The effect of analytic and experiential modes of thought on moral judgment.

According to dual-process theories, moral judgments are the result of two competing processes: a fast, automatic, affect-driven process and a slow, deliberative, reason-based process. Accordingly, these models make clear and testable predictions about the influence of each system. Although a small number of studies have attempted to examine each process independently in the context of moral judgment, no study has yet tried to experimentally manipulate both processes within a single study. In this chapter, a well-established "mode-of-thought" priming technique was used to place participants in either an experiential/emotional or analytic mode while completing a task in which participants provide judgments about a series of moral dilemmas. We predicted that individuals primed analytically would make more utilitarian responses than control participants, while emotional priming would lead to less utilitarian responses. Support was found for both of these predictions. Implications of these findings for dual-process theories of moral judgment will be discussed.

[1]  J. Thomson Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. , 1976, The Monist.

[2]  Daniel M. Bartels,et al.  Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making , 2008, Cognition.

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

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

[5]  Joshua D. Greene Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  A. Damasio Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. avon books , 1994 .

[7]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[9]  J. Moll,et al.  The Neural Basis of Moral Cognition , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  J. Haidt The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

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

[12]  A. Damasio Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York (Grosset/Putnam) 1994. , 1994 .

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

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

[15]  J. Piaget The Moral Judgment of the Child , 1932 .

[16]  C. Gilligan In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. , 1977 .

[17]  Claudio Lucchiari,et al.  Gender-related differences in moral judgments , 2010, Cognitive Processing.

[18]  Olga Antonenko,et al.  Gender differences in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. , 2008, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[19]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment , 2008, Cognition.