Bartels, Pizarro

2
Cognition ?1 (3{i1 i 154-'161 j o u n a, ho m e p ", -, :-": : :: :: c o m , o c ae c o G N i',!L l @ W Briefarticle T h e misrneasurefmorals:Antisocialersonalityraits predict utilitarian esponses o moraldilemmas DanielM. Bartels '* , DaviclA. Pizarro '' (birrniDin llrriveisity, lJris liull 502, 3A22 Broatlwuv, Ncty ]'ork. NY 10027, United Stotes t'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: fle'ceivecl 2 lanuary 20li Revised 7 M.tv 2011 Acr:r'pt<:r19 l\4a5r 01 I Ar,.riiable nline lij JLIIV01 1. Introduction Moral judgmentsare 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 .lttitltdes,attitr.rdesn fhe nroraldomain comewith a strongsense lrat ntlrers slroulclagree-a senseol' narmativity Skitka, launran, & Sargis, 005). n recentyears, esearchersravenrade a greatclealol'progrcssr:wardunderst.rndingheseuniqtie .ir.rdgnrents v propcsitrgranreworl<shai desrribe nd ex - plain various f'eatules f ntoral iLrclgment e.g.,Saron& Spranca,ggT: Greene,Snmnrerville, vslrom,Darley,& ry Cotresponclingrr.ttlterr. el.:+'1212 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-tt m.ltter'a)2011Elsevier B.V.All lights ieserved. doi: .1 I 6i.i.cognition.20 O 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 invoirringactive vs. p.rssivehann) are committing .:lfl€tror. We report a stucly n wlrich particip:rnts esponcled o a battery of personalityassesstrlents ancla selof riilemmas ha t pi t utilitarianan dnon-utilitarianoptioltsagainsteachother. participants ho indic"lted reaterendorsernentf utititariansolutionsha d higher scores c)nn-le.tsures.rfPsyr.hop.riir,v,.rr:lriavslli.rnism,nd lit'e meaninglessness. hese results questiun he wiclely-r:sednef rocls y 1ry11i.h ay moral rrdgments re evalualed, s these appro:rclresea d to tlre counterintuitive onclusion lrat those ndivicluals wh o are least prone to moral errors also possess1set of psychological haracteristicshat many wottld r:onsiderprr.rl.otypir:a y 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 av eadopted strategy fconr- paringpeople'smoral udgmenrs o a normativeerhical standard-tlrat nf utilitarianism-to evaluatehe rJualf6, f mor';ri jr.rdgment e.g.,Saron& Ititov, 2009; Greeneet al., 2009:Sunstein,005).n this paper, we question he close identificatiolr f' r"rtilil.rrianesponses ith optimalmoral judgmentby ciemnnstr:ating lrat he endorsement f utili- tariansolutionso a setof commonly-usedloraldilemmas correlates ith a setof psychological raits hat ca nbechar- .rcterizecls emotionallycallousanclmanipulative-traits that mostwould perceive not only psychologically n- healthy, ut alsomorallyundesirable.'l'hese esults, 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'!t Decisicin mahing Psychop.itfry Valr.res Et:llics lnruition Utilitarianism M.rchiavellianism Ernot erns Rr:asoning fuloral ules Nr.r t'leaning Moral dilemmas

Transcript of Bartels, Pizarro

Page 1: Bartels, Pizarro

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

Page 2: Bartels, Pizarro

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.