14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why People with More Emotion Regulation Difficulties Made a More Deontological Judgment: The Role of Deontological Inclinations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Previous studies have demonstrated the key role of emotion in moral judgment, and explored the relationship between emotion regulation and moral judgment. The present study investigated the influence of individual differences in emotion regulation difficulties on moral judgment. Study 1 examined whether individuals with high emotion regulation difficulties made a more deontological judgment. Study 2 explored the underlying mechanism using a process-dissociation approach, examining whether deontological inclinations and utilitarian inclinations separately or jointly accounted for the association. The results indicated that individuals with high emotion regulation difficulties rated the utilitarian actions less morally appropriate, and one’s deontological inclinations mediated the association between emotion regulation difficulties and moral judgment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.

          Traditional theories of moral development emphasize the role of controlled cognition in mature moral judgment, while a more recent trend emphasizes intuitive and emotional processes. Here we test a dual-process theory synthesizing these perspectives. More specifically, our theory associates utilitarian moral judgment (approving of harmful actions that maximize good consequences) with controlled cognitive processes and associates non-utilitarian moral judgment with automatic emotional responses. Consistent with this theory, we find that a cognitive load manipulation selectively interferes with utilitarian judgment. This interference effect provides direct evidence for the influence of controlled cognitive processes in moral judgment, and utilitarian moral judgment more specifically.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment.

            In some cases people judge it morally acceptable to sacrifice one person's life in order to save several other lives, while in other similar cases they make the opposite judgment. Researchers have identified two general factors that may explain this phenomenon at the stimulus level: (1) the agent's intention (i.e. whether the harmful event is intended as a means or merely foreseen as a side-effect) and (2) whether the agent harms the victim in a manner that is relatively "direct" or "personal". Here we integrate these two classes of findings. Two experiments examine a novel personalness/directness factor that we call personal force, present when the force that directly impacts the victim is generated by the agent's muscles (e.g., in pushing). Experiments 1a and b demonstrate the influence of personal force on moral judgment, distinguishing it from physical contact and spatial proximity. Experiments 2a and b demonstrate an interaction between personal force and intention, whereby the effect of personal force depends entirely on intention. These studies also introduce a method for controlling for people's real-world expectations in decisions involving potentially unrealistic hypothetical dilemmas.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                28 November 2017
                2017
                : 8
                : 2095
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Social and Behavior Sciences, Nanjing University , Nanjing, China
                [2] 2Institute of Disability Research, Nanjing Normal University of Special Education , Nanjing, China
                [3] 3Department of Applied Foreign Language Studies, Nanjing University , Nanjing, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Mark Hallahan, College of the Holy Cross, United States

                Reviewed by: Sandra Pellizzoni, Ospedale Infantile Burlo Garofolo di Trieste, Italy; Meredith Ria Wilkinson, De Montfort University, United Kingdom

                *Correspondence: Zhongquan Li, zqli@ 123456nju.edu.cn

                This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02095
                5712370
                ef17ea7f-14e0-45b6-986d-ef733a9ad90e
                Copyright © 2017 Zhang, Li, Wu and Zhang.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 12 September 2017
                : 16 November 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 37, Pages: 7, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China 10.13039/501100001809
                Award ID: 71201079
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                emotion regulation difficulties,moral judgment,deontological inclinations,utilitarian inclinations,process-dissociation approach

                Comments

                Comment on this article