Conflict detection during moral decision-making: evidence for deontic reasoners’ utilitarian sensitivity

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 631-639

  Białek, Michał ^a   de Neys, Wim ^b  

^a KOZMINSKI UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b Administrateur de l Institut universitaire de France   (France)

Author keywords

conflict detection; decision making; dual process theory; Moral judgment; moral reasoning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONFLICT; DEONTOLOGY; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; MALE; MORALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; RESPONSE TIME;

EID: 84961209895     PISSN: 20445911     EISSN: 2044592X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2016.1156118     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. J.Baron,, S.Scott,, K.Fincher,, & S.Emlen Metz, (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 265–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
2. M.Bialek,, S.Terbeck,, & S.J.Handley, (2014). Cognitive psychological support for the ADC model of moral judgment. AJOB Neuroscience, 5, 21–23. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2014.951790
3. M.M.Botvinick, (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366. doi: 10.3758/CABN.7.4.356
4. M.M.Botvinick,, T.S.Braver,, D.M.Barch,, C.S.Carter,, & J.D.Cohen, (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
5. P.Conway,, & B.Gawronski, (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235. doi: 10.1037/a0031021
6. W.De Neys, (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38. doi: 10.1177/1745691611429354
7. W.De Neys, (2015). Heuristic bias and conflict detection during thinking. In B.Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 62, pp. 1–32). Burlington: Academic Press.
8. W.De Neys,, & J.F.Bonnefon, (2013). The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 172–178. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001
9. W.De Neys,, & T.Glumicic, (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 1248–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002
10. W.De Neys,, S.Rossi,, & O.Houdé, (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 269–273. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5
11. A.Dershowitz, (2014). A choice of evils: Should democracies use torture to protect against terrorism? Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/17/torture-tool-fight-against-terrorist-groups-like-isis/1Tfqfk1Amck7Rh9kEra8IN/story.html
12. J.S.B.Evans, (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
13. J.S.B.Evans,, & K.E.Stanovich, (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685
14. P.Foot, (1978). The problem of abortion and negative and positive duty: A reply to James LeRoy Smith. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 3, 253–255. doi: 10.1093/jmp/3.3.253
15. C.Gericke,, A.Riesberg,, & R.Busse, (2005). Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 164–168. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007138
16. N.Gold,, A.M.Colman,, & B.D.Pulford, (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65–76.
17. N.Gold,, B.D.Pulford,, & A.M.Colman, (2013). Your money or your life: Comparing judgments in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury and death. Economics and Philosophy, 29, 213–233. doi: 10.1017/S0266267113000205
18. J.D.Greene, (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. Bloomsbury: Atlantic Books Ltd.
19. Greene, J. D. (2015). The rise of moral cognition. Cognition, 135, 39–42.
20. J.D.Greene,, & J.Haidt, (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9
21. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108, 814.
22. S.J.Handley,, & D.Trippas, (2015). Dual processes and the interplay between knowledge and structure: A new parallel processing model. In B.Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 62, pp. 33–58). Burlington: Academic Press.
23. G.Kahane, (2014). Intuition and deliberation in moral psychology. In J.D'Arms & D.Jacobson (Eds.), Moral psychology and human agency: Philosophical essays on the science of ethics (pp. 9–40). London: Oxford University Press.
24. D.Kahneman, (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
25. C.Klein, (2011). The dual track theory of moral decision-making: A critique of the neuroimaging evidence. Neuroethics, 4, 143–162. doi: 10.1007/s12152-010-9077-1
26. A.London, (2012). How should we model rare disease allocation decisions? Hastings Center Report, 42, 3. doi: 10.1002/hast.3
27. K.Mevel,, N.Poirel,, S.Rossi,, M.Cassotti,, G.Simon,, O.Houdé,, & W.De Neys, (2015). Bias detection: Response confidence evidence for conflict sensitivity in the ratio bias task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 227–237. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.986487
28. A.B.Moore,, B.A.Clark,, & M.J.Kane, (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 549–557. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x
29. A.B.Moore,, J.Stevens,, & A.R.Conway, (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment predict moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 621–625. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.006
30. K.Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, (2012, March 20). Health authorities now admit severe side effects of vaccination swine flu, pandemrix and narcolepsy. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. Retrieved from http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n10.shtml
31. S.Nichols, (2004). Folk concepts and intuitions: From philosophy to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 514–518. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.001
32. G.Pennycook,, J.A.Fugelsang,, & D.J.Koehler, (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
33. G.Pennycook,, D.Trippas,, S.Handley,, & V.Thompson, (2014). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 544–554.
34. E.B.Royzman,, & J.Baron, (2002). The preference for indirect harm. Social Justice Research, 15, 165–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1019923923537
35. E.J.Stupple,, L.J.Ball,, & D.Ellis, (2013). Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 54–77. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.735622
36. R.S.Suter,, & R.Hertwig, (2011). Time and moral judgment. Cognition, 119, 454–458. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.018
37. B.Trémolière,, & J.-F.Bonnefon, (2014). Efficient kill–save ratios ease up the cognitive demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 923–930. doi: 10.1177/0146167214530436
38. B.Trémolière,, & W.De Neys, (2013). Methodological concerns in moral judgment research: Severity of harm shapes moral decisions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 989–993. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.841169
39. B.Trémolière,, W.De Neys,, & J.-F.Bonnefon, (2012). Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition, 124, 379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.011
40. P.Valdesolo,, & D.DeSteno, (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x