bartels, pizarro
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Bartels, Pizarro
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bartels-pizarro 1/2
Cognition ?1 (3{i1 i 154- '161
j o u n a, ho m ep", -,
:-": : : : : : c o m , o c a e c o G N
i ' , !L
l@W
Brief article
Themisrneasuref morals:Antisocial ersonalityraitspredict
utilitarian esponseso moraldilemmas
Daniel M. Bartels'* , DaviclA. Pizarro
'' (birrniDin llrriveisity, lJris liull 502, 3A22 Broatlwuv,Ncty ]'ork. NY 10027,United Stotest'Dt:partment o.f Psyr.lxtlapy,orncll {./nivnrsit:y, 24 {.lris Hrrll, flt{!{d, I\ry'148.53, .lriitedSrurc.s
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article I'tistor.\t:
f le 'ceivecl2 lanuary20l i
Revised 7 M.tv 2011
Acr:r'pt<:r1 9 l\4a5r 01 I
Ar,.r i iable nl ine l i j JLIIV 01
1. Introduction
Moral judgments are unique. .ike many of our atti-
tudes, e.g., owarcla lavoritesports eanr) hey are often
central to our identity and are accompanied y strong
emr:tir:ns.Yet unlike these otlter .lttit ltdes,attitr.rdesn
fhe nroral domain come with a strongsense lrat ntlrers
slroulclagree-a senseol' narmativity Skitka, launran,&
Sargis, 005). n recentyears, esearchersravenradea
greatclealol'progrcssr:wardunderst.rndingheseuniqtie
.ir.rdgnrentsv propcsitrgranreworl<shai desrribe nd ex-plain various f'eatules f ntoral iLrclgmente.g., Saron&
Spranca,ggT: Greene,Snmnrerville, vslrom,Darley,&
ry Cotresponcl ingrr.tt l terr .el .:+' 121 2 854 1557.
E mail at\d es.s: nrb2 Mll€tcol u mbi a.edu i D.t\l. Ba tel s .
OOl0-027715 se e tot-ttm.l tter 'a)2011ElsevierB.V.Al l l ights ieserved.
doi: 1 .1 I 6i . i .cognition.20l.05.01O
Researchers ave receutly .lrgued tlrat utilitarianism is the appropliate framework by
r,v|ich o evaluatemoral .judgment,nd hat individualswho endorse on-utilitaliansolu-
tiot-)s o moral dilemm.rs invoirringactivevs. p.rssivehann) are committing .:lfl€tror. We
report a stucly n wlrich particip:rnts esponcled o a battery of personalityassesstrlents
ancla sel of riilemmas ha t pi t utilitarianan d non-utilitarianoptioltsagainsteachother.participants ho indic"lted reaterendorsernent f utititariansolutionsha d higher scores
c)n n-le.tsures.r fPsyr.hop.riir,v,.rr:lriavslli.rnism,nd lit'e meaninglessness.hese results
questiun he wiclely-r:sednef rocls y 1ry11i.hay moral rrdgments re evalualed, s these
appro:rclresea d to tlre counterintuitive onclusion lrat those ndiviclualswh o are least
prone to moral errors also possess1set of psychological haracteristicshat many wottld
r:onsiderprr.rl.otypir:ay immor.rl.iil 2011 ElsevierB.V.Al l rights reserved.
Colren, 001: Haidt & Joseph, 0A4: liev et al. , 2009;
Mikhail,2BA7:Nichols& IVlallon,AA6:Tetlock, 003).
Recently,ome heorists aveadopted strategy fconr-
paring people'smoral udgmenrs o a normativeerhical
standard-tlratnf utilitarianism-toevaluatehe rJualf6, f
mor';ri jr.rdgmente.g., Saron& Ititov, 2009; Greeneet al.,
2009:Sunstein, 005). n this paper,we question he close
identificatiolr f' r"rtilil.rrianesponses ith optimal moraljudgmentby ciemnnstr:atinglrat he endorsement f utili-
tariansolutionso a setof commonly-used loraldilemmas
correlates ith a setof psychologicalraits hat canbechar-.rcterizecls emotionallycallousanclmanipulative-traits
that most would perceive s not only psychologicallyn-
healthy, ut alsomorallyundesirable.'l'heseesults, e be-
lieve,give rise to an important methodological oncern:
namely, ha t [he nrethodswidely usedas a yardstick or
Iie-vwrtrds:
l\4orality
.lucign'rel'!tDecisicinmahing
Psychop.itfry
Valr.res
Et:llics
lnruit ion
Uti l i tar ianism
M.rchiavel l ianism
Ernot erns
Rr:asoning
fuloral ules
Nr.r t'leaning
Moral di lemmas
8/3/2019 Bartels, Pizarro
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bartels-pizarro 2/2
D.M.Bartt:ls,D.A.Pimno (.-ognitiotl121 QA|l) 154. 16I r5 5
determiningoptinlal morality(i.e., rssessingesponseso
nloral dilemmas ha t pi t the deathof r:nevs. he deathof
manv) may be rrackingwhai nr.rnywtrulcl egard rs ts
opposite-a mutedaversiotto causing person's earh.
1.1.Utilitariortisrn,eot$olagt, nd he enor-utd-bias
approuclt n marcrlpsycltolo5gy
'fhe questionof how to determinewlriclt nlor.rlclaims
anddecisions recorrecthas raditionallybeen he dcmain
of normativeethics n plrilosophy.Oneof the biggest e-
bates n the field has centeredon the questictn f whiclt
principle(s) should guide our mor.1l evaluations,with
many philosophers efendingone of two approacheso
determine he morallv right courseof action.One he one
hand.deontological pproaches escribe set of rules or
principles h.1tsen'eas constraints n what kinds of ac-
tions are morally pennissible e.g.. he constraint hat it
is morally nrbidden o taliean nnocent ife).On he other
hancl. tilifalianismargues hat rn'hats morally equireds
besfdeteimined by onesinrple ule-whether or not an ac-
tion brings about he greatestotal well-being.Fo r psychologiststudying norality, hi s philosophical
deb.rtehasprovicleda conceptr"ralackdrop tlr the descrip-
tive study of moral udgnrent. .Isinghe moral dilemmas
first introcluced y philosophers ngagedn this clebate.psychologistsaveexploredwhen ay moral ntuitionsap -pear o aclhereo the presclipt ionsf deontologicalort i l-
itarianapproaclres.ncreasingly, ranypsychologistsave
adopted these nonrlillive liameworks ;ls a stanclarcl y
ra;hiclro erialuatehe qualityof the nroral ntuitions lrem-
selves, rguing hat tht study of bias n the nroraldottt.tin
canhelp mprovemcraldecisionm;king.Sonre iewdeon-
tologic;rl"iuclgmentss cognitiveet'rors, kin to the ert'ors
that result from using her.rristicsn other r-rdgmentaio-
n't.lins.Jaron nd Ritorr 2009)ntake his assunrptiott ali-
ent. stating tlrat "decisions made on the basis of
deontologicalprinciplesusr:ally ead to results hat are
no t as goodas the besr hat could be aclrieved."p. 136).
