Abstract: This study aimed at assessing whether and to what extent moral judgment and behaviour were: 1. situation-dependent; 2. selectively dependent on cognitive and affective components; 3. influenced by gender and age; 4. reciprocally congruent. In order to achieve these aims, four different types of moral dilemmas were construed and five types of thinking were presented for each of them – representing five possible ways to evaluate the situation. The judgment criteria included selfishness, altruism, sense of justice, and the conflict between selfishness and the two moral issues. The participants were 250 unpaid volunteers (50% male; 50% female) belonging to two age-groups: young people and adults. The study entailed a 2 (gender) x 2 (age-group) x 5 (type of thinking) x 4 (situation) mixed design: the first two variables were betweensubjects, the others were within-subjects. Results have shown that: 1. moral judgment and behaviour are at least partially affected by the type of situations and by interpersonal variables such as gender and age; 2. moral reasoning depends in a similar manner on cognitive and affective factors; 3. there is not a gender polarity between the ethic of justice and the ethic of cure/ altruism; 4. moral reasoning and behavior are perceived as reciprocally congruent even though their congruence decreases with a more objective assessment. Such results were discussed in the light of contrasting theories on morality.
Abstract: Moral decisions are considered as an intuitive process,
while conscious reasoning is mostly used only to justify those
intuitions. This problem is described in few different dual-process
theories of mind, that are being developed e.g. by Frederick and
Kahneman, Stanovich and Evans. Those theories recently evolved
into tri-process theories with a proposed process that makes ultimate
decision or allows to paraformal processing with focal bias..
Presented experiment compares the decision patterns to the
implications of those models.
In presented study participants (n=179) considered different
aspects of trolley dilemma or its footbridge version and decided after
that.
Results show that in the control group 70% of people decided to
use the lever to change tracks for the running trolley, and 20% chose
to push the fat man down the tracks. In contrast, after experimental
manipulation almost no one decided to act. Also the decision time
difference between dilemmas disappeared after experimental
manipulation.
The result supports the idea of three co-working processes:
intuitive (TASS), paraformal (reflective mind) and algorithmic
process.