Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

How do people make judgments about actions that violate moral norms yet maximize the greater good (e.g., sacrificing the well-being of a small number of people for the well-being of a larger number of people)? Research on this question has been criticized for relying on highly artificial scenarios and for conflating multiple distinct factors underlying responses in moral dilemmas. The current article reviews research that used a computational modeling approach to disentangle the roles of multiple distinct factors in responses to plausible moral dilemmas based on real-world events. By disentangling sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general preference for inaction versus action in responses to realistic dilemmas, the reviewed work provides a more nuanced understanding of how people make judgments about the right course of action in moral dilemmas.

Negative emotionality downregulation affects moral choice but not moral judgement of harm: a pharmacological study

Previous neuroscientific research has expounded on the fundamental role played by emotion during moral decision-making. Negative emotionality has been observed to exert a general inhibitory effect towards harmful behaviors against others. Nevertheless, the downregulation of negative affects at different levels of moral processing (e.g. impersonal versus personal moral dilemmas) alongside its possible interactions with other factors (e.g. perspective taking) hasn't been directly assessed; both of which can assist in predicting future moral decision-making. In the present research, we empirically test (Study 1, N = 41) whether downregulating negative emotionality through pharmacological interventions using lorazepam (a GABA receptor agonist), modulate the permissibility of harm to others -i.e. if participants find it more morally permissible to harm others when harm is unavoidable (inevitable harm moral dilemmas), than when it may be avoided (evitable harm moral dilemmas). Furthermore, using another sample (Study 2, N = 31), we assess whether lorazepam's effect is modulated by different perspective-taking conditions during a moral dilemma task -e.g. "is it morally permissible for you to […]?" (1st person perspective), relative to "is it morally permissible for [x individual] to […]?" (3rd person perspective)-, where the outcome of the different scenarios is controlled. The results of both studies converge, revealing an emotion-dependent, rather than an outcome-dependent, pharmacological modulation. Lorazepam only influenced interpersonal moral judgments when not modulated by the evitable/inevitable condition. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between perspective-taking and drug administration, as lorazepam exerted a larger effect in modulating moral choices rather than moral judgements.

Social threat indirectly increases moral condemnation via thwarting fundamental social needs

Individuals who experience threats to their social needs may attempt to avert further harm by condemning wrongdoers more severely. Three pre-registered studies tested whether threatened social esteem is associated with increased moral condemnation. In Study 1 (N = 381) participants played a game in which they were socially included or excluded and then evaluated the actions of moral wrongdoers. We observed an indirect effect: Exclusion increased social needs-threat, which in turn increased moral condemnation. Study 2 (N = 428) was a direct replication, and also showed this indirect effect. Both studies demonstrated the effect across five moral foundations, and was most pronounced for harm violations. Study 3 (N = 102) examined dispositional concerns about social needs threat, namely social anxiety, and showed a positive correlation between this trait and moral judgments. Overall, results suggest threatened social standing is linked to moral condemnation, presumably because moral wrongdoers pose a further threat when one's ability to cope is already compromised.

Testosterone and cortisol do not predict rejecting harm or maximizing outcomes in sacrificial moral dilemmas: A preregistered analysis

Contemporary moral psychology explores the biological underpinnings of morality, including how neuromodulators influence moral judgment and decision making. Some studies suggest that higher circulating testosterone is associated with increased acceptance of sacrificial harm, such as killing one person to save five lives, consistent with utilitarian ethics and inconsistent with deontological ethics. However, most studies employ conventional analytic techniques that conflate concern about outcomes with reduced concern about sacrificial harm, many are statistically underpowered, and none examine potential regulating effects of cortisol. Therefore, we examined whether salivary concentrations of testosterone and cortisol jointly predict sacrificial dilemma judgments among a large sample of undergraduates (n = 199). We utilized an advanced cognitive modeling technique (process dissociation) to independently assess sensitivity to causing harm and maximizing outcomes, preregistering the prediction that higher testosterone would predict reduced harm-rejection rather than increased concern for outcomes, especially among people low in cortisol. However, neither testosterone, nor cortisol, nor their interaction predicted sacrificial dilemma response tendencies. Such findings raise questions about the robustness of past evidence suggesting links between testosterone and sacrificial dilemma judgments.

Androgenic morality? Associations of sex, oral contraceptive use and basal testosterone levels with moral decision making

Aside from cultural, psychological, or situational factors, differences in moral judgements might also be influenced by biological variables. Since previous studies have reported stronger utilitarian tendencies in men, the relationship between testosterone and moral judgments has gained interest. Utilitarian judgements focus on the consequences of an action in terms of a cost-benefit analysis while deontological judgements are based on rules that are independent of an action's outcome or of situational features. We investigated decisions in moral dilemma situations in N = 157 young adults using a process dissociation approach to allow an independent estimate of underlying utilitarianism and deontology. Significant effects of sex (p = .009) and endocrine status (p = .011) on utilitarianism were found with the highest levels in men and the lowest in free cycling women while oral contraceptive users fell in between. Furthermore, there were correlations of salivary testosterone with utilitarianism in free cycling women (r = .303) and with deontology in men (r = -0.263) while no significant associations between testosterone and moral choices were found in oral contraceptive users. However, the duration of contraceptive use correlated negatively with deontology (r = -.316). The findings underscore the role of sex, endocrine status as well as testosterone in moral judgements but also point to specific associations depending on sex and oral contraceptive use.

