Contemporary morality: Moral judgments in digital contexts

Nowadays, several of the situations in which we have to make decisions are in digital form. In a first experiment (N=1010) we showed that people’s moral judgments depend on the Digital Context (Smartphone vs. PC) in which a dilemma is presented, becoming more utilitarian (vs. deontological) when using Smartphones in high conflict moral dilemmas. To provide additional evidence, we ran a second (N=250) and a third experiment (N=300), where we introduced time constraints and we manipulated time instructions. Our results provide an extended perspective on Dual-Process Models of Moral Judgment, as we showed that the use of smartphones, often assumed to be hurried which would be consistent with gut-feeling decision-making, increased the likelihood of utilitarian responses and decreased deontological ones. We suggest that the increase in utilitarian judgments is a result of inducing high construal, increasing psychological distance and giving rise to an abstract representation of actions. A fourth experiment (N=1211), where we measured psychological distance, provided some first evidence for our hypotheses. This is one of the first studies to look at the impact of the digital age on moral judgments and the results presented have consequences for understanding moral choice in our increasingly virtualized world.

[1]  R. Adolphs,et al.  Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements , 2007, Nature.

[2]  T. Wheatley,et al.  Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe , 2005, Psychological science.

[3]  Petko Kusev,et al.  Judging the morality of utilitarian actions: How poor utilitarian accessibility makes judges irrational , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[5]  J. Fernández-Dols,et al.  Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism , 2013 .

[6]  Y. Trope,et al.  The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. , 2002 .

[7]  Peter Singer,et al.  A companion to ethics , 1993 .

[8]  Anita Körner,et al.  Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments☆ , 2014 .

[9]  David A. Ellis,et al.  Predicting Smartphone Operating System from Personality and Individual Differences , 2016, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[10]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[11]  Rumen Iliev,et al.  WITHDRAWN: Consequences are far away: Psychological distance affects modes of moral decision making. , 2012, Cognition.

[12]  Andrew D. Engell,et al.  The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment , 2004, Neuron.

[13]  J. Thomson The Trolley Problem , 1985 .

[14]  J. Walther Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[15]  J. Hampton,et al.  Patterns and evolution of moral behaviour: moral dynamics in everyday life , 2016 .

[16]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Time and moral judgment , 2011, Cognition.

[17]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[18]  L. Skitka,et al.  Morality in everyday life , 2014, Science.

[19]  Albert Costa,et al.  Your Morals Depend on Language , 2014, PloS one.

[20]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[21]  E. D. Lawson,et al.  Social Psychological Aspects of Personal-Naming. , 1988 .

[22]  V. Benet‐Martínez,et al.  Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  Hugh Upton,et al.  A companion to ethics , 1994 .

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

[25]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  The Refugees' Dilemma: not all deontological moral choices are of the same kind , 2017, CogSci.

[26]  张静,et al.  Banana Ovate family protein MaOFP1 and MADS-box protein MuMADS1 antagonistically regulated banana fruit ripening , 2015 .

[27]  G. Cornelissen,et al.  Rules or Consequences? The Role of Ethical Mind-Sets in Moral Dynamics , 2012, Psychological science.

[28]  Joshua D. Greene Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie , 2009 .

[29]  D. DeSteno,et al.  Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment , 2006, Psychological science.

[30]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  How (and where) does moral judgment work? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Marc Le Menestrel,et al.  Rules or consequences? The role of ethical mindsets in moral dynamics , 2012 .