Three studies were designed to explore a major criticism of sacrificial dilemmas, namely that their potential humorous aspects may distort moral decision-making. We collected moral responses (i.e. moral judgment and choice of action) but also asked participants to rate the funniness of moral dilemmas, in order to combine humour assessment and moral responses. In addition, the emotional responses to moral dilemmas were recorded for both men and women (including emotions related to humour), and the potential effect of individuals' need for humour was also considered. Overall, three main results were reported. Firstly, the dilemmas used in our studies were not rated as funny at all. Secondly, reading moral dilemmas increased negative emotions (i.e. sadness, disgust, guilt) and decreased positive emotions associated with humour (i.e. joy, amusement, and mirth), with gender effects since women experienced stronger negative emotions than men. Thirdly, funniness ratings of sacrificial dilemmas did not vary according to gender and need for humour. This series of studies does not report empirical evidence to support the humorous aspects of trolley-type dilemmas, but invites a more systematic examination of how sacrificial dilemmas are perceived by participants who have to produce moral responses.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2426674 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Being blind (or not) to scenarios used in sacrificial dilemmas: the influence of factual and contextual information on moral responses.
Front Psychol
October 2024
Epsylon EA 4556, Department of Psychology, University Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France.
Article Synopsis
- The study examines how providing contextual information impacts moral judgment and decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas.
- Participants (334 total) were divided into two groups: one received detailed scenarios, while the other received no context before making moral decisions.
- Results showed that while moral judgments remained unchanged, the presence of scenarios increased utilitarian choices, suggesting context can influence perceived action plausibility without affecting emotional responses.
- The findings highlight the importance of contextual factors in understanding moral dilemmas.
Humour in trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas: killing is not funny at all.
Cogn Emot
November 2024
Department of Psychology, Epsylon EA 4556, University Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France.
Three studies were designed to explore a major criticism of sacrificial dilemmas, namely that their potential humorous aspects may distort moral decision-making. We collected moral responses (i.e.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIs It Fair to Kill One to Save Five? How Just World Beliefs Shape Sacrificial Moral Decision-making.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull
October 2024
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Article Synopsis
- The study explores how people's ethical decisions in sacrifice dilemmas (sacrificing one to save many) relate to two different ethical frameworks: deontological ethics, which opposes causing harm, and utilitarian ethics, which focuses on maximizing overall good.
- Researchers conducted four studies with a total of 1,116 participants, manipulating the perceived moral character of the sacrificial target to see how this affected ethical decision-making.
- Results indicated that participants were less likely to reject harm (consistent with utilitarianism) when the target was perceived as guilty rather than innocent, while general beliefs about justice and fair treatment influenced both ethical perspectives, though these effects were diminished when psychopathy traits were taken into account.
Choosing between bad and worse: investigating choice in moral dilemmas through the lens of control.
Cogn Process
August 2024
Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, India.
People's preferences for the utilitarian outcome in sacrificial moral dilemmas, where a larger group of individuals are saved at the cost of a few, have been argued to be influenced by various factors. Taking expected utility (EU) theory into consideration, we investigate whether the expected effectiveness of actions elucidate certain inconsistencies in moral judgments. Additionally, we also explore whether participants' role in the dilemma as the executor or a superior who merely makes a decision, which is carried out by a subordinate, influences judgments-a factor generally overlooked by classical EU models.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMoral preference reversals: Violations of procedure invariance in moral judgments of sacrificial dilemmas.
Cognition
November 2024
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Nova Southeastern University, USA.
In this research, we examine whether moral judgments sometimes violate the normative principle of procedure invariance - that is, whether normatively equivalent elicitation tasks can result in different judgment patterns. Specifically, we show that the relative morality of two actions can reverse across evaluation modes and elicitation tasks, mirroring preference reversals in consumer behavior. Across six studies (five preregistered, total N = 719), we provide evidence of three reversals of moral judgments of sacrificial dilemmas.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!