Piercarlo Valdesolo

Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment

Recent work in psychology and neuroscience has revealed that moral judgments are often mediated by two classes of brain processes (Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004; Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Haidt, 2001). One class, probably reflecting earlier evolutionary development, consists of processes that automatically alter hedonic states in response to specific types of socially relevant stimuli. A second class consists of more domain-general, effortful processes that underlie abilities for abstract reasoning, simulation, and cognitive control. Often, these intuitive and deliberative processes work in unison to foster decisions in accord with the goals of both; goals that are socially adaptive are often congruent with more abstract moral principles. Certain classes of ethical dilemmas, however, require decisions in which the competition between these two systems becomes evident (Greene et al., 2001, 2004). The structure of such dilemmas often requires endorsing a personal moral violation in order to uphold a utilitarian principle. The well-known footbridge dilemma is illustrative. In it, the lives of five people can be saved through sacrificing another. However, the sacrifice involves pushing a rather large man off a footbridge to stop a runaway trolley before it kills the other five. The vast majority of individuals believe it wrong to push him, even though not pushing him will result in a greater number of deaths (Greene et al., 2004; Thomson, 1986). The reason for this seemingly illogical response stems from competition between the emotionally intuitive and deliberative systems. Neuroimaging has revealed that such dilemmas produce increased activation in emotion-related brain centers, as well as in centers normally used for deliberative reasoning; considering personal moral violations, such as inflicting direct harm, elicits prepotent negative reactions that appear designed to inhibit amoral acts (Greene et al., 2001). The infrequent selection of the logically appropriate option in such dilemmas is associated with heightened activation of deliberative centers aimed at cognitive control, suggesting that the automatic negative reaction must be disregarded if a utilitarian judgment is to bemade (Greene et al., 2004). Given these findings, one might expect that the ultimate arbiter of ethical choice for such dilemmas would reside in individuals’ abilities and motivations to engage in controlled analysis. However, the proposed dual-process model of moral judgment suggests another unexamined route by which choice might be influenced: contextual sensitivity of affect. Affective states stand as momentary informational signals regarding the environment and are multiply determined (Schwarz & Clore, 1996). Consequently, environmental factors separate from any potential moral violations might influence affect at the time of judgment. A close temporal contiguity of such affectively stochastic events and the stable negative emotion stemming from a dilemmamight unhinge the direct relation between a dilemmaspecific prepotent emotional response and choice. Simply put, environment-induced feelings of positivity at the time of judgment might reduce the perceived negativity, or aversion ‘‘signal,’’ of any potential moral violation and, thereby, increase utilitarian responding.

Emotion and Decision Making

A revolution in the science of emotion has emerged in recent decades, with the potential to create a paradigm shift in decision theories. The research reveals that emotions constitute potent, pervasive, predictable, sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial drivers of decision making. Across different domains, important regularities appear in the mechanisms through which emotions influence judgments and choices. We organize and analyze what has been learned from the past 35 years of work on emotion and decision making. In so doing, we propose the emotion-imbued choice model, which accounts for inputs from traditional rational choice theory and from newer emotion research, synthesizing scientific models.

Synchrony and the Social Tuning of Compassion

Although evidence has suggested that synchronized movement can foster cooperation, the ability of synchrony to increase costly altruism and to operate as a function of emotional mechanisms remains unexplored. We predicted that synchrony, due to an ability to elicit low-level appraisals of similarity, would enhance a basic compassionate response toward victims of moral transgressions and thereby increase subsequent costly helping behavior on their behalf. Using a manipulation of rhythmic synchrony, we show that synchronous others are not only perceived to be more similar to oneself but also evoke more compassion and altruistic behavior than asynchronous others experiencing the same plight. These findings both support the view that a primary function of synchrony is to mark others as similar to the self and provide the first empirical demonstration that synchrony-induced affiliation modulates emotional responding and altruism.

Jealousy and the threatened self: getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster.

Several theories specifying the causes of jealousy have been put forth in the past few decades. Firm support for any proposed theory, however, has been limited by the difficulties inherent in inducing jealousy and examining any proposed mediating mechanisms in real time. In support of a theory of jealousy centering on threats to the self-system, 2 experiments are presented that address these past limitations and argue for a model based on context-induced variability in self-evaluation. Experiment 1 presents a method for evoking jealousy through the use of highly orchestrated social encounters and demonstrates that threatened self-esteem functions as a principal mediator of jealousy. In addition to replicating these findings, Experiment 2 provides direct evidence for jealousy as a cause of aggression. The ability of the proposed theory of jealousy to integrate other extant findings in the literature is also discussed.

