5. Moral Judgment in Psychology
• What sort of factors influence moral judgment?
(Valdesolo & Desteno, 2006)
6. Moral Judgment in Philosophy
• Moral Responsibility
• To be morally responsible for a behavior is “to be worthy of a particular
kind of reaction [e.g., praise, blame, reward, punishment] for having
performed [the behavior]” (Eshleman)
Moral Responsibility
Moral Judgment
7. Moral Responsibility & Philosophical Worldviews
•Free Will: The capacity to behave and make choices
that are not necessarily determined by antecedent events
and external factors such as laws of nature
•Determinism: Every event is an inevitable
consequence of prior conditions and laws of nature
(Nichols & Knobe, 2007)
•Compatibilism: Free will and determinism can co-
exist
• Moral responsibility is compatible with a deterministic world
9. Current Study: Critical Questions
1. Do different free will beliefs influence moral
judgment?
2. Will moral judgment vary by situational
context?
3. Will attributions of moral responsibility align
with main philosophical views regarding free
will and determinism?
10. Method: Experimental Manipulation
• “Our actions and thoughts are not simply the
result of prior experiences”
Free Will
Frame
• “Everything a person does is a direct
consequence of their environment and
genetic makeup”
Determinism
Frame
• “Oceans cover 71% of the earth’s surface.”
Neutral
Frame
12. Procedure: Step 2
Moral judgment questionnaire
• 1 – 6 scale (higher score = harsher judgment)
Moral
Evaluation
“How moral was Jim’s behavior”?
Scale: Very moral Very immoral
Moral
Responsibility
“How morally responsible is Jim for his behavior?”
Scale: Not at all Entirely
Justification “To what extent did Jim have good reasons for his
behavior?
Scale: Very good reasons No good reasons at all
Punishment “…If you were on a jury and had to assign one of the
following options to Jim, which would you assign?”
Scale: No prison time 9-10 years prison time
14. Predictions
Deterministic Participants
• Judge less harshly overall
• Attribute less moral
responsibility than free will
group
Free Will Participants
• Attribute more moral
responsibility than neutral
group
15. Manipulation Check
• No effect of manipulation (frame) on reported belief
1. Deterministic/Non Free Will (D-NFW)
2. Non-deterministic/Free Will (ND-FW)
3. Deterministic/Free Will (D-FW)
4. Non-deterministic/Non Free Will (ND-
NFW)
18. Moral judgment is…
…strongly affected by situational context
…multifaceted
…influenced very weakly by different free
will beliefs
19. Discussion
We replicated…
1. Vohs & Schooler’s (2008) experimental manipulation
2. Correlational studies on FW and moral responsibility (Ogletree
& Oberle, 2008)
• “People who commit crimes or hurt someone are MR for their behavior and
should expect to receive appropriate consequences for their actions”
3. Lower free will belief causes lighter punishment assignment
(Shariff et al., forthcoming)
20. References
Eshleman, A. (2001, Jan. 6). Moral Responsibility. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-
responsibility/#RecWorConRes
Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions.
NOUS, 42(4), 663-685.
Ogletree, S. M., & Oberle C. D. (2008). The nature, common usage, and implications of free will and determinism.
Behavior and Philosophy, (26), 97-111.
Shariff, A. et al. (n.d.). Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution.
Forthcoming in Psychological Science.
Valdesolo, P., & Desteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science,
17(6), 476-477
Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism
increases cheating. Psychological Science, 19(1), 49-54.
Notes de l'éditeur
I’m sure you’ve all heard of the famous trolley dilemma
You see a runaway trolley flying down the railway tracks
Ahead on tracks you see five helpless people tied up
You’re standing on bridge next to fat man You have two options
Do nothing trolley kills 5 people
Push the fat man kill one person, save five lives
Your job decide which is the correct choice?
Moral judgment has to do with our ethical evaluations of whether certain behaviors are right or wrong (CLICK)
Previous example thought experiment, used a lot in philosophy and study of ethics
So you might be thinking So what?
