Open AccessKill One to Save Five? How Time Pressure, Religiosity, and Framing Effects Impact Utilitarian Judgments
Author(s) -
Michael Apostol,
Laura M. Getz
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
psi chi journal of psychological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2325-7342
pISSN - 2164-8204
DOI - 10.24839/2325-7342.jn27.1.33
Subject(s) - vignette , religiosity , psychology , deliberation , scrutiny , framing (construction) , social psychology , framing effect , persuasion , structural engineering , politics , political science , law , engineering
The dual-process model states that utilitarian judgments occur through effortful, rather than automatic, processes. In 3 studies, we built on this model by evaluating how framing effects and religiosity impact utilitarian judgments. Study 1 (N = 120) incorporated a 2 x 2 design in which participants rated the moral permissibility of a utilitarian judgment vignette, which varied in subject frame and decision time. Religiosity scores were recorded. The results indicated that moral permissibility judgments did not differ if made automatically or deliberately, F(1, 116) = 0.33, p = .57, nor were they influenced by subject frame, F(1, 116) = 0.25, p = .62, or religiosity, F(1, 116) = 1.09, p = .30. Study 2 (N = 42) addressed low ecological validity ratings of the vignette in Study 1. By comparing 5 potential utilitarian vignettes, a grocery store vignette was found to be the most ecologically valid, p .05. Taken together, these 3 studies indicated that utilitarian judgments can be endorsed without deliberation, which suggests that the dual-process model needs further scrutiny. Additionally, future research should prioritize ecological validity when relying on vignettes to study moral processes.