C ogni ti onl ?1 ( 3{i 1l i 154- '161 i',!

j o u r n a, h o m e p

", -,

:-":

: :: ::

c o m i, o c a t e/ c o G N I r

l@
W

Brief article

personality traitspredict Antisocial of The misrneasure morals: to utilitarianresponses moraldilemmas

b Daniel M. 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, {.lriitedSrurc.s 224 {.lris Hrrll, tflt{!{d, I\ry'148.53,

A RT ICL E

INFO

AB S TR A C T have receutly .lrgued tlrat utilitarianism is the appropliate framework by Researchers and r,v|ichto evaluatemoral..judgment, that individualswho endorsenon-utilitaliansolutiot-)s moral dilemm.rs(invoirring active vs. p.rssivehann) are committing .:lfltror. We fo report a stucly in wlrich particip:rnts responcledto a battery of personality assesstrlents ancla sel of riilemmaslhat pit utilitarian and non-utilitarianoptiolts againsteach other. participants greaterendorsernent utititarian solutionshad higher scores of who indic"lted These results and lit'e meaninglessness. m.rr:lriavslli.rnism, r.rf c)n n-le.tsures Psyr.hop.riir,v, as lay questiunthe wiclely-r:sed lrocls 1ry11i.h moral jrrdgmentsare evalualed, these by rnef who are least lead to tlre counterintuitiveconclusiontlrat those indivicluals appro:rclres prone to moral errors also possess set of psychologicalcharacteristicsthat many wottld .1 Ily r:onsiderprr.rl.otypir:a immor.rl. iil 2011 ElsevierB.V.All rights reserved.

Article I'tistor.\t: l2 fle'ceivecl lanuary 20li Revised?7 M.tv 2011 201 I 29 Acr:r'pt<:r1 l\4a5r 201 | online lij JLIIV Ar,.riiable Iie-vwrtrds: l\4orality .lucign'rel'!t Decisicinmahing Psychop.itfry Valr.res Et:llics lnruition Utilitarianism M.rchiavellianism Ernotierns Rr:asoning fuloral rules Nr.rlt'leaning Moral dilemmas

1. Introduction Moral judgments are unique. l.ike many of our attitudes,(e.g.,[owarcla lavorite sportsteanr)they are often by central to our identity and are accompanied strong in emr:tir:ns.Yet unlike these otlter .lttitltdes,attitr.rdes fhe nroral domain come with a strong sensetlrat ntlrers slroulclagree-a sense ol' narmativity(Skitka,llaunran,& lrave nrade a Sargis,2005). in recent years, researchers theseuniqtie great clealol'progrcsstr:ward underst.rnding thai franreworl<s desrribeand exbv .ir.rdgnrents propcsitrg (e.g.,lSaron & plain various f'eatulesof ntoral .iLrclgment Nvslrom, Darley,& Spranca,lggT: Greene,Snmnrerville,
ry Cotresponcling Tel.: .rr.ttlterr. +'1 212 854 1557. d E- mail at\d r es.s: nr b2 Mlltcol u m bi a.edu i D.t\l. Bartel s ). OOl0-027715 see ftot-ttm.ltter'a)2011ElsevierB.V.All lights ieserved. O t 'l.05.01 doi: 10. 10 I 6i.i.cognition.20

2001: Haidt & Joseph,20A4: Iliev et al., 2009; Colren, 2AA6:Tetlock,2003). Mikhail,2BA7:Nichols& IVlallon, of a haveadopted strategy conrRecently, sometheorists paring people'smoral iudgmenrs to a normative erhical of standard-tlratnf utilitarianism-to evaluatethe rJualf6, (e.g.,ISaron Ititov, 2009; Greeneet al., & mor';ri.jr.rdgment 2005).ln this paper,we questionthe close 2009: Sunstein, with optimal moral responses of' identificatiolr r"rtilil.rrian judgmentby ciemnnstr:ating the endorsement utiliof tlrat nloral dilemmas to tariansolutions a setof commonly-used traits lhat can be charwith a setof psychological correlates as .rcterizecl emotionallycallousancl manipulative-traits unas that most would perceive not only psychologically we results, bebut healthy, alsomorallyundesirable.'l'hese concern: lieve,give rise to an important methodological namely,that [he nrethodswidely used as a yardstickfor

D.A.Pimno /(.-ognitiotl121 QA|l) 154. 16I D.M. Bartt:ls,

r55

to responses determiningoptinlal morality (i.e.,.rssessing nloral dilemmasthat pit the death of r:nevs. the death of manv) may be rracking whai nr.rnywtrulclregard .rs its dearh. a to opposite-a muted aversiott causing person's andthe enor-utd-bias deot$olagt, 1.1.Utilitariortisrn, approuclt in marcrlpsycltolo5gy 'fhe questionof how to determinewlriclt nlor.rlclaims are and decisions correcthastraditionallybeenthe dcmain One of the biggestdeof normative ethics in plrilosophy. of bates in the field has centeredon the questictn whiclt principle(s) should guide our mor.1l evaluations,with to many philosophersdefendingone of two approaches determine the morallv right courseof action.One the one describea set of rules or approaches hand. deontological principlesth.1t sen'e as constraintson what kinds of actions are morally pennissible(e.g..the constraintthat it is morally fnrbiddento talie an innocentlife).On the other is that rn'hat morally requiredis utilifalianismargues hancl. besfdeteimined by one sinrplerule-whether or not an action brings about the greatesttotal well-being. studying rnorality,this philosophical For psychologists backdropftlr the descripdeb.rtehas provicleda conceptr"ral tive study of moral judgnrent.t.Isingthe moral dilemmas engagedin this clebate. first introclucedby philosophers psychologists haveexploredwhen lay moral intuitionsaputilpearlo aclhere the prescliptions deontologicalor of lo have nrany psychologists lncreasingly, itarian approaclres. by adopted these nonrlillive liameworks ;ls a stanclarcl the to ra;hiclr erialuate quality of the nroralintuitionstlremselves, arguing that tht study of bias in the nroraldottt.tin view deonm;king. Sonre can help improvemcral decision akin to the ert'ors as cognitiveet'rors, tologic;rl "iuclgments doin that result from using her.rristics other jr-rdgmentai saliand Ritorr(2009) ntakethis assunrptiott n't.lins. IJaron ent. stating tlrat "decisions made on the basis of deontologicalprinciples usr:ally lead to results lhat are (p. not as good as the besr that could be aclrieved." 136). ihe Others have .rrriveclat similar conclusions--that use ancl of non-utilitarian "herrristics"can lead to peruasive dangerouserrors in moral judgment, and even to judg2005). Sunstein, ments that border on absurdity(e.g., 'l'he char.rcterization non-r.rtilitari.ln moral decisitlns of pronounced research in as errorsof judgrnent is especially in on the role of emol-ion nroraljudgment.Suchinvestig.rrelied on the method of recording tinns lrave increasingly p.1r'ticipclnls' responses "sacrificial" dilemmas,where [o the questionof whether to kill a personto Preventcthers from dying is posed. For example, consider'fhomson's ( 1985) footbridgecase: fiV In the palh of a runawaytrain car "1r railw"rvworl<do nren who will surely be killed unlessyou, a bystander. r,ar.rlkway that on You are stancling a pedestrian something. Your body archesover the tracks next to a largestranger. would be too light to stop the train, but if you puslr the killing him, l'tis large body will strangeronto the trac!<s, would you push hiinl stop the train. ln tlris sitr"ration, approachto rnoraljridgntent, Adopring a dual-process have collectedevidencelhat when Creene.rnd colleagues evaluatingnroral dilemrnasthat are cspeciallyemotional

(like the {botbridge case), individuals"rrelikely to favorthe when the "deliberative"mental system utilitarian optior"r with the mot'al et is recruited {Greene al.,2001). Consistent et above,Greetre al. (2009) approachdescribed her"rristics non-utilitarianmor.rljudgto equ.ltelhe tenclencv mal<e mentswhile under the influenceof the "intuitive" system uncler similar racialnrinorities to to the tendency stereotype (p. thatnon-utilitarianjudgments arguing conditions 11a5), damaging. but arenot nnly less-than-ide.rl, potentially as Oneimplicationof adoptinga utiliralianfranteworl< a studv of morality in normativest.rndard the psvchological that the vastrnajorityof people conciusion is the inevitable are often mor"rlly wrong. For instance,when presented of dilemtna.as many as 909,1 with Thomson'sfcratbridge people reject the utilit.rrian response(iVtikhail,2007)" arguphilosophers utilitarianism, havealso rejer-:ted I\4any in ing that it is in.rdequate important,mor.rllymeaningful view impoverished an ways,and that it presents especially of of humansas "locations utilities[and notlringmore].. ." .. do anclthat "persons not countas individuals. any more than individrralpetrol tanks do in the analysisof the na(Sen& Williams.1982, of tional consumption petroleum" the ubiquitotts p.4). For thosewho endorse utilitarianism, pointsto the pessimistic toward its conclusions discomfr:rt possibilit5, humannroraljudgmentis evenmore prone that to error than many other lorms ol' judgmenl, and that attemptingto improvethe quality of mnraljudgrnentwill be a steepuphill battle. it drawingthoseconclusions, might proveuseful Before individualswho are nlore likely to endorse to investigate usethem as a psychologand perhaps utilitariansolutions "optinial" lnoraljudge.What do those ical prototypeo1'the 10?,1 people who are comforrablewith the utilitarian of dilemm.rlook like? Nlight these solntionto the footbriclge in harie otlrer psychologicalcharacteristics r.rtilitarians with tlie view that rational consistenl Recenriy. corrrrrron? (e.g., utilitarianism are individuals more likelv to endorse have shown a 2i101), variety ol' researchers Creeneet ;r1., that individuals with lrigher working memory capacity thinkers are, incleed, anclthosewho are nrorecleliberative more liltely to approve r:f utilitarian solutions (Bartels, 2008; l:eltz & Cokely,3008; Monre,Clark,& l(ane,2008). group of utilitariansliltely shares ln fact,one well-defined as l"hese characteristics well-the subsel of philosophers that utilitarhaveconcluded rruho scientists and behavioral ianism is the propernorntativeelhical theory. thinkers Yet in additionto tlie link betweeudeliberative ancl utilitarianjudgments,there is anotlrer possiblepsychologicalrollte to utilitarian preferences-theability to to reactions harm (or the inability to inhibit ernotional such ernotionsin the first place).For instance, experience pre-frontalcorp.ltientsrvith damageto LheventrOmedial deficitssimilar to thoseobserued tex, who haveernotional (leadingsome researchers refer to this to in psychopaths type of brain damageas "acquired sociopathy";Saver& utilitariansolu1991), more likelv to endorse are Danr.rsio, (l(oenigs al..2007). Yet it is et dilemnras tions to sacrificial flrom clinical populato alwavs questionable gener.rlize tions. as their deficitsrnight lead to utilitarianjudgments psychological mechanisms through qualitativell'clifferenr populations. than tiroseat work iu nan*clinicai