15examined corpora of everyday discussions and evaluated how many of these are devoted to morality. Moreover, Krupp and Maciejewski 14 discussed the evolutionary aspects of self-sacrifice in the context of interactions between sedentary actors and kinship, and Atari et al. 13 examined cultural differences in moral parochialism judgments. 5 examined whether political ideology affects moral decisions regarding money allocations, and Holbrook et al. In another study, norms and knowledge of other people’s actions were found to affect risk-based decisions concerning others’ wellbeing 7.Īt the time of writing this editorial, the Collection included studies that examine other aspects of model decisions. Interestingly, no evidence was found for diffusion of responsibility on moral behavior, while diffusion was found to affect moral judgment and punishment. 12 studied the moral judgment of individuals that performed moral transgressions against their own or in group, where causal responsibility may appear to be diffused. 9 studied the hypothesis that voting may lead to diffused responsibility, and through it to more selfish and immoral behavior. Two studies examined the effect of diffusion of moral responsibility and causality. The use of such different approaches in the study of the same topic is important, as it allows evidence to converge across different studies, each with its own weaknesses and strengths.Īnother common theme is the move beyond the single decision maker to examine group and collective effects on moral judgement and decisions. Other studies in this Collection used monetary transactions as a proxy for cooperation and trust, using trust games 4, the common-goods game 5, 6, decisions under risk 7, variations of the dictator game where participants split money with others 8, 9 and paradigms in which participants gain money from harm to others 10, 11. 1 used a behavioral game theory task, the trust game, where participants endow some of their money to a trustee in the hope that they will reciprocate, and the amount indicates their level of trust. To study how trust inference of moral decision-makers is moderated by several contextual factors, Bostyn et al. Like other works in this Collection, these include experimental designs that relied on vignettes, describing such moral dilemmas as the footbridge problem. One study examined whether people tend to trust deontological decision makers more than utilitarians 1, another looked at the persuasive effect of deontological and utilitarian messages 2, and yet another examined the way depression affected utilitarian and deontological aspects of moral decisions 3. One common theme regards the deontological-utilitarian response differences mentioned above, studied from different approaches. At the time this Editorial is written, the Collection covers several themes in moral judgment and decision making with the research included using different experimental approaches. The current Collection invited works that employ a variety of paradigms and analyses tools to experimentally test predictions of moral judgement and decision-making. In addition, the technical need to build a robust and reliable experimental design, which can be evaluated using statistical tools, leads researchers to adopt experimental designs from different fields, such as economics and cognitive psychology. Participants’ individual traits and their cultural and societal context introduces variability and nuances to ethical theories. Translating theoretical hypotheses and constructs to an experimental paradigm or an operational prediction is not trivial. In recent years researchers have been putting such theories to the test in a variety of experimental designs and populations. Both approaches provide predictions for moral decisions and use hypothetical scenarios such as personal versus impersonal trolley-type problems to illustrate the different predictions. Characteristically utilitarian approaches look at the overall benefit of each action, while characteristically deontological approaches set principles, prohibiting some actions regardless of their ultimate outcome. A good example is the differentiation between deontological and utilitarian basis of moral action selection. Moral and ethical theories usually provide the foundation for such efforts, providing important constructs and definitions, and even suggesting hypothetical experimental designs. The study of moral judgement and decision making examines the way people behave and react to social and moral dilemmas.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |