Judgments made after a moral evaluation are quicker and more extreme than the same judgment based on practical considerations, but morality-based evaluations can be more easily shifted and made with other considerations in mind, according to research published November 28 in the open access journal PLOS ONE by Jay Van Bavel and colleagues from New York University.
Previous research has suggested that moral reasoning usually occurs after a person makes a decision, as a post hoc justification of their choice, rather than the basis for the decision itself. This new study suggests that people can evaluate choices using either moral or non-moral considerations, and this can lead to different choices for the same actions.
For example, participants in the study were given actions that are typically evaluated in a moral context, such as murder, and non-moral actions, such as riding a bike or buying organic food, and asked to evaluate each in both a pragmatic and a moral sense. They were also asked to choose how strongly they would advocate the action to others.
The authors found that participants had different responses to the same decision depending on whether or not it was framed as a moral or pragmatic choice. They found that moral evaluations were faster, more extreme and more strongly associated with universal prescriptions ("everybody/nobody should" statements) than non-moral or pragmatic evaluations of the same actions. In addition, the authors also found that people took longer to decide on such universal prescriptions when asked to evaluate them in a pragmatic rather than moral context.
According to the authors, their results suggest that deciding to frame any issue as moral or not may have important consequences. They say, "Once an issue is declared moral, people's judgments about that issue become more extreme, and they are more likely to apply those judgments to others."
Public Library of Science: http://www.plos.org
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Understanding aggressive tumors in pets may lead to better treatments for the nastiest forms of the disease in people
Anti-GM activists will never accept anything ‘unnatural’, but the genetically modified potato being developed in Norwich could be of tremendous benefit
A new study is the first rigorous test of a controversial idea: that the everyday interactions between caregiver and child can change the way autism develops
Emergency crews who spent months clearing up after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York have higher rates of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus
Six years ago, husband-and-wife scientists used gene therapy to cure colorblindness in monkeys. Now they're trying to make it work for the millions of people with faulty color vision.
Faced with unreliable screening, many women with a high lifetime risk of cancer opt for preventative surgery, just as Jolie did.
CAIRO (Reuters) - A team from a Spanish university has discovered what Egyptian authorities are calling the world's oldest evidence of breast cancer in the 4,200-year-old skeleton of an adult woman.
Early efforts to test legal marijuana are finding that it's got lots of buzzworthy THC. But it can also have fungus, chemical residue and bacteria. What that means for health and safety isn't clear.
Should the government recommend lean meat as part of a healthy diet? That's emerged as a political flashpoint. The panel working on federal guidelines says the evidence on lean meat is muddled.
A new coating makes ketchup slide out of the bottle and toothpaste slip out of a tube, right down to the last drop. So why not put the slick surface on an Ebola suit so the virus doesn't stick?