"But He's My Brother": How Family Obligation Impacts Moral Judgments

We created practical moral dilemmas for which participants role-played witnessing a transgression by a target person. The identity of the transgressor was manipulated to be either a stranger or the participant’s brother. Participants made factual and unethicality judgments regarding the incident and reported their willingness to report the transgressor to the police. When the factual situation was ambiguous, participants interpreted the facts in favor of the target person when that target was their brother. This family favoritism in turn led to partial moral judgments and decisions, while creating overall coherence. When it was made clear that their brother actually committed the transgression, partiality in unethicality judgment was reduced but partiality in the decision to report persisted, even though overall coherence was thereby reduced. Using path analyses, we show how strong moral constraints such as family obligation can shift moral reasoning processes.

[1]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Deontological coherence: A framework for commonsense moral reasoning. , 2016, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Keith J. Holyoak,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction , 2022 .

[3]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  P. Bloom.  FAMILY, COMMUNITY, TROLLEY PROBLEMS, AND THE CRISIS IN MORAL PSYCHOLOGY , 2011 .

[5]  J. Haidt.  The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology , 2007, Science.

[6]  Margaret G. Meloy,et al.  The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  L. J. Regan.  PRACTICAL ETHICS. , 1943, California and western medicine.

[8]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment , 2001, Science.

[9]  Leonardo Franklin Fontenelle,et al.  Pathological generosity: An atypical impulse control disorder after a left subcortical stroke , 2014, Neurocase.

[10]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  The motivated use of moral principles , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[11]  Kate M. Johnson,et al.  Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. , 2016, Current opinion in psychology.

[12]  S. Read,et al.  The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  W. Hamilton.  The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  T. Nagel.  The view from nowhere , 1987 .

[15]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction , 1999 .

[16]  Katja Wiech,et al.  The neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgment , 2011, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[17]  Shinobu Kitayama,et al.  Some Neo-Darwinian Decision Rules for Altruism: Weighing Cues for Inclusive Fitness as a Function of the Biological Importance of the Decision , 1994 .

[18]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy. , 1998 .

[19]  S. Read,et al.  The Coherence Effect: Blending Cold and Hot Cognitions , 2015, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  J. Graham,et al.  When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize , 2007 .

[21]  P. Foot.  The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect , 2020, The Doctrine of Double Effect.

[22]  Mina Cikara,et al.  On the wrong side of the trolley track: neural correlates of relative social valuation. , 2010, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.