Moral psychology, empirical work in

Author(s):  
Joshua May

How do we form our moral judgments, and how do they influence behaviour? What ultimately motivates kind versus malicious action? Moral psychology is the interdisciplinary study of such questions about the mental lives of moral agents, including moral thought, feeling, reasoning and motivation. While these questions can be studied solely from the armchair or using only empirical tools, researchers in various disciplines, from biology to neuroscience to philosophy, can address them in tandem. Some key topics in this respect revolve around moral cognition and motivation, such as moral responsibility, altruism, the structure of moral motivation, weakness of will, and moral intuitions. Of course there are other important topics as well, including emotions, character, moral development, self-deception, addiction, well-being, and the evolution of moral capacities. Some of the primary objects of study in moral psychology are the processes driving moral action. For example, we think of ourselves as possessing free will, as being responsible for what we do; as capable of self-control; and as capable of genuine concern for the welfare of others. Such claims can be tested by empirical methods to some extent in at least two ways. First, we can determine what in fact our ordinary thinking is. While many philosophers investigate this through rigorous reflection on concepts, we can also use the empirical methods of the social sciences. Second, we can investigate empirically whether our ordinary thinking is correct or illusory. For example, we can check the empirical adequacy of philosophical theories, assessing directly any claims made about how we think, feel, and behave Understanding the psychology of moral individuals is certainly interesting in its own right, but it also often has direct implications for other areas of ethics, such as metaethics and normative ethics. For instance, determining the role of reason versus sentiment in moral judgment and motivation can shed light on whether moral judgments are cognitive, and perhaps whether morality itself is in some sense objective. Similarly, evaluating moral theories, such as deontology and utilitarianism, often relies on intuitive judgments about what one ought to do in various hypothetical cases. Empirical research can again serve as an additional tool to determine what exactly our intuitions are and which psychological processes generate them, contributing to a rigorous evaluation of the warrant of moral intuitions.

Author(s):  
Joshua May

How do we form our moral judgments, and how do they influence behaviour? What ultimately motivates kind versus malicious action? Moral psychology is the interdisciplinary study of such questions about the mental lives of moral agents, including moral thought, feeling, reasoning and motivation. While these questions can be studied solely from the armchair or using only empirical tools, researchers in various disciplines, from biology to neuroscience to philosophy, can address them in tandem. Some key topics in this respect revolve around moral cognition and motivation, such as moral responsibility, altruism, the structure of moral motivation, weakness of will, and moral intuitions. Of course there are other important topics as well, including emotions, character, moral development, self-deception, addiction, and the evolution of moral capacities. Some of the primary objects of study in moral psychology are the processes driving moral action. For example, we often think of ourselves as possessing free will, which undergirds our being responsible for what we do; we often believe we can be ultimately concerned for the welfare of another; and so on. Yet these claims can be tested by empirical methods to some extent in at least two ways. First, we can determine what in fact our ordinary thinking is. While many philosophers investigate this through rigorous reflection on concepts, the empirical methods of the social sciences are at least an additional tool to bring to bear on the issue. Second, we can investigate empirically whether our ordinary thinking is correct. This typically involves checking the empirical adequacy of philosophical theories, assessing directly any claims made about moral cognition, motivation, and so forth. Understanding the psychology of moral individuals is certainly interesting in its own right, but it also often has direct implications for other areas of ethics, such as metaethics and normative ethics. For instance, determining the role of reason versus sentiment in moral judgment and motivation can shed light on whether moral judgments are cognitive, and perhaps whether morality itself is in some sense objective. Similarly, moral theories, such as deontology and utilitarianism, often rely on intuitive judgments about what one ought to do in various hypothetical cases. Empirical research can again serve as an additional tool to determine what exactly the intuitions are and which psychological processes generate them.


Diametros ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (64) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Tomasz Żuradzki

Many psychologists have tried to reveal the formation and processing of moral judgments by using a variety of empirical methods: behavioral data, tests of statistical significance, and brain imaging. Meanwhile, some scholars maintain that the new empirical findings of the ways we make moral judgments question the trustworthiness and authority of many intuitive ethical responses. The aim of this special issue is to encourage scholars to rethink how, if at all, it is possible to draw any normative conclusions by discovering the psychological processes underlying moral judgments.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Wiegmann ◽  
Hanno Sauer

The field of moral psychology has become increasingly popular in recent years. In this chapter, we focus on two interrelated questions. First, how do peoplemake moral judgments? We address this question by reviewing the most prominent theories in moral psychology that aim to characterize, explain and predict people’s moral judgments. Second, how should people’s moral judgments be evaluated in terms of their rationality? This question is approached by reviewing the debate on the rationality of moral judgments and moral intuitions, which has been strongly influenced by findings in moral psychology but also by recent advances in learning theory. To appear in: Knauff, M. & Spohn, W. (in press). The Handbook of Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-341
Author(s):  
Min Ju Kang ◽  
Michael Glassman

AbstractIn this commentary we explore Knobe's ideas of moral judgments leading to moral intuitions in the context of the moral thought and moral action debate. We suggest that Knobe's primary moral judgment and the setting of a continuum with a default point is in essence a form of cultural capital, different from moral action, which is more akin to social capital.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Wales Patterson ◽  
Lilla Pivnick ◽  
Frank D Mann ◽  
Andrew D Grotzinger ◽  
Kathryn C Monahan ◽  
...  

