Dries H. Bostyn

An Asymmetric Moral Conformity Effect: Subjects Conform to Deontological But Not Consequentialist Majorities

The present study investigated whether and to what extent people’s judgments on trolley-type moral dilemmas are subject to conformity pressures. Trolley dilemmas contrast deontological (principled) moral concerns with consequentialist (outcome based) moral reasoning. Subjects were asked to respond to trolley dilemmas in a forced choice format and either simultaneously received bogus information about the base rate of consequentialist and deontological responding for each dilemma or received no distribution information. In the information condition, the bogus distributions showed that either the consequentialist or the deontological choice option was favored by a majority of previous participants. In a set of two independent studies, we showed that subjects exhibit little conformity to a consequentialist majority opinion but strongly conform when confronted with a deontological majority opinion. We suggest this asymmetric conformity effect demonstrates that subjects are less willing to appear consequentialist than deontological, and we explain these results through mutualistic partner choice models.

Trust, trolleys and social dilemmas: A replication study.

The present manuscript addresses how perceived trustworthiness of cooperative partners in a social dilemma context is influenced by the moral judgments those partners make on Trolley-type moral dilemmas; an issue recently investigated by Everett, Pizarro, and Crockett (2016). The present research comprises 2 studies that were conducted independently, simultaneously with, and incognizant of the Everett studies. Whereas the present studies aimed at investigating the same research hypothesis, a different and more elaborate methodology was used, as such providing a conceptual replication opportunity and extension to the Everett et al. studies. Overall, the present studies clearly confirmed the main finding of Everett et al., that deontologists are more trusted than consequentialists in social dilemma games. Study 1 replicates Everett et al.’s effect in the context of trust games. Study 2 generalizes the effect to public goods games, thus demonstrating that it is not specific to the type of social dilemma game used in Everett et al. Finally, both studies build on these results by demonstrating that the increased trust in deontologists may sometimes, but not always, be warranted: deontologists displayed increased cooperation rates but only in the public goods game and not in trust games.

Toward an Integrated Cognition Perspective on Ethnic Prejudice: An Investigation Into the Role of Intelligence and Need for Cognitive Closure

Both ability and motivation aspects of cognition have been shown to relate to ethnic prejudice. In line with recent theorizing, the present study advances an integrated cognition perspective on ethnic prejudice by examining the interplay between cognitive ability (measured with the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test) and cognitive motivation (measured with the Need for Cognitive Closure [NFC] Scale) in a Belgian, heterogeneous adult sample (N = 315). Path analysis revealed that intelligence and NFC each have unique and independent effects on ethnic prejudice, and that both right-wing authoritarianism and essentialist thinking play a mediating role in these effects. Hence, although cognitive abilities and motivations are to some extent interrelated and operate in similar ways, they uniquely and additively contribute to the explained variance in ethnic prejudice.

Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas:

Scholars have been using hypothetical dilemmas to investigate moral decision making for decades. However, whether people’s responses to these dilemmas truly reflect the decisions they would make in real life is unclear. In the current study, participants had to make the real-life decision to administer an electroshock (that they did not know was bogus) to a single mouse or allow five other mice to receive the shock. Our results indicate that responses to hypothetical dilemmas are not predictive of real-life dilemma behavior, but they are predictive of affective and cognitive aspects of the real-life decision. Furthermore, participants were twice as likely to refrain from shocking the single mouse when confronted with a hypothetical versus the real version of the dilemma. We argue that hypothetical-dilemma research, while valuable for understanding moral cognition, has little predictive value for actual behavior and that future studies should investigate actual moral behavior along with the hypothetical scenarios dominating the field.

