Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 121–136 | Cite as

Explaining Away Intuitions About Traits: Why Virtue Ethics Seems Plausible (Even if it Isn’t)

  • Mark Alfano


This article addresses the question whether we can know on the basis of folk intuitions that we have character traits. I answer in the negative, arguing that on any of the primary theories of knowledge, our intuitions about traits do not amount to knowledge. For instance, because we would attribute traits to one another regardless of whether we actually possessed such metaphysically robust dispositions, Nozickian sensitivity theory disqualifies our intuitions about traits from being knowledge. Yet we do think we know that we have traits, so I am advancing an error theory, which means that I owe an account of why we fall into error. Why do we feel so comfortable navigating the language of traits if we lack knowledge of them? To answer this question, I refer to a slew of heuristics and biases. Some, like the fundamental attribution error, the false consensus effect, and the power of construal, pertain directly to trait attributions. Others are more general cognitive heuristics and biases whose relevance to trait attributions requires explanation and can be classed under the headings of input heuristics and biases and processing heuristics and biases. Input heuristics and biases include selection bias, availability bias, availability cascade, and anchoring. Processing heuristics and biases include disregard of base rates, disregard of regression to the mean, and confirmation bias.


Confirmation Bias Virtuous Person Intellectual Virtue Virtue Epistemology Processing Heuristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, R. 2006. A theory of virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas, J. 1993. The morality of happiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, J. 2003. Virtue ethics and social psychology. A Priori 2: 20–59.Google Scholar
  4. Ariely, D., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2003. “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacon, F. 1620. Novum Organum. In A History of western philosophy, volume 3, 2nd edition (1969), eds. Reprinted in Jones & Fogelin. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  6. Blum, L. 1994. Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. 2009. The autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809–1882. New York: Classic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawes, R., and M. Mulford. 1996. The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65(3): 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doris, J.M. 1998. Persons, situations, and virtue ethics. Nous 32(4): 504–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doris, J.M. 2002. Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dorsey-Palmateer, R., and G. Smith. Regression to the mean in flight tests. Working Paper. Pomona College.Google Scholar
  12. Driver, J. 2001. Uneasy virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein, S. 1983. Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues in the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality 51: 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields, J., and H. Schuman. 1976. Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly 40: 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flanagan, O. 1991. Varieties of moral personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fleeson, W. 2001. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(6): 1011–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Gut feelings. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and the ABC Research Group. 2000. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, A. 1975. Innate knowledge. In Innate ideas, ed. S. Stich. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harman, G. 1999. Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 119: 316–331.Google Scholar
  21. Harman, G. 2000. The nonexistence of character traits. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100: 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harman, G. 2001. Virtue ethics without character traits. In Fact and value, ed. Byrne, Stalnaker, and Wedgwood, 117–127. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harman, G. 2003. No character or personality. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1): 87–94.Google Scholar
  24. Harman, G. 2006. Three trends in moral and political philosophy. The Journal of Value Inquiry 37.Google Scholar
  25. Jennings, D., T. Amabile, and L. Ross. 1982. Informal covariation assessment: Data-based vs. theory-based judgments. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Tversky, Kahneman, and Slovic, 211–230. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, E., and V. Harris. 1967. The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, E., and R.E. Nisbett. 1971. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kupperman, J. 2001. The indispensability of character. Philosophy 76: 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuran, T., and C. Sunstein. 1999. Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review 51(4): 683–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, D. 1996. Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74(4): 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malle, B. 2006. The actor-observer asymmetry in causal attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132: 895–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malle, B., J. Knobe, and S. Nelson. 2007. Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: New answers to an old question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDowell, J. 1979. Virtue and reason. Monist 62: 331–350.Google Scholar
  35. Merritt, M. 2000. Virtue ethics and situationist personality psychology. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3: 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to authority. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, C. 2003. Social psychology and virtue ethics. The Journal of Ethics 7(4): 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Mischel, W., and P. Peake. 1982. Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review 89: 730–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mischel, W., and Y. Shoda. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing the invariances in personality and the role of situations. Psychological Review 102(2): 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nisbett, R. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently... and why. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Popper, K. 2002. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rosati, C.S. 1995. Persons, perspectives, and full information accounts of the good. Ethics 105: 296–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In Advances in experimental psychology, vol. 10, ed. Berkowitz, 174–214. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Ross, L., and R.E. Nisbett. 1991. The person and the situation. Philadelphia: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ross, L., D. Greene, and P. House. 1977. The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13: 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Russell, D. 2009. Practical intelligence and the virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sabini, J., M. Siepmann, and J. Stein. 2001. The really fundamental attribution error in social psychological research. Psychological Inquiry 12(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snow, N. 2008. Virtue as social intelligence: An empirically grounded theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Sosa, E. 1991. Knowledge in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sreenivasan, G. 2002. Errors about errors: Virtue theory and trait attribution. Mind 111: 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sunstein, C. 2005. Moral heuristics. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 531–542.Google Scholar
  54. Taylor, E. 1957/1984. Angel. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  55. Tversky, A., and D. Kahnemann. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Uleman, J., et al. 1996. People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 28, ed. Zanna, 211–280. San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Yzerbyt, V., et al. 2001. The dispositional inference strikes back: Situational focus and dispositional suppression in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CUNY Graduate Center, Program in PhilosophyNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations