The Adaptive Utility of Deontology: Deontological Moral Decision-Making Fosters Perceptions of Trust and Likeability
Although various motives underlie moral decision-making, recent research suggests that deontological moral decision-making may have evolved, in part, to communicate trustworthiness to conspecifics, thereby facilitating cooperative relations. Specifically, social actors whose decisions are guided by deontological (relative to utilitarian) moral reasoning are judged as more trustworthy, are preferred more as social partners, and are trusted more in economic games. The current study extends this research by using an alternative manipulation of moral decision-making as well as the inclusion of target facial identities to explore the potential role of participant and target sex in reactions to moral decisions. Participants viewed a series of male and female targets, half of whom were manipulated to either have responded to five moral dilemmas consistent with an underlying deontological motive or utilitarian motive; participants indicated their liking and trust toward each target. Consistent with previous research, participants liked and trusted targets whose decisions were consistent with deontological motives more than targets whose decisions were more consistent with utilitarian motives; this effect was stronger for perceptions of trust. Additionally, women reported greater dislike for targets whose decisions were consistent with utilitarianism than men. Results suggest that deontological moral reasoning evolved, in part, to facilitate positive relations among conspecifics and aid group living and that women may be particularly sensitive to the implications of the various motives underlying moral decision-making.
KeywordsMoral reasoning Deontology Utilitarianism Trust Interpersonal attraction
We thank Aaron Bermond, Seth Bridges, and Savannah Merold for their contributions to the data collection for this study.
- Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2006). Evolutionary psychology, moral heuristics, and the law. In G. Gigerenzer & C. Engel (Eds.), Heuristics and the law (pp. 175–205). Berlin: Dahlem University Press.Google Scholar
- Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231.Google Scholar
- Greene, J. D. (2009). The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment. The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4, 1–48.Google Scholar
- Kant, I. (1785/1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. [Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten]. (L. W. Beck, Trans.) Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
- Koop, G. J. (2013). An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 527–539.Google Scholar
- Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2014). Core Values Versus Common Sense Consequentialist Views Appear Less Rooted in Morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1529–1542.Google Scholar
- Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the US presidency: implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 489–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rezlescu, C., Duchaine, B., Olivola, C. Y., & Chater, N. (2012). Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PloS One, e34293.Google Scholar
- Rom, S. C., Weiss, A., & Conway, P. (2016). Judging those who judge: perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others’ moral dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.Google Scholar
- Trémolière, B., Kaminski, G., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2014). Intrasexual competition shapes men’s anti-utilitarian moral decisions. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 18–22.Google Scholar
- Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & Von Hippel, W. (Eds.). (2005). The social outcast: ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Psychology Press.Google Scholar