Cognition ?1 (3{i1 i 154-'161 j o u n a, ho m e p ", -, :-": : :: :: c o m , o c ae c o G N i',!L l @ W Briefarticle T h e misrneasurefmorals:Antisocialersonalityraits predict utilitarian esponses o moraldilemmas DanielM. 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, 24 {.lris Hrrll, flt{!{d, I\ry'148.53, .lriitedSrurc.s ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article I'tistor.\t: fle'ceivecl 2 lanuary 20li Revised 7 M.tv 2011 Acr:r'pt<:r19 l\4a5r 01 I Ar,.riiable nline lij JLIIV01 1. Introduction Moral judgmentsare unique. .ike many of our atti- tudes, e.g., owarcla lavoritesports eanr) hey are often central to our identity and are accompanied y strong emr:tir:ns.Yet unlike these otlter .lttitltdes,attitr.rdesn fhe nroraldomain comewith a strongsense lrat ntlrers slroulclagree-a senseol' narmativity Skitka, launran, & Sargis, 005). n recentyears, esearchersravenrade a greatclealol'progrcssr:wardunderst.rndingheseuniqtie .ir.rdgnrents v propcsitrgranreworl<shai desrribe nd ex - plain various f'eatules f ntoral iLrclgment e.g.,Saron& Spranca,ggT: Greene,Snmnrerville, vslrom,Darley,& ry Cotresponclingrr.ttlterr. el.:+'1212 854 1557. E mail at\ d es.s: nrb2 Mll€tcol u mbi a.edu i D.t\l. Ba tel s . OOl0-027715 se e tot-tt m.ltter'a)2011Elsevier B.V.All lights ieserved. doi: .1 I 6i.i.cognition.20 O Researchers ave receutly .lrgued tlrat utilitarianism is the appropliate framework by r,v|ich o evaluatemoral .judgment, nd hat individualswho endorse on-utilitaliansolu- tiot-)s o moral dilemm.rs invoirringactive vs. p.rssivehann) are committing .:lfl€tror. We report a stucly n wlrich particip:rnts esponcled o a battery of personalityassesstrlents ancla selof riilemmas ha t pi t utilitarianan dnon-utilitarianoptioltsagainsteachother. participants ho indic"lted reaterendorsernentf utititariansolutionsha d higher scores c)nn-le.tsures.rfPsyr.hop.riir,v,.rr:lriavslli.rnism,nd lit'e meaninglessness. hese results questiun he wiclely-r:sednef rocls y 1ry11i.h ay moral rrdgments re evalualed, s these appro:rclresea d to tlre counterintuitive onclusion lrat those ndivicluals wh o are least prone to moral errors also possess1set of psychological haracteristicshat many wottld r:onsiderprr.rl.otypir:a y immor.rl. iil 2011 ElsevierB.V.Al l rights reserved. Colren, 001: Haidt & Joseph, 0A4: liev et al., 2009; Mikhail,2BA7:Nichols& IVlallon, AA6: Tetlock, 003). Recently,ome heorists av eadopted strategy fconr- paringpeople'smoral udgmenrs o a normativeerhical standard-tlrat nf utilitarianism-to evaluatehe rJualf6, f mor';ri jr.rdgment e.g.,Saron& Ititov, 2009; Greeneet al., 2009:Sunstein,005).n this paper, we question he close identificatiolr f' r"rtilil.rrianesponses ith optimalmoral judgmentby ciemnnstr:ating lrat he endorsement f utili- tariansolutionso a setof commonly-usedloraldilemmas correlates ith a setof psychological raits hat ca nbechar- .rcterizecls emotionallycallousanclmanipulative-traits that mostwould perceive not only psychologically n- healthy, ut alsomorallyundesirable.'l'hese esults, e be- lieve,give rise to an important methodological oncern: namely, ha t [he nrethodswidely usedas a yardstick or Iie-vwrtrds: l\4orality .lucign'rel'!t Decisicin mahing Psychop.itfry Valr.res Et:llics lnruition Utilitarianism M.rchiavellianism Ernot erns Rr:asoning fuloral ules Nr.r t'leaning Moral dilemmas
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
.ir.rdgnrentsv propcsitrgranreworl<shai desrribe nd ex-plain various f'eatules f ntoral iLrclgmente.g., Saron&
Spranca,ggT: Greene,Snmnrerville, vslrom,Darley,&
ry Cotresponcl ingrr.tt l terr .el .:+' 121 2 854 1557.
E mail at\d es.s: nrb2 Mll€tcol u mbi a.edu i D.t\l. Ba tel s .
OOl0-027715 se e tot-ttm.l tter 'a)2011ElsevierB.V.Al l l ights ieserved.
doi: 1 .1 I 6i . i .cognition.20l.05.01O
Researchers ave receutly .lrgued tlrat utilitarianism is the appropliate framework by
r,v|ich o evaluatemoral .judgment,nd hat individualswho endorse on-utilitaliansolu-
tiot-)s o moral dilemm.rs invoirringactivevs. p.rssivehann) are committing .:lfl€tror. We
report a stucly n wlrich particip:rnts esponcled o a battery of personalityassesstrlents
ancla sel of riilemmas ha t pi t utilitarianan d non-utilitarianoptioltsagainsteachother.participants ho indic"lted reaterendorsernent f utititariansolutionsha d higher scores
nloral dilemmas ha t pi t the deathof r:nevs. he deathof
manv) may be rrackingwhai nr.rnywtrulcl egard rs ts
opposite-a mutedaversiotto causing person's earh.
1.1.Utilitariortisrn,eot$olagt, nd he enor-utd-bias
approuclt n marcrlpsycltolo5gy
'fhe questionof how to determinewlriclt nlor.rlclaims
anddecisions recorrecthas raditionallybeen he dcmain
of normativeethics n plrilosophy.Oneof the biggest e-
bates n the field has centeredon the questictn f whiclt
principle(s) should guide our mor.1l evaluations,with
many philosophers efendingone of two approacheso
determine he morallv right courseof action.One he one
hand.deontological pproaches escribe set of rules or
principles h.1tsen'eas constraints n what kinds of ac-
tions are morally pennissible e.g.. he constraint hat it
is morally nrbidden o taliean nnocent ife).On he other
hancl. tilifalianismargues hat rn'hats morally equireds
besfdeteimined by onesinrple ule-whether or not an ac-
tion brings about he greatestotal well-being.Fo r psychologiststudying norality, hi s philosophical
deb.rtehasprovicleda conceptr"ralackdrop tlr the descrip-
tive study of moral udgnrent. .Isinghe moral dilemmas
first introcluced y philosophers ngagedn this clebate.psychologistsaveexploredwhen ay moral ntuitionsap -pear o aclhereo the presclipt ionsf deontologicalort i l-