Defining the happiness gap

In their Report “Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness” (13 March 2015, p. [1243][1]), S. P. Wojcik et al. show that liberals display more cheer in smiles, positive word choice, and use of positive emoticons. The authors explicitly contrast these findings to the allegedly

Intergroup Reconciliation between Flemings and Walloons: The Predictive Value of Cognitive Style, Authoritarian Ideology, and Intergroup Emotions

Testifying to the gap in fundamental research on positive intergroup outcomes, we investigated reconciliation attitudes in a non-violent intergroup context (i.e., the linguistic conflict in Belgium). By incorporating both important predictors of negative outgroup attitudes (i.e., individual differences in rigid cognitive styles and authoritarian ideologies), and important predictors of reconciliation (i.e., intergroup emotions), we aimed to contribute to a more comprehensive theoretical framework for the analysis of intergroup relations. We recruited one Flemish (N = 310) and one Walloon (N = 365) undergraduate students sample to test the proposed model. Structural equation analyses with maximum likelihood estimation were conducted using the Lavaan package. In both samples, similar patterns were found. More in particular, the need for cognitive closure appeared to be the basic predictor of right-wing attitudes (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation) and essentialist thinking, which were then associated with less outgroup empathy and trust, and more outgroup anger. Furthermore, outgroup trust and empathy were positively related to reconciliation. Interestingly, some differences between the Flemish and Walloon sample were found, such as the direct effects of need for closure and social dominance orientation in the first sample, and the non-significant effects of essentialism in the latter sample. Considering the ongoing public and political debate about the linguistic conflict in Belgium, these findings shed a new light on how individual differences relate to specific outgroup emotions, and how these are associated with important intergroup outcomes in the face of intergroup conflict.

Beyond physical harm: how preference for consequentialism and primary psychopathy relate to decisions on a monetary trolley dilemma

Abstract When is it appropriate to harm a single person to help multiple others? Psychologists have investigated this question through the study of hypothetical “trolley” dilemmas involving extreme physical harm life-or-death situations that contrast outcome-focussed, consequentialist moral reasoning with principle-focussed, deontological moral reasoning. The present studies investigate whether participants’ preference for consequentialism generalises across domains. We administered traditional physical harm dilemmas as well as a trolley-type dilemma involving monetary harm. Across four studies (N = 809), an internal meta-analysis demonstrated that participants’ responses to the traditional dilemmas predicted their responses to the monetary dilemma. Additionally, previous research has uncovered that primary psychopathy predicts consequentialist responses on physical harm dilemmas. The current work uncovers that this association does not generalise to monetary harm dilemmas, suggesting that the association between primary psychopathy and consequentialist reasoning is not related to consequentialist reasoning per se, but to the idiosyncrasies of traditional harm-centric trolley dilemmas instead.

Can education change the world? Education amplifies differences in liberalization values and innovation between developed and developing countries

The present study investigated the relationship between level of education and liberalization values in large, representative samples administered in 96 countries around the world (total N = 139,991). These countries show meaningful variation in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI), ranging from very poor, developing countries to prosperous, developed countries. We found evidence of cross-level interactions, consistently showing that individuals’ level of education was associated with an increase in their liberalization values in higher HDI societies, whereas this relationship was curbed in lower HDI countries. This enhanced liberalization mindset of individuals in high HDI countries, in turn, was related to better scores on national indices of innovation. We conclude that this ‘education amplification effect’ widens the gap between lower and higher HDI countries in terms of liberalized mentality and economic growth potential. Policy implications for how low HDI countries can counter this gap are discussed.

Behavioural Consistency Within the Prisoner's Dilemma Game: The Role of Personality and Situation: Consistency within prisoner's dilemma

Mixed–motive games represent situations that confront people with a conflict between cooperative and non–cooperative alternatives. Despite this common basis, recent research has shown that the consistency of peoples choices across different mixed–motive games is rather low. The present research examined behavioural consistency within the same mixed–motive game, by presenting participants with a series of one–shot Prisoners Dilemma Games. Across this set of games, payoffs were manipulated in order to intensify or weaken the conflict between self and the other party while maintaining the games underlying structure. Our findings indicate that significant differences in choice behaviour are observed as a function of both situational (i.e. manipulations of the Prisoners Dilemma Games payoff structure) and personality differences (i.e. individual differences in personality and motivational traits). Moreover, our included situational variables and personality features did not interact with each other and were about equally impactful in shaping cooperation. Crucially, however, despite the significant behavioural differences across game variants, considerable consistency in choices was found as well, which suggests that the games motivational basis reliably impacts choice behaviour in spite of situational and personality variations. We discuss implications for theorizing on mixed–motive situations and elaborate on the question how cooperation can be promoted.