Florida State University, United States.
Florida State University, United States.
Cognition. 2019 Nov;192:103995. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007. Epub 2019 Jul 10.
Conventional sacrificial moral dilemmas propose directly causing some harm to prevent greater harm. Theory suggests that accepting such actions (consistent with utilitarian philosophy) involves more reflective reasoning than rejecting such actions (consistent with deontological philosophy). However, past findings do not always replicate, confound different kinds of reflection, and employ conventional sacrificial dilemmas that treat utilitarian and deontological considerations as opposite. In two studies, we examined whether past findings would replicate when employing process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian inclinations independently. Findings suggested two categorically different impacts of reflection: measures of arithmetic reflection, such as the Cognitive Reflection Test, predicted only utilitarian, not deontological, response tendencies. However, measures of logical reflection, such as performance on logical syllogisms, positively predicted both utilitarian and deontological tendencies. These studies replicate some findings, clarify others, and reveal opportunity for additional nuance in dual process theorist's claims about the link between reflection and dilemma judgments.
传统的牺牲道德困境直接提出造成一些伤害以防止更大的伤害。理论表明，接受这样的行动（符合功利主义哲学）比拒绝这样的行动（符合道义论哲学）需要更多的反思推理。然而，过去的发现并不总是重复，混淆了不同种类的反思，并且采用传统的牺牲困境，将功利主义和道义论的考虑视为对立的。在两项研究中，我们通过过程分离来评估道义论和功利主义倾向的独立影响，检验了过去的发现是否会重复。研究结果表明，反思具有两种截然不同的影响：算术反射的度量，如认知反射测验，仅预测功利主义，而不是道义论的反应倾向。然而，逻辑反射的度量，如逻辑推理的表现，积极地预测了功利主义和道义论的倾向。这些研究复制了一些发现，澄清了其他发现，并为双重过程理论家关于反思与困境判断之间联系的主张提供了更多的细微差别。