When am I ever going to have to make a decision like that in real life
Moral judgment is pervasive in our lives
E.g., jury duty
A lot of the time It’s unclear whether something is right or wrong
One example is mercy killing, or euthanasia
Refers to practice of intentionally killing in order to relieve pain and suffering
Public opinion is very mixed about whether euthanasia is okay
It is legal in some place and illegal in others
Given importance and pervasiveness of moral judgment
Philosophers and psychologists have extensively researched this topic
In psychology, researchers often examine factors that influence moral judgment
Studies have found, among others
Affective state, or mood
And certain emotions like disgust
In philosophy of ethics, one of the central concepts related to moral judgment is moral responsibility
Read definition
Given definition, one can see how moral judgment presupposes moral responsibility
Dominant view in philosophy
In philosophical literature, one of fundamental questions
How does the nature of free will affect moral responsibility?
There are three main views regarding the nature of free will
For safe of time, will quickly summarize
First, Free Will: read definition
In other words, it is view that we have causal force over our choices, and that our actual decisions are one among many possible choices
Key word being POSSIBLE
In connection to moral responsibility
A dominant view people can be morally responsible for their actions if they have free will
Then, Determinism: read definition
This includes human behavior and decision-making
In other words, everything that has happened in our universe so far could not have been otherwise
In relation to moral responsibility
A dominant view If determinism is true, people cannot be morally responsible for their actions
Because they could not have done otherwise
Lastly, there is a view that blends the first two
Compatibilism: read definition
Compatibilists believe we can hold people morally responsible for their actions even if the world is deterministic
In current literature, there exist very few studies that look at how these different philosophical beliefs affect moral judgment
A couple studies have found a positive relationship between perceptions of moral responsibility and belief in free will
But these have been purely correlational
A very recent study by Shariff et al. that is forthcoming in Psychological Science found
Reduced belief in free will led to lighter assignments of punishment
However, a number of studies have found robust effects of different free will beliefs on moral behavior
In one study
Vohs and Schooler found that deterministic belief increased cheating behavior in their participants
Explain what they did
First, manipulated participants to believe in free will or determinism
P’s read and thought about statements in support of either free will or determinism, depending on condition
Then, orchestrated opportunity to cheat
Instructed participants to answer set of GRE math problems on “flawed” computer program
“flawed” P’s made aware that they could passively allow the program to reveal answers
Result P’s primed with determinism statements cheated more than P’s in free will and neutral conditions
Other studies have found that different free will beliefs affect helping behavior, aggression, workplace performance
Due to these robust findings and the societal importance of moral judgment
I investigated whether different free will beliefs would affect moral judgment for my thesis
Also wanted to see whether situational context would influence moral judgment
Lastly, examined whether perceived MR would mirror three main philosophical views presented earlier
In other words, does belief in free will cause more attributions of moral responsibility?