The Multifaceted Effects of Serotonin Transporter Polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) on Anxiety, Implicit Moral Attitudes, and Harmful Behaviors

Morality is fundamentally human in nature. Regardless, and even when moral norms seem to work toward the common goal of human cooperation, which morally contentious behaviors are permitted and which are prohibited vary across populations. Because of this occurrence, much scientific debate has revolved around the notion that this phenomenon might be explained by the interaction between genes and environment. Alongside, whether the principles cementing the bases of morality are intuition- or reason-based is another question that has been raised. However, previous research addressing these topics used explicit measures to probe moral attitudes, thus being the participants able to intentionally modify or disguise their honest responses. What's more, while the 5-HTT gene was found to be associated with anxiety, morality, and even cultural structures, a single genotype-phenotype linkage cannot be established without considering the multifaceted effects of the 5-HTT gene on gene-behavior interactions. In order to explore the role of genetics on modeling moral attitudes and behaviors, we genotyped the 5-HTTLPR in 114 healthy volunteers and subsequently assessed their explicit justice sensitivity (Justice Sensitivity Inventory) and moral permissibility judgments, as well as their implicit moral attitudes [moral implicit association task (mIAT)]. Results revealed that 5-HTTLPR short-allele carriers had significantly lower mIAT reaction times when answering correctly and were less compliant on harming another person even when harm or death would inevitably occur anyway to this other individual. With these preliminary results, we can first see how it does not have to be a matter of vouching for a rationalist versus an intuitionist model of moral judgment, but rather being moral judgment an outcome of the different variants of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism affecting the way in which individuals engage contrastingly with moral issues.

A genetic profile of oxytocin receptor improves moral acceptability of outcome-maximizing harm in male insurance brokers

In recent years, conflicting findings have been reported in the scientific literature about the influence of dopaminergic, serotonergic and oxytocinergic gene variants on moral behavior. Here, we utilized a moral judgment paradigm to test the potential effects on moral choices of three polymorphisms of the Oxytocin receptor (OXTR): rs53576, rs2268498 and rs1042770. We analyzed the influence of each single polymorphism and of genetic profiles obtained by different combinations of their genotypes in a sample of male insurance brokers (n = 129), as compared to control males (n = 109). Insurance brokers resulted significantly more oriented to maximize outcomes than control males, thus they expressed more than controls the utilitarian attitude phenotype. When analyzed individually, none of the selected variants influenced the responses to moral dilemmas. In contrast, a composite genetic profile that potentially increases OXTR activity was associated with higher moral acceptability in brokers. We hypothesize that this genetic profile promotes outcome-maximizing behavior in brokers by focusing their attention on what represents a greater good, that is, saving the highest number of people, even though at the cost of sacrificing one individual. Our data suggest that investigations in a sample that most expresses the phenotype of interest, combined with the analysis of composite genetic profiles rather than individual variants, represent a promising strategy to find out weak genetic influences on complex phenotypes, such as moral behavior.

Power and moral thinking

This review synthesizes research on how feelings of power affect the processing of moral information. Although power is typically viewed as a potentially corruptive force that reduces our morality, we propose that power amplifies moral thinking - but does so in different ways that potentially run in opposite directions. Building on the Moral Orientation Scale framework [1^•], we propose that power increases the tendency to deliberate about moral questions, increases the tendency to integrate feelings and cognitions, and increases the adherence to principles and rules. Feelings of power do not corrupt, but lead to a more rich, mature, and multifaceted form of morality.

Paradoxical Effects of Power on Moral Thinking: Why Power Both Increases and Decreases Deontological and Utilitarian Moral Decisions

The current research explores the role of power in moral decision-making. Some work suggests that power increases utilitarianism; other work suggests power increases deontological judgments. Conversely, we propose that power can both increase and decrease both deontological and utilitarian decisions by building on two recent insights in moral psychology. First, we utilize the moral orientation scale to assess four thinking styles that jointly predict moral dilemma decisions. Second, we employ process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian judgments as orthogonal rather than opposite constructs. We conducted two preregistered confirmatory studies that replicated exploratory findings. In Study 1, power increased three moral thinking styles: integration, deliberation, and rule orientation. In Study 2, these decision-making styles simultaneously mediated the effects of power on utilitarian and deontological responses in opposing ways, leading to null effects overall. These results reconcile previous findings and demonstrate the complex yet systematic effects power has on moral decision-making.

Moral Hindsight

Abstract. How are judgments in moral dilemmas affected by uncertainty, as opposed to certainty? We tested the predictions of a consequentialist and deontological account using a hindsight paradigm. The key result is a hindsight effect in moral judgment. Participants in foresight, for whom the occurrence of negative side effects was uncertain, judged actions to be morally more permissible than participants in hindsight, who knew that negative side effects occurred. Conversely, when hindsight participants knew that no negative side effects occurred, they judged actions to be more permissible than participants in foresight. The second finding was a classical hindsight effect in probability estimates and a systematic relation between moral judgments and probability estimates. Importantly, while the hindsight effect in probability estimates was always present, a corresponding hindsight effect in moral judgments was only observed among “consequentialist” participants who indicated a cost-benefit trade-off as most important for their moral evaluation.