Adolescents are more likely to take risks. Typically, research on adolescent risk-taking has focused on its negative health and societal consequences. However, some risk-taking behaviors might be positive, defined here as behavior that does not violate the rights of others and that might advance socially-valuable goals. Empirical work on positive risk-taking has been limited by measurement challenges. In this study, we elicited adolescents’ free responses (n = 75) about a time they took a risk. Based on thematic coding, we identified positive behaviors described as risks and selected items to form a self-report scale. The resulting positive risk-taking scale was quantitatively validated in a population-based sample of adolescent twins (n = 1249). Second, we evaluated associations between positive risk-taking, negative risk-taking, and potential personality and peer correlates using a genetically informed design. Sensation seeking predicted negative and positive risk-taking equally strongly, whereas extraversion differentiated forms of risk-taking. Additive genetic influences on personality accounted for the total heritability in positive risk-taking. Indirect pathways from personality through positive and negative peer environments were identified. These results provide promising evidence that personality factors of sensation seeking and extraversion can manifest as engagement in positive risks. Increased understanding of positive manifestations of adolescent risk-taking may yield targets for positive youth development strategies to bolster youth well-being.


Author(s):  
T.J. Kasperbauer

This chapter discusses why people often fail to meet their moral goals and identifies the main obstacles in achieving moral change. It shows how psychological processes specific to animals, as outlined in chapters 2–4, interact with broader components of moral psychology. Three main moral psychological factors are discussed: emotions, situational conditions, and self-control. These factors are used to illustrate the frequent failure of reason and higher-level cognition to modify our moral responses, including our treatment of animals. The discussion draws from a wide range of research within empirical moral psychology as well as recent critical discussion of this research among philosophers.


Author(s):  
Pauline Jacobson

This chapter examines the currently fashionable notion of ‘experimental semantics’, and argues that most work in natural language semantics has always been experimental. The oft-cited dichotomy between ‘theoretical’ (or ‘armchair’) and ‘experimental’ is bogus and should be dropped form the discourse. The same holds for dichotomies like ‘intuition-based’ (or ‘thought experiments’) vs. ‘empirical’ work (and ‘real experiments’). The so-called new ‘empirical’ methods are often nothing more than collecting the large-scale ‘intuitions’ or, doing multiple thought experiments. Of course the use of multiple subjects could well allow for a better experiment than the more traditional single or few subject methodologies. But whether or not this is the case depends entirely on the question at hand. In fact, the chapter considers several multiple-subject studies and shows that the particular methodology in those cases does not necessarily provide important insights, and the chapter argues that some its claimed benefits are incorrect.


Author(s):  
Brian Burgoon

This chapter explores the empirical challenges of understanding the socioeconomic implications of social investment welfare reform. Such understanding is crucial to gauging the pay-offs and pitfalls of social investment, but is also extremely difficult, given the complex character of social investment and its multiple and interacting consequences for work and well-being. Such complexity, the chapter contends, yields an unusually strong tension between relevance and rigour that dooms any dialogue among social scientists and practitioners with clashing methodological commitments. The present study argues in favour of a practical pluralism to facilitate such dialogue. This pluralism entails combining and comparing empirical work across the full spectrum of relevance and rigour. The chapter illustrates the problems and pluralist solutions with a combination of macro-country-year and macro-individual-year analysis of how active labour-market policies (ALMP) affect the poverty of vulnerable citizens.


Author(s):  
Maria Rosario T. de Guzman ◽  
Aileen S. Garcia ◽  
Irene O. Padasas ◽  
Bernice Vania N. Landoy

A large body of empirical work has shown the role that parenting plays in the development of prosocial behaviors of children. Parenting styles (e.g., democratic versus authoritarian) and parenting practices (e.g., inductive discipline versus guilt-shame induction) in particular have been empirically linked to prosocial behaviors as well as numerous other well-being indicators in children. What is less understood is the role that culture and cultural context might play in the parenting-prosocial nexus. This chapter explores the contributions of culture comparative and in-depth cultural studies of parenting and children’s prosocial behaviors. These studies extend the range of variability of parenting dimensions and contexts as they relate to children’s prosocial outcomes – providing a means of testing the generalizability of theory in a wider range of settings, as well as in identifying facets of parenting and family life that may otherwise be neglected in current scholarship. Collectively, studies support traditional socialization theories and show how numerous parenting dimensions are linked to prosocial outcomes in children in several cultural communities. Nonetheless, emerging research suggests culturally embedded processes that impact upon the parenting and prosocial link - meriting closer attention for future scholarship.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205015792110286
Author(s):  
Theda Radtke ◽  
Theresa Apel ◽  
Konstantin Schenkel ◽  
Jan Keller ◽  
Eike von Lindern

Smartphone use, e.g., on social network sites or instant messaging, can impair well-being and is related to clinical phenomena, like depression. Digital detox interventions have been suggested as a solution to reduce negative impacts from smartphone use on outcomes like well-being or social relationships. Digital detox is defined as timeouts from using electronic devices (e.g., smartphones), either completely or for specific subsets of smartphone use. However, until now, it has been unclear whether digital detox interventions are effective at promoting a healthy way of life in the digital era. This systematic literature review aimed to answer the question of whether digital detox interventions are effective at improving outcomes like health and well-being, social relationships, self-control or performance. Systematic searches of seven databases were carried out according to PRISMA guidelines, and intervention studies were extracted that examined timeouts from smartphone use and/or smartphone-related use of social network sites and instant messaging. The review yielded k = 21 extracted studies (total N = 3,625 participants). The studies included interventions in the field, from which 12 were identified as randomized controlled trials. The results showed that the effects from digital detox interventions varied across studies on health and well-being, social relationships, self-control, or performance. For example, some studies found positive intervention effects, whereas others found no effect or even negative consequences for well-being. Reasons for these mixed findings are discussed. Research is needed to examine mechanisms of change to derive implications for the development of successful digital detox interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document