Awe, Uncertainty, and Agency Detection

Across five studies, we found that awe increases both supernatural belief (Studies 1, 2, and 5) and intentional-pattern perception (Studies 3 and 4)—two phenomena that have been linked to agency detection, or the tendency to interpret events as the consequence of intentional and purpose-driven agents. Effects were both directly and conceptually replicated, and mediational analyses revealed that these effects were driven by the influence of awe on tolerance for uncertainty. Experiences of awe decreased tolerance for uncertainty, which, in turn, increased the tendency to believe in nonhuman agents and to perceive human agency in random events.

Science Is Awe-Some: The Emotional Antecedents of Science Learning:

Scientists from Einstein to Sagan have linked emotions like awe with the motivation for scientific inquiry, but no research has tested this possibility. Theoretical and empirical work from affective science, however, suggests that awe might be unique in motivating explanation and exploration of the physical world. We synthesize theories of awe with theories of the cognitive mechanisms related to learning, and offer a generative theoretical framework that can be used to test the effect of this emotion on early science learning.

Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence

Significance To eliminate violence, we must understand the motives that drive it. Most theories assume that violence is motivated by instrumental gain or impulsiveness, and is restrained by moral inhibitions. In these frameworks, dehumanization breaks down moral inhibitions by reducing perceptions of victims as fellow human beings worthy of concern. However, we argue that much violence is actually motivated by moral sentiments, and that morally motivated perpetrators wish to harm fellow human beings. Across five experiments, we show that dehumanizing victims increases instrumental, but not moral, violence. This distinction, between instrumental violence enabled by dehumanization, and moral violence directed toward human victims, has important implications for understanding how morality and dehumanization interact with violence, and for informing violence reduction efforts worldwide. Across five experiments, we show that dehumanization—the act of perceiving victims as not completely human—increases instrumental, but not moral, violence. In attitude surveys, ascribing reduced capacities for cognitive, experiential, and emotional states to victims predicted support for practices where victims are harmed to achieve instrumental goals, including sweatshop labor, animal experimentation, and drone strikes that result in civilian casualties, but not practices where harm is perceived as morally righteous, including capital punishment, killing in war, and drone strikes that kill terrorists. In vignette experiments, using dehumanizing compared with humanizing language increased participants’ willingness to harm strangers for money, but not participants’ willingness to harm strangers for their immoral behavior. Participants also spontaneously dehumanized strangers when they imagined harming them for money, but not when they imagined harming them for their immoral behavior. Finally, participants humanized strangers who were low in humanity if they imagined harming them for immoral behavior, but not money, suggesting that morally motivated perpetrators may humanize victims to justify violence against them. Our findings indicate that dehumanization enables violence that perpetrators see as unethical, but instrumentally beneficial. In contrast, dehumanization does not contribute to moral violence because morally motivated perpetrators wish to harm complete human beings who are capable of deserving blame, experiencing suffering, and understanding its meaning.

The Virtue in Vice: Short-Sightedness in the Study of Moral Emotions

Emotions that are motivated by self-interest, such as jealousy, pride, and revenge, are considered to be vices. We examine the long-term consequences of such states, and suggest that, in addition to promoting immediate individual rewards, they may ultimately function to enhance collective well-being and, as such, contribute importantly to the stability of moral systems.

Awe and scientific explanation.

Past research has established a relationship between awe and explanatory frameworks, such as religion. We extend this work, showing (a) the effects of awe on a separate source of explanation: attitudes toward science, and (b) how the effects of awe on attitudes toward scientific explanations depend on individual differences in theism. Across 3 studies, we find consistent support that awe decreases the perceived explanatory power of science for the theistic (Study 1 and 2) and mixed support that awe affects attitudes toward scientific explanations for the nontheistic (Study 3). (PsycINFO Database Record

Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug

Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as “the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds” (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states in victims generates apathy that enables harm for instrumental gain, while recognition of those same states may be required to harm victims to satisfy moral motives (2). Instead, the substance of Fincher et al.’s (1) critique is that we fail to investigate broader, vaguely defined dimensions of dehumanization that could conceivably be related to moral violence. However, we consider our conceptual specificity and tight … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: tage{at}mit.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1