Advertisement

Emotions and Moral Judgment: A Multimodal Analysis

  • Evgeniya Hristova
  • Veselina Kadreva
  • Maurice Grinberg
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 26)

Abstract

Recent findings in the field of moral psychology suggest that moral judgment results both from emotional processing and deliberate reasoning. The experimental study uses artificial situations that pose moral dilemmas – a human life have to be sacrificed in order to save more lives. Two factors (physical directness of harm and inevitability of death) are varied in order to explore potential differences in emotional processing and their effects on judgment. Multimodal data is collected and analyzed: moral judgments, skin conductance (as a somatic index of affective processing), and response times (as providing information on deliberation process). Personal-impersonal distinction and inevitability of death are found to influence emotions and judgments in moral dilemmas.

Keywords

moral dilemmas moral judgments emotional engagement skinconductance response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Foot, P.: The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. Virtues and Vices. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M., Cohen, J.D.: An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science 293, 2105–2108 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greene, J.D., Nystrom, L.E., Engell, A.D., Darley, J.M., Cohen, J.D.: The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron 44, 389–400 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mikhail, J.: Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence and the Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 114, 143–152 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haidt, J.: The emotional dog and its rational tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108, 814–834 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGuire, J., Langdon, R., Coltheart, M., Mackenzie, C.: A Reanalysis of the Personal/Impersonal Distinction in Moral Psychology Research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 577–580 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore, A., Clark, B., Kane, M.: Who shalt not kill?: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity, Executive Control, and Moral Judgment. Psychological Science 19, 549–557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Figner, B., Murphy, R.O.: Using Skin Conductance in Judgment and Decision Making Research. In: Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kuehberger, A., Ranyard, R. (eds.) A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research. Psychology Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naqvi, N.H., Bechara, A.: Skin Conductance: A Psychophysiological Approach to the Study of Decision Making. In: Senior, C., Russell, T., Gazzaniga, M.S. (eds.) Methods in Mind. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene, J.D., Morelli, S.A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L.E., Cohen, J.D.: Cognitive Load Selectively Interferes with Utilitarian Moral Judgment. Cognition 107, 1144–1154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgeniya Hristova
    • 1
  • Veselina Kadreva
    • 1
  • Maurice Grinberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Science and PsychologyNew Bulgarian UniversitySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations