Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 789–804 | Cite as

An Experimental Investigation of Emotions and Reasoning in the Trolley Problem

  • Alessandro Lanteri
  • Chiara Chelini
  • Salvatore Rizzello
Article

Abstract

Elaborating on the notions that humans possess different modalities of decision-making and that these are often influenced by moral considerations, we conducted an experimental investigation of the Trolley Problem. We presented the participants with two standard scenarios (‹lever’ and ‹stranger’) either in the usual or in reversed order. We observe that responses to the lever scenario, which result from (moral) reasoning, are affected by our manipulation; whereas responses to the stranger scenario, triggered by moral emotions, are unaffected. Furthermore, when asked to express general moral opinions on the themes of the Trolley Problem, about half of the participants reveal some inconsistency with the responses they had previously given.

Keywords

experiments intuition moral emotions moral judgement moral reasoning trolley problem 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alspach S., G. Bishop: 1991. Question Order Effect of Presidential Approval Ratings on Gubernatorial Approval Ratings: A Research Note, Social Forces, 69(4), 1241–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe G. E. M.: 1958, Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aquinas, T.: c. 1270, Summa Theologica, 2nd Rev. Edition, Fathers of the English Dominican Province␣(trans.) (online at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa)
  4. Bargh J., T. Chartrand: 1999, The Unbearable Automaticity of Being, American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron J.: 1994, “Nonconsequentialist decisions” (with commentary and reply), Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 17, 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron J.: 1995, A Psychological View of Moral Intuition, Harvard Review of Philosophy, 5, 36–40Google Scholar
  7. Baron J.: 1997, The Illusion of Morality as Self-Interest: A Reason to Cooperate in Social Dilemmas, Psychological Science, 8, 330–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron J.: 1998, Judgement Misguided: Intuition and Error in Public Decision Making (Oxford University Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  9. Benton E., J. Daly: 1991, A Question Order Effect in a Local Government Survey, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 640–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camerer C., G. Loewenstein, D. Prelec: 2005, Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics, Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chelini, C., A. Lanteri, and S. Rizzello: 2007, `Moral Dilemmas and Decision-Making: An Experimental Investigation of the Trolley Problem', Mimeo Google Scholar
  12. Cohen J.: 2005, The Vulcanization of Human Brain: A Neural Perspective on Interactions Between Cognition and Emotions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crespi I., D. Morris: 1984, Question Order Effect and the Measurement of Candidate Preference in the 1982 Connecticut Elections, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(3), 578–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damasio A.: 1999, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL)Google Scholar
  15. Damasio A.: 2000, Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, 2nd Edition (Quill, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  16. Elster, J.: 1999, Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  17. Foot, P.: 1978, “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect” in: Virtues and Vices (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)Google Scholar
  18. Gilovich T., D. W. Griffin, D. Kahneman: 2002, The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  19. Greene J., J. Haidt: 2002, How (and Where) Does Moral Judgement Work?, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J., R. Sommerville, L. Nyatrom, J. Darley and J. Cohen: 2001, `An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgement', Science 293, 2105–2108Google Scholar
  21. Greene J., L. Nystrom, A. Engell, J. Darley, J. Cohen: 2004, The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgement, Neuron, 44: 389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haidt J.: 2001, The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, Psychological Review, 108, 814–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haidt J.: 2007, The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology, Science, 316, 998–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haidt, J. and C. Joseph: 2004, ‹Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues’, Daedalus, Special Issue on Human Nature, 55–66Google Scholar
  25. Hauser M.: 2006, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (Harper Collins, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  26. Kagan, S.: 1989, The Limits of Morality (Oxford University Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman D.: 2003, Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioural Economics, American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman D., A. Tversky: 1979, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kant, I.: 1784, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, M.␣Gregor (ed. & trans.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  30. Lichtenstein S., P. Slovic (eds.): 2006, The Construction of Preferences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)Google Scholar
  31. McFarland, S.: 1981, Effects of Question Order on Survey Responses. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Messick D., T. Schell: 1992, Evidence for an Equality Heuristic in Social Decision Making, Acta Psychologica, 80, 311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagel, T.: 1993, “Chapter 3” from Mortal Questions (Cambridge University Press), reprinted in D. Statman (ed.), Moral Luck (State University of New York Press, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  34. Norcross A.: 2002, Killing and Letting Die in R. G. Frey, C. H. Wellman (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Applied Ethics (Blackwell, Oxford, UK)Google Scholar
  35. Royzman E., J. Baron: 2002, The Preference for Indirect Harm, Social Justice Research, 15, 165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rubinstein, A.: 2007, Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times, Economic Journal, 117, 1243–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schelling, T.: 1984, Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)Google Scholar
  38. Simon, H. A.: 1955, A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon, H. A.: 1961, Administrative Behavior, 2nd Edition (Mac Millan, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A.: 1978, On How to Decide What to Do, Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 494–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singer, P.: 1999, “On the Appeal to Intuitions in Ethics” in D. Jamieson (ed.), Singer and His Critics (Blackwell)Google Scholar
  42. Steinbock B., A. Norcross (eds.): 1994, Killing and Letting Die, 2nd Edition (Fordham University Press, New York, NY)Google Scholar
  43. Sunstein, C.: 2004, Moral Heuristics, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 531–542Google Scholar
  44. Thomson, J.: 1976, Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem, The Monist, 59, 204–217Google Scholar
  45. Thomson, J.: 1985, The Trolley Problem, Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomson, J.: 1986, Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)Google Scholar
  47. Tversky A., D. Kahneman: 1981, The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 4481, 453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Unger, P.: 1996, Living High and Letting Die (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK)Google Scholar
  49. Willits F., B. Ke: 1995, Part-Whole Question Order Effects: Views of Rurality, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(3), 392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, D.: 2002, Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, T.: 2002, Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Lanteri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chiara Chelini
    • 3
  • Salvatore Rizzello
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Economic Science and Quantitative Methods (SEMeQ), Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Eastern Piedmont at NovaraNovaraItaly
  2. 2.Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE), Faculty of PhilosophyErasmus Universiteit RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsTurin UniversityTorinoItaly
  4. 4.Department of Legal and Economic ScienceFaculty of Law, University of Eastern Piedmont at AlessandriaAlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations