Moral judgment reloaded: a moral dilemma validation study.

Julia F Christensen,Albert Flexas,Antoni Gomila,Nadine K Gut,Margareta Calabrese

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607

Abstract

We propose a revised set of moral dilemmas for studies on moral judgment. We selected a total of 46 moral dilemmas available in the literature and fine-tuned them in terms of four conceptual factors (Personal Force, Benefit Recipient, Evitability, and Intention) and methodological aspects of the dilemma formulation (word count, expression style, question formats) that have been shown to influence moral judgment. Second, we obtained normative codings of arousal and valence for each dilemma showing that emotional arousal in response to moral dilemmas depends crucially on the factors Personal Force, Benefit Recipient, and Intentionality. Third, we validated the dilemma set confirming that people's moral judgment is sensitive to all four conceptual factors, and to their interactions. Results are discussed in the context of this field of research, outlining also the relevance of our RT effects for the Dual Process account of moral judgment. Finally, we suggest tentative theoretical avenues for future testing, particularly stressing the importance of the factor Intentionality in moral judgment. Additionally, due to the importance of cross-cultural studies in the quest for universals in human moral cognition, we provide the new set dilemmas in six languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Catalan, and Danish). The norming values provided here refer to the Spanish dilemma set.

Highlights

Moral dilemmas have become a standard methodology for research on moral judgment
A factorial Repeated Measure (RM) 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA was computed with the Within-Subject factors Personal Force (PMD vs. Impersonal Moral Dilemmas (IMD)), Benefit Recipient (Self-Beneficial vs. Other Beneficial), Evitability (Avoidable vs. Inevitable harm), and Intentionality (Accidental vs. Instrumental harm)
This means that the accidentality of the harm is understood from the narrative without the need to explicitly state it to the individual

Summary

Introduction

Moral dilemmas have become a standard methodology for research on moral judgment. Moral dilemmas are hypothetical short stories which describe a situation in which two conflicting moral reasons are relevant; for instance, the duty not to kill, and the duty to help. We assume that this kind of hypothetical “ticking bomb scenarios” can help to disentangle what determines human moral judgment. This is, only possible if the moral dilemmas are very well designed and potentially relevant factors are controlled for. The aim of this paper is to provide a set of such carefully designed and validated moral dilemmas

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion