Literature DB >> 30550336

The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition.

Bence Bago1, Wim De Neys1.   

Abstract

Building on the old adage that the deliberate mind corrects the emotional heart, the influential dual process model of moral cognition has posited that utilitarian responding to moral dilemmas (i.e., choosing the greater good) requires deliberate correction of an intuitive deontological response. In the present article, we present 4 studies that force us to revise this longstanding "corrective" dual process assumption. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants had to give their first, initial response to moral dilemmas under time-pressure and cognitive load. Next, participants could take all the time they wanted to reflect on the problem and give a final response. This allowed us to identify the intuitively generated response that preceded the final response given after deliberation. Results consistently show that in the vast majority of cases (+ 70%) in which people opt for a utilitarian response after deliberation, the utilitarian response is already given in the initial phase. Hence, utilitarian responders do not need to deliberate to correct an initial deontological response. Their intuitive response is already utilitarian in nature. We show how this leads to a revised model in which moral judgments depend on the absolute and relative strength differences between competing deontological and utilitarian intuitions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30550336     DOI: 10.1037/xge0000533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  10 in total

1.  Trolley Dilemma in Papua. Yali horticulturalists refuse to pull the lever.

Authors:  Piotr Sorokowski; Michalina Marczak; Michał Misiak; Michał Białek
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

2.  Age differences in intuitive moral decision-making: Associations with inter-network neural connectivity.

Authors:  Shenyang Huang; Leonard Faul; Gunes Sevinc; Laetitia Mwilambwe-Tshilobo; Roni Setton; Amber W Lockrow; Natalie C Ebner; Gary R Turner; R Nathan Spreng; Felipe De Brigard
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2021-09-02

3.  How does the method change what we measure? Comparing virtual reality and text-based surveys for the assessment of moral decisions in traffic dilemmas.

Authors:  Leon René Sütfeld; Benedikt V Ehinger; Peter König; Gordon Pipa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Using quantitative trait in adults with ADHD to test predictions of dual-process theory.

Authors:  Emil Persson; Markus Heilig; Gustav Tinghög; Andrea J Capusan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  The effect of deliberative process on the self-sacrificial decisions of utilitarian healthcare students.

Authors:  Yongmin Shin; Seungmin Kim; Do-Hwan Kim; Seunghee Lee; Minhae Cho; Jungjoon Ihm
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Fickle Judgments in Moral Dilemmas: Time Pressure and Utilitarian Judgments in an Interdependent Culture.

Authors:  Hirofumi Hashimoto; Kaede Maeda; Kaede Matsumura
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-03

7.  Potential influence of decision time on punishment behavior and its evaluation.

Authors:  Kaede Maeda; Yuka Kumai; Hirofumi Hashimoto
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-08-22

8.  Resolving the Limitations of the CNI Model in Moral Decision Making Using the CAN Algorithm: A Methodological Contrast.

Authors:  Chun Feng; Chuanjun Liu
Journal:  Behav Sci (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-14

9.  Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms.

Authors:  Indrajeet Patil; Bastien Trémolière
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Perceiving utilitarian gradients: Heart rate variability and self-regulatory effort in the moral dilemma task.

Authors:  Alejandro Rosas; Juan Pablo Bermúdez; Jorge Martínez Cotrina; David Aguilar-Pardo; Juan Carlos Caicedo Mera; Diego Mauricio Aponte-Canencio
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.083

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.