Advertisement

An Open Letter to Our Students: Doing Interdisciplinary Moral Psychology

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter offers some recommendations and guiding principles for conducting interdisciplinary moral psychology research, which will benefit students and experienced scholars alike. It is especially helpful to scholars in the humanities looking to apply scientific methods to their work. Drawing from work at the intersection of philosophy and the cognitive and neural sciences, this chapter offers valuable advice for how to critically evaluate the scientific literature and avoid common pitfalls.

Keywords

Methods Interdisciplinary research Research questions Methodology Experimental design Meta-analyses Sampling Hypotheses Research biases P-value 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amrhein, V., & Greenland, S. (2017). Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour. Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedke, M. S. (2012). Against normative naturalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.--J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., De Boeck, P., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C., Fehr, E., Fidler, F., Field, A. P., Forster, M., George, E. I., Gonzalez, R., Goodman, S., Green, E., Green, D. P., Greenwald, A., Hadfield, J. D., Hedges, L. V., Held, L., Ho, T.--H., Hoijtink, H., Jones, J. H., Hruschka, D. J., Imai, K., Imbens, G., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jeon, M., Kirchler, M., Laibson, D., List, J., Little, R., Lupia, A., Machery, E., Maxwell, S. E., McCarthy, M., Moore, D., Morgan, S. L., Munafó, M., Nakagawa, S., Nyhan, B., Parker, T. H., Pericchi, L., Perugini, M., Rouder, J., Rousseau, J., Savalei, V., Schönbrodt, F. D., Sellke, T., Sinclair, B., Tingley, D., Van Zandt, T., Vazire, S., Watts, D. J., Winship, C., Wolpert, R. L., Xie, Y., Young, C., Zinman, J., & Johnson, V. E. (2017). Redefine Statistical Significance. Nature Human Behaviour. http://rdcu.be/wEgG.
  8. Berker, S. (2009). The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37, 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2013). Is ego depletion too incredible? Evidence for the overestimation of the depletion effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 683–684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 823.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, J. Y. (2007). Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Copp, D. (2007). Morality in a natural world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  17. Daniels, N. (2013). Reflective equilibrium. In W. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.
  18. Darwall, S., Gibbard, A., & Railton, P. (1992). Toward fin de siecle ethics: Some trends. The Philosophical Review, 115–189.Google Scholar
  19. Doris, J. M. (1998). Persons, situations, and virtue ethics. Noûs, 32, 504–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doris, J. M. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doris, J. M. (2015). Talking to our selves: Reflection, ignorance, and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doris, J. M., & Stich, S. P. (2005). As a matter of fact: Empirical perspectives on ethics. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Doris, J. M., Machery, E., & Stich, S. (2017). Can psychologists tell us anything about morality? The Philosophers’ Magazine, (77), 24–29.Google Scholar
  24. Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. Duke, A. A., & Bègue, L. (2015). The drunk utilitarian: Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas. Cognition, 134, 121–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunning, D. (1999). A newer look: Motivated social cognition and the schematic representation of social concepts. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Earp, B. D., Everett, J. A. C., Madva, E. N., & Hamlin, J. K. (2014). Out, damned spot: Can the “Macbeth Effect” be replicated? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fanelli, D. (2010). Positive. Results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PloS One, 5, e10068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of “seductive allure”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 88–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fayard, J. V., Bassi, A. K., Bernstein, D. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2009). Is cleanliness next to godliness? Dispelling old wives’ tales: Failure to replicate Zhong and Liljenquist (2006). Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 6, 21–30.Google Scholar
  31. Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 926–944.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014). Skepticism about naturalizing normativity. Res Philosophica, 91(4), 559–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fraley, R. C., & Vazire, S. (2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PloS One, 9, e109019.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Funder, D. C. (2012). The personality puzzle (6th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Gendler, T. S. (2011). On the epistemic costs of implicit bias. Philosophical Studies, 156(1), 33–63. Google Scholar
  36. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Glymour, C., & Hanson, C. (2016). Reverse inference in neuropsychology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67, 1139–1153.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  39. Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124, 695–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Griggs, R. (2015). Coverage of the Phineas Gage story in introductory psychology textbooks: Was gage no longer gage? Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Harman, G. (1999). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99, 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harman, G. (2000). The nonexistence of character traits. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100, 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huang, J. L. (2014). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? Response effort moderates the effect of cleanliness priming on moral judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. January, D., & Kako, E. (2007). Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 417–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, D. J., Cheung, F., & Donnellan, M. B. (2014). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? Social Psychology, 45, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, D. J., Wortman, J., Cheung, F., Hein, M., Lucas, R. E., Donnellan, M. B., et al. (2016). The effects of disgust on moral judgments: Testing moderators. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 7(7), 640–647.Google Scholar
  50. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. A. J., Argamon, S. E., … Zwaan, R. A. (2017). Justify Your Alpha: A Response to “Redefine Statistical Significance”. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/9s3y6
  52. Levy, N. (2011). Resisting ‘weakness of the will’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82, 134–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Lurquin, J. H., Michaelson, L. E., Barker, J. E., Gustavson, D. E., von Bastian, C. C., et al. (2016). No evidence of the ego-depletion effect across task characteristics and individual differences: A pre-registered study. PloS One, 11, e0147770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147770.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Machery, E. (2012a). Delineating the moral domain. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 7. doi: 10.4148/biyclc.v7i0.1777.
  55. Machery, E. (2012b). Power and negative results. Philosophy of Science, 79, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Machery, E. (2014). In defense of reverse inference. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Machery, E. (in press). Morality: A historical invention. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), The atlas of moral psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  58. Macmillan, M. (2002). An odd kind of fame: Stories of Phineas Gage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., & Tackett, J. L. (2017). Abandon Statistical Significance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07588.Google Scholar
  60. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., ... & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16.Google Scholar
  61. Nagel, T. (1980). Ethics as an autonomous theoretical subject. In G. S. Stent (Ed.), Morality as a biological phenomenon: The presuppositions of sociobiological research (pp. 198–205). Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  62. Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Oakes, M. W. (1986). Statistical inference. Epidemiology Resources.Google Scholar
  64. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(02), 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 59–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Railton, P. (2003). Facts, values, and norms: Essays toward a morality of consequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Russell, G. (2010). In defence of Hume’s law. In C. Pidgen (Ed.), Hume, is and ought: New essays (pp. 151–161). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219–1222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Seyedsayamdost, H. (2014). Reproducibility of empirical findings: Experiments in philosophy and beyond. Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
  74. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2010). Two conceptions of subjective experience. Philosophical Studies, 151, 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2012). On the relevance of folk intuitions: A commentary on Talbot. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 654–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Talbot, B. (2012). The irrelevance of folk intuitions to the “hard problem” of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 644–650.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Vaillant, G. (2012). The triumphs of experience. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams, B. A. O. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360–5365. Google Scholar
  85. Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhong, C. B., Strejcek, B., & Sivanathan, N. (2010). A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 859–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Program & Philosophy DepartmentWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter