The Morality Game: Is the Evaluation of the Instrumental Utility of Moral Dilemmas Related to Decision Outcomes
https://doi.org/10.25205/2658-4506-2023-16-1-5-28
Abstract
This article investigates the relation of the evaluation of the instrumental utility of moral dilemmas to decision outcomes. The results indicate that nuances of dilemma perception assessed in the study (perceived realism of dilemmas, their plausibility, reflection of real behavior and an assessment of the extent to which responses to moral dilemmas can be used to judge moral maturity, empathy, level of intelligence and sense of humor) are not significantly related to objective behavior, as expressed in the number of consequentialist responses. Instruction about the nature of the study, however, may influence the moral choices made. Participants who were informed by instruction that their personality could be judged by their responses to moral dilemmas gave more deontological responses than others. An explanation is proposed that such instruction acts as a factor that provokes the adoption of the role of the apprehensive participant and, as a consequence, socially desirable behavior. This aspect highlights the importance of considering contextual factors in the study of moral behavior. It is suggested that moral dilemmas should not be viewed through the lens of ecological validity but rather as a tool that allows for a high level of experimental control, facilitating a more indepth study of behavior under specific stimulus conditions
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project № 23-28-00771
About the Authors
A. A. Fedorov
Novosibirsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexandr A. Fedorov – PhD, Head of the Section of Clinical Psychology at the Institute of Medicine and Psychology of Novosibirsk State University, Leading Researcher of the Laboratory of Moral Behavior
Scopus Author ID 48661946900
Author ID RSCI 201674
Novosibirsk
M. V. Zlobina
Novosibirsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Zlobina – senior lecturer of the Section of Personality Psychology at the V. Zelman Institute for the Medicine and Psychology of Novosibirsk State University, Researcher of the Laboratory of Moral Behavior
RSCI Author ID 959328
Novosibirsk
References
1. Naisser, U. (1981). Poznanie i realnost. Smysl i printcipy kognitivnoi psikhologii [Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology]. M.: Progress (in Russ.)
2. Bannister D. Psychology as an exercise in paradox // Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 1966. Vol. 19. № 63. P. 21–26.
3. Bauman C. W., McGraw A. P. et al. Revisiting External Validity: Concerns about Trolley Problems and Other Sacrificial Dilemmas in Moral Psychology // Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2014. Vol. 8. № 9. P. 536–554.
4. Bostyn D. H., Roets A. Sequential decision-making impacts moral judgment: How iterative dilemmas can expand our perspective on sacrificial harm // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2022. Vol. 98. P. 104244.
5. Bostyn D. H., Sevenhant S. et al. Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas // Psychological Science. 2018. Vol. 29. № 7. P. 1084–1093.
6. Capraro V., Sippel J. et al. People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are // PLoS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. № 10. P. e0205066.
7. Chen K., Zhang H. et al. The authentic catch-22: Following the true self promotes decision satisfaction in moral dilemmas // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2022. Vol. 102. P. 104376.
8. Chorus C. G. Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis // Journal of Choice Modelling. 2015. Vol. 16. P. 69–85.
9. Christensen J. F., Gomila A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2012. Vol. 36. № 4. P. 1249–1264.
10. Crone D. L., Laham S. M. Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? Deconfounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas // Personality and Individual Differences. 2017. Vol. 104. P. 476–481.
11. Dunlosky J., Bottiroli S. et al. Sins committed in the name of ecological validity: A call for representative design in education science // Handbook of metacognition in education The educational psychology series. New York, NY, US: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. PP. 430–440.
12. FeldmanHall O., Mobbs D. et al. What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices // Cognition. 2012. Vol. 123. № 3. P. 434–441.
13. Friesdorf R., Conway P. et al. Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas: A Process Dissociation Analysis // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015. Vol. 41. № 5. P. 696–713.
14. Holleman G. A., Hooge I. T. C. et al. The ‘Real-World Approach’ and Its Problems: A Critique of the Term Ecological Validity // Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. Vol. 11.
15. Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1961.
16. Kahane G. Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment // Social Neuroscience. 2015. Vol. 10. № 5. P. 551–560.
17. Keshmirian A., Deroy O. et al. Many heads are more utilitarian than one // Cognition. 2022. Т. 220. P. 104965.
18. Körner A., Deutsch R. Deontology and Utilitarianism in Real Life: A Set of Moral Dilemmas Based on Historic Events // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2023. Vol. 49. № 10. P. 1511–1528.
19. Körner A., Joffe S. et al. When skeptical, stick with the norm: Low dilemma plausibility increases deontological moral judgments // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 84. P. 103834.
20. Lee M., Sul S. et al. Social observation increases deontological judgments in moral dilemmas // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2018. Vol. 39. № 6. P. 611–621.
21. Lee M. D., Wagenmakers E.-J. Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
22. Lucas B. J., Livingston R. W. Feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in moral dilemmas // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014. Vol. 53. P. 1–4.
23. McNair S., Okan Y. et al. Age differences in moral judgment: Older adults are more deontological than younger adults // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2019. Vol. 32. № 1. P. 47–60.
24. Mills Wesley. The nature of animal intelligence and the methods of investigating it // Psychological Review. 1899. Vol. 6. № 3. P. 262–274.
25. Mook D. G. In defense of external invalidity // American Psychologist. 1983. Vol. 38. № 4. P. 379–387.
26. Reynolds C. J., Knighten K. R. et al. Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is deontological? Completing moral dilemmas in front of mirrors increases deontological but not utilitarian response tendencies // Cognition. 2019. Т. 192. P. 103993.
27. Rom S. C., Conway P. The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 74. P. 24–37.
28. Schein C. The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 207–215.
29. Schmuckler M. A. What Is Ecological Validity? A Dimensional Analysis // Infancy. 2001. Vol. 2. № 4. P. 419–436.
30. Thorndike E. A reply to «The nature of animal intelligence and the methods of investigating it» // Psychological Review. 1899. Vol. 6. № 4. P. 412–420.
31. Weber S. J., Cook T. D. Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference // Psychological Bulletin. 1972. Vol. 77. № 4. P. 273–295
32. Wilcox R. R. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing. Philadelphia: Academic Press, 2021.
Review
For citations:
Fedorov A.A., Zlobina M.V. The Morality Game: Is the Evaluation of the Instrumental Utility of Moral Dilemmas Related to Decision Outcomes. Reflexio. 2023;16(1):5-28. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/2658-4506-2023-16-1-5-28
Views:
340
Email this article 
