News Release

Moral dilemma scenarios prone to biases

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Wiley

LOS ANGELES—December 14, 2009—Picture the following hypothetical scenario: A trolley is headed toward five helpless victims. The trolley can be redirected so that only one person's life is at stake. Psychologists and philosophers have been using moral dilemmas like this for years asking, would you redirect the train? Is it morally acceptable to do this? Experts usually switch up the details to see how different sub-scenarios affect moral judgment. Many researchers have come to the conclusion that an individual's moral judgment in this type of scenario is strongly guided by abstract moral principles.

However, researchers of a study to appear in an upcoming issue of Cognitive Science see a problem with this approach, "Small changes in wording can affect judgments in ways that have nothing to do with differences in moral principles. Psychologists that analyze judgment and decision making in consumer behavior are aware of this fact. We applied these same methods to this scenario to illustrate that subjects' responses could not possibly be attributed to any known moral principles."

The study shows that it is often hard to distinguish between the influences of moral principles and more general biases. The authors make the claim that the conclusions of other researchers, which point to a strong moral influence, may be directly influenced by the researchers' disciplinary background (philosophy, etc.), rather than the morality of the individual.

When presented with moral dilemmas in which participants could sacrifice some people in order to save more, participants were highly sensitive to the proportion of lives saved (e.g. 8 out of 10 vs. 8 out of 40), and they demanded that more lives be saved when more lives were at risk, even though the number to be sacrificed remained constant. Participants are also less likely to support taking a moral action if they were asked to on their own generate more reasons for doing so.

The authors hope their research will lead to a more skeptical attitude towards drawing inferences regarding moral principles from studies of moral dilemmas, and that researchers will move to design other methods for studying moral judgments that move beyond the use of moral dilemmas.

###

This study is published in the January 2010 issue of Cognitive Science. Media wishing to receive a PDF of this article may contact scholarlynews@wiley.com.

To view the abstract for this article, please visit http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123210779/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.

Tage S. Rai, M.A. is a PhD Candidate in Cognitive Psychology with a focus on moral psychology at University of California, Los Angeles in the Department of Psychology. He has been awarded numerous fellowships, grants, and research awards. He can be reached for questions at trai1@ucla.edu. Dr. Keith J. Holyoak is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles with an expertise in the field of judgment and decision making. He has served as a Fellow of several societies and on the editorial board of several journals. He can be reached for questions at holyoak@psych.ucla.edu.

About the Journal: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.

About Wiley-Blackwell: Wiley-Blackwell is the international scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publishing business of John Wiley & Sons, with strengths in every major academic and professional field and partnerships with many of the world's leading societies. Wiley-Blackwell publishes nearly 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols. For more information, please visit www.wileyblackwell.com or www.interscience.wiley.com.


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.