.  Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making.

Authors:  Aleksandr Sinayev; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-07

Review 4.  Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment.

Authors:  Guy Kahane
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 2.083

5.  Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia.

Authors:  Indrajeet Patil; Giorgia Silani
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-26

6.  Moral Judgements on the Actions of Self-Driving Cars and Human Drivers in Dilemma Situations From Different Perspectives.

Authors:  Noa Kallioinen; Maria Pershina; Jannik Zeiser; Farbod Nosrat Nezami; Gordon Pipa; Achim Stephan; Peter König
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-01

7.  Divergent roles of autistic and alexithymic traits in utilitarian moral judgments in adults with autism.

Authors:  Indrajeet Patil; Jens Melsbach; Kristina Hennig-Fast; Giorgia Silani
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Switching Away from Utilitarianism: The Limited Role of Utility Calculations in Moral Judgment.

Authors:  Mark Sheskin; Nicolas Baumard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.