Others have .rrrivecl t similar conclusions--thathe use
of non-utilitarian"herrristics" an lead to peruasive nc l
dangerouserrors in moral udgment,and even to judg-
ments hat borderon absurdity e.g., unstein, 005).'l'hechar.rcterizationf non-r.rtilitari.ln oraldecisitlns
as errorsof udgrnent s especially ronouncedn research
on the role of emol-ionn nroraljudgment.Such nvestig.r-
tinns rave ncreasinglyeliedon the methodof recording
p.1r'ticipclnls'esponses o "sacrificial"dilemmas,where
the questionof whether to kill a person o Prevent thers
from dying is posed.For example,consider fhomson's
(1985) ootbridge ase:
In the palh of a runaway rain car"1r€iV€ ailw"rvworl<-
nrenwho will surelybe killed unless ou ,a bystander. osomething. ou are stancling n a pedestrian,ar.rlkwayha t
archesover the tracksnext to a largestranger. our body
would be too light to stop the train, but if you puslr he
strangeronto the trac!<s, illing him, l't is arge body will
stop the train. n tlris sitr"ration,ould you pushhiinl
Adopringa dual-process pproach o rnoral ridgntent,
Creene rnd colleagues avecollected vidence hat when
evaluatingnroral dilemrnas hat are cspecially motional
(like he {botbridge ase),ndividuals"rre ikely o favor he
utilitarianoptior"r hen the "deliberative"mental system
is recruited Greene t al.,2001 .Consistent ith the mot'al
her"rristicspproach escribed bove,Greetre t al. (2009)
equ.lte he tenclencvo mal<e on-utilitarianmor.rl udg-
mentswhile under he influence f the "intuitive" system
to the endencyo stereotypeacial rinorities ncler imilar
condit ionsp.11a5), rguingha tnon-uti l i tarianjudgments
ar enot nnly ess-than-ide.rl,ut potentially amaging.
One mplication f adopting utiliralian ranteworl<sa
normative t.rndardn the psvchologicaltudvof morality
is he nevitable onciusionhat thevast najorityof people
are often mor"rllywrong. For instance,when presented
with Thomson's cratbridge ilemtna.as many as 909,1f
people reject the utilit.rrian response iVtikhail,2007)"
I\4any hilosophersavealso ejer-:tedtilitarianism, rgu-
ing that t is in.rdequaten important,mor.rllymeaningful
ways,and hat t presents n especiallympoverishediew
of humans s locations f ut i l i t ies andnotlr ingmore]. "
ancl ha t"persons o not countas ndividuals.. anymore
than individrral etrol anksdo in the analysis f the na -
t ionalconsumption f petroleum" Se n& Will iams.1982,p.4). For hosewho endorse tilitarianism,he ubiquitotts
discomfr:rtoward ts conclusionsoints o the pessimistic
possibilit5,hat humannroraljudgments evenmoreprone
to error than many other lorms ol ' udgmenl, and that
attempting o improve he qualityof mnraljudgrnentwill
be a steepuphill battle.
Before rawing hoseconclusions,t might proveuseful
to investigatendividualswho are nlore ikely to endorse
utilitariansolutions nd perhaps se hem as a psycholog-
icalprototype 1'theoptinial" noraljudge.What do those
10?,1f peoplewho are comforrablewith the utilitarian
solntion o the footbriclge ilemm.r ook ike? Nlight hese
r.rtilitarians arie otlrer psychological haracteristicsn
corrrrrron?ecenriy.onsistenlwith tlie view that rational
individuals re more ikelv o endorse t i l i tarianisme.g.,
Creeneet ;r1., i101), variety ol' researchersave shownthat individualswith lrigher working memory capacity
ancl hosewho are nrorecleliberativehinkersare, ncleed,
more liltely to approve :f utilitarian solutions Bartels,
2008; :eltz& Cokely, 008; Monre,Clark,& l(ane,2008).
ln fact,one well-defined roupof utilitarians iltelyshares
l"hese haracteristicss well-the subselof philosophers
and behavioral cientistsruho ave oncludedhat utilitar-
ianism s the propernorntative lhical heory.
Yet n addition o tlie ink betweeudeliberativehinkers
anclutilitarian udgments, here is anotlrerpossiblepsy-
chological ollte to utilitarian preferences-theability to
inhibit ernotional eactionso harm (o r the inabil ity o
experience uchernotionsn the first place).For nstance,p.ltients vithdamage o Lhe entrOmedial re-frontal or -
tex,who haveernotional eficits imilar o thoseobseruedin psychopathsleadingsome esearcherso refer o this
type of brain damageas "acquiredsociopathy";Saver&
Danr.rsio,991), remore ikelv o endorse tilitariansolu-
tions o sacrificial ilemnras l(oenigs t al..2007).Yet t is
alwavsquestionableo gener.rlizelromclinical popula-
tions.as heir deficits night ead o utilitarian udgments
throughqualitativell' lifferenr sychological echanisms
than tiroseat work iu nan*clinicai opulations.