And vice versa for determinism
Or maybe participants will turn out to be compatibilists
We used the same experimental manipulation as Vohs and Schooler’s study on cheating behavior
To induce free will or deterministic belief in participants
Depending on condition, we framed participants with statements in support of free will, determinism, or trivia facts
Used same set of statements as Vohs and Schooler 15 per participant
Instructed P’s to think deeply about each statement for 20 seconds
So for example,
Read example statements
Next, we presented P’s with three morally questionable scenarios
Didn’t read all three at once one by one and counterbalanced
Scenarios varied by context type
Euthanasia, cheating, and stealing
All scenarios contained some moral transgression
But provided context that made situation harder to morally evaluate
For example: Stealing Scenario
Involves a man named Jim who works for a very corrupt company worth billions of dollars
Company pays him only minimum wage even though he’s been loyal employee for decades and deserves to earn more
Jim’s daughter has just been accepted into Ivy League Schools, but he cannot afford to send her
Desperate to give daughter future she deserves, Jim embezzles $20,000
After each scenario, P’s answered moral judgment questionnaire
All questionnaires measured four moral constructs:
Evaluations of morality
Attributions of moral responsibility
Perceived justification of transgression
Assignment of punishment
Examples of different questions are on slide
We also used same manipulation check as Vohs and Schooler
Free will and determinism scale that measured lay beliefs in free will and determinism
In previous studies with same experimental manipulation and check successful at altering beliefs between conditions
Free will frame led to higher free will scores on FW & D Questionnaire
Determinism frame led to weaker free will scores on questionnaire
P’s completed on Google Docs
We stated we were unsure whether moral judgment would vary by scenario context or moral construct type
We predicted that determinism participants would
Judge agents in scenarios less harshly overall compared to free will participants
Given existing correlational data on moral responsibility, we also predicted
Deterministic participants would attribute less moral responsibility than free will P’s
Free will P’s would attribute more moral responsibility than neutral P’s
Unlike Vohs and Schooler, our experimental manipulation was not effective
So instead used ratings from FW & D questionnaire, which yielded a free will and determinism score for each P (CLICK)
Performed median split on both scores
Then combined to group participants according to 4 belief types
As a result, participants were grouped by (CLICK FOR EACH)
Belief in determinism but not free will
Belief in free will but not determinism
Belief in determinism and free will
No belief in determinism or free will
A very small number fell under the last category, so we did not include them in our analysis (CLICK)
Final three belief groups fit well with the three major philosophical beliefs
First group = Determinism
Second group = Free Will
Third group = Compatibilism
For analysis, We ran Mixed model MANOVA with
BTWN group factors: final three belief types and frame
WTHN group factors: scenario type, moral construct type
We found main effects of scenario type and moral construct type
But no main effects of frame or belief type
Overall, P’s saw agent in cheating situation as (RED)
Most immoral, most morally responsible, least justified, and assigned the most amount of punishment
Whereas, for the doctor in the euthanasia scenario (BLUE)
Least immoral, least responsible, most justified, and assigned the least amount of punishment
Even though no main effect, belief type interacted with scenario and construct types
Our compatibilist/D-FW participants (CLICK/SHOW)
Showed most stable ME and MR ratings for cheating and stealing
Suggests their moral judgment was least influenced by situational context
Our determinism/D-NFW participants (CLICK/SHOW)
Lowest ratings for euthanasia scenario across all constructs
Highest ratings for ME and MR for other scenarios
So prediction that D participants would judge less harshly overall only true for euthanasia scenario
Prediction that they would attribute less MR than FW group not supported
Perhaps because more influenced by situational context
Assigned least amount of punishment for all scenario types
Align with recent unpublished findings (Shariff et al) that lower free will belief leads to less assignment of punishment
Suggests that deterministic belief…
Consistently influences only certain aspects of moral judgment punishment ratings
Only influences overall moral judgment under certain situational contexts euthanasia
Lastly, our Free Will/ND-FW participants (CLICK/SHOW)
Ratings fell between the other two groups consistently
Suggests very little to no influence of free will belief on moral judgment
Since would expect FW ratings to be highest
All in all, this study identifies
Situational context as a strong influencing factor in moral judgment
And different free will beliefs as a weak factor
Particularly belief in determinism and compatibilism
Idea of MJ is multifaceted
Considerations about ME, MR, J, and P varied and were affected differently
Some takeaways:
We were not able to replicate Vohs & Schooler’s experimental manipulation involving different free will belief frames
Moral judgment was not affected by priming
Again, perhaps due to restricted range
Also were not able to replicate few studies that found free will belief correlated with attributions of moral responsibility
Possible explanation those studies did not provide background context and also compounded moral responsibility and punishment together into one measure
Q: “People who commit crimes or hurt someone are MR for their behavior and should expect to receive appropriate consequences for their actions”
Correlation probably due to punishment aspect of question which we WERE able to replicate
Last, F. M. (Year, Month Date Published). Article title. Retrieved from URL
