Byrd, Nick and Conway, Paul (2019) Not All Who Ponder Count Costs: Arithmetic Reflection Predicts Utilitarian Tendencies, but Logical Reflection Predicts both Deontological and Utilitarian Tendencies. [Preprint]
This is the latest version of this item.
|
Text
byrd-and-conway-2019-not-all-who-ponder-count-costs-PREPRINT.pdf Download (984kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Conventional sacrificial moral dilemmas propose directly causing some harm to prevent greater harm. Theory suggests that accepting such actions (consistent with utilitarian philosophy) involves more reflective reasoning than rejecting such actions (consistent with deontological philosophy). However, past findings do not always replicate, confound different kinds of reflection, and employ conventional sacrificial dilemmas that treat utilitarian and deontological considerations as opposite. In two studies, we examined whether past findings would replicate when employing process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian inclinations independently. Findings suggested two categorically different impacts of reflection: measures of arithmetic reflection, such as the Cognitive Reflection Test, predicted only utilitarian, not deontological, response tendencies. However, measures of logical reflection, such as performance on logical syllogisms, positively predicted both utilitarian and deontological tendencies. These studies replicate some findings, clarify others, and reveal opportunity for additional nuance in dual process theorists' claims about the link between reflection and dilemma judgments.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Preprint | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
|||||||||
| Keywords: | moral dilemmas; process dissociation; dual-process theory; cognitive reflection test; belief bias; moral psychology | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Ethical Issues Specific Sciences > Psychology > Judgment and Decision Making Specific Sciences > Psychology > Social Psychology |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Mr Nick Byrd | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 15 Jun 2019 16:27 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 15 Jun 2019 16:27 | |||||||||
| Item ID: | 16118 | |||||||||
| Official URL: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007 | |||||||||
| DOI or Unique Handle: | 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007 | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Ethical Issues Specific Sciences > Psychology > Judgment and Decision Making Specific Sciences > Psychology > Social Psychology |
|||||||||
| Date: | 2019 | |||||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/16118 |
Available Versions of this Item
- Not All Who Ponder Count Costs: Arithmetic Reflection Predicts Utilitarian Tendencies, but Logical Reflection Predicts both Deontological and Utilitarian Tendencies. (deposited 15 Jun 2019 16:27) [Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}