Moral judgments often appear to arise from quick affectively toned intuitions rather than from conscious application of moral principles. Sometimes people feel that an action they observe or contemplate could be judged as either right or wrong. Models of moral intuition need to specify mechanisms that could account for such moral ambivalence. The basic implication of moral ambivalence is that right and wrong are regions of a bivariate scale rather than a bipolar scale. The former allows for equally strong positive and negative evaluations of a stimulus, but the latter requires one evaluation to get weaker as the other one gets stronger (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994). Covariation of evaluative activations is supported by classic animal research on approach–avoidance conflict showing that when rats are both rewarded and punished in the goal region of a runway, their approach and avoidance tendencies both increase as they get closer to the goal. The relevance of this research to moral judgment is underscored by recent studies indicating that judgments of right and wrong are fundamentally expressions of approach and avoidance motivation. Experimental and historical analyses illustrate 2 potential effects of ambivalence on moral judgment, vacillation and suppression, and a proposed model shows how the bivariate scale can be applied to existing formulations, including Haidt's moral foundations theory. Studies of moral judgment that use rating scales, questionnaires, or interviews should give participants the option to express ambivalence (e.g., “can't decide,” “don't know”) instead of requiring definitive judgments, which is the current practice.
AtranS. (2003, March 7). Genesis of suicide terrorism. Science, 299, 1534–1539. doi:10.1126/science.1078854
2.
BarghJ. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In UlemanJ. S. & BarghJ. A. (), Unintended thought (pp. 3–51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
BaumeisterR. F., BratslavskyE., FinkenauerC., & VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
4.
BrownJ. S. (1948). Gradients of approach and avoidance responses and their relation to motivation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41, 450–465. doi:10.1037/h0055463
5.
BrowningC. R. (1998). Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1993).
6.
CacioppoJ. T., & BerntsonG. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
7.
CarverC. S., & WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and the affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
8.
CimaM., TonnaerF., & HauserM. D. (2010). Psychopaths know right from wrong but don't care. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 59–67. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp051
9.
CushmanF., YoungL., & HauserM. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 1082–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
10.
DwyerS. (2009). Moral dumbfounding and the linguistic analogy: Methodological implications for the study of moral judgment. Mind & Language, 24, 274–296. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01363.x
11.
DyerG. (2005). War: The lethal custom. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf Publishers. (Original work published 1985).
12.
FowlesD. C. (1980). The three arousal model: Implications of Gray's two-factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity, and psychopathy. Psychophysiology, 17, 87–104. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1980.tb00117.x
13.
GigerenzerG. (2008). Moral intuition = fast and frugal heuristics? In Sinnot-ArmstrongW. (), Moral psychology, The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
GillM. B. (2007). Moral rationalism vs. moral sentimentalism: Is morality more like math or beauty?Philosophy Compass, 2, 16–30. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00052.x
15.
GoldhagenD. J. (1997). Hitler's willing executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1996).
16.
GrayJ. A. (1972). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion: A modification of Eysenck's theory. In NebylitsynV. D. & GrayJ. A. (), The biological bases of individual behaviour (pp. 182–205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
GrayJ. A. (1978). The neuropsychology of anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 417–434. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1978.tb02118.x
18.
GreeneJ. D., MorelliS. A., LowenbergK., NystromL. E., & CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgments. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004
19.
GreeneJ. D., SommervilleB., NystromL. E., DarleyJ. M., & CohenJ. D. (2001, September 14). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
20.
GrossmanD. (2009). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. (Original work published 1995).
21.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and it rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
22.
HaidtJ. (2007, May 18). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002. doi:10.1126/science.1137651
23.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
24.
HaidtJ., & BjorklundF. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In Sinnot-ArmstrongW. (), Moral psychology, The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 181–217). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
HaidtJ., & HershM. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and reasons of liberals and conservatives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191–221. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02489.x
26.
HaidtJ., KollerS., & SiasM. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613
27.
HauserM., CushmanF., YoungL., JinR. K., & MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22, 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
28.
HuebnerB., DwyerS., & HauserM. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.006
29.
Janoff-BulmanR., SheikhS., & HeppS. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537. doi:10.1037/a0013779
30.
KoenigsM., YoungL., AdolphsR., TranelD., CushmanF., HauserM., & DamasioA. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446, 908–911. doi:10.1038/nature05631
31.
KohlbergL. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalist fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In MischelT. (), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp. 151–235). New York, NY: Academic Press.
32.
KrusemarkE. A., CampbellW. K., & ClementzB. A. (2008). Attributions, deception, and event related potentials: An investigation of the self-serving bias. Psychophysiology, 45, 511–515. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00659.x
33.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. Selected papers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
34.
MatherM., ShafirE., & JohnsonM. K. (2003). Remembering assigned and chosen options. Memory & Cognition, 31, 422–433. doi:10.3758/BF03194400
35.
McGuireW. J. (1976). Historical comparisons: Testing psychological hypotheses with cross-era data. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 161–183. doi:10.1080/00207597608247356
36.
MilgramS. (2004). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Perennial Classics. (Original work published 1974).
37.
MillerN. E. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In HuntJ. McV. (), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 431–465). New York, NY: Ronald Press.
38.
MurrayE. J., & BerkunM. M. (1955). Displacement as a function of conflict. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 47–56. doi:10.1037/h0048361
39.
NavarickD. J. (2012). Historical psychology and the Milgram paradigm: Tests of an experimentally derived model of defiance using accounts of massacres by Nazi Reserve Police Battalion 101. The Psychological Record, 62, 133–154.
40.
NormanG. J., NorrisC. J., GollanJ., ItoT. A., HawkleyL. C., LarsenJ. T., … BerntsonG. G. (2011). Current emotion research in psychophysiology: The neurobiology of evaluative bivalence. Emotion Review, 3, 349–359. doi:10.1177/1754073911402403
41.
PiagetJ. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Free Press.
42.
PrestonS. D., & de WaalF. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
43.
PrinzJ. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9, 29–43. doi:10.1080/13869790500492466
44.
RunyanW. M. (1988). Reconceptualizing the relationships between history and psychology. In RunyanW. M. (), Psychology and historical interpretation (pp. 247–295). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
SchacterD. L., & DodsonC. S. (2001). Misattribution, false recognition and the sins of memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 356, 1385–1393. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0938
46.
SchnallS., HaidtJ., CloreG. L., & JordanA. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109. doi:10.1177/0146167208317771
47.
SiddleD. T., & ManganG. L. (1968). Behaviour at the point of maximum approach- avoidance conflict. Australian Journal of Psychology, 20, 27–33. doi:10.1080/00049536808255735
48.
ThurstoneL. L. (1931). The measurement of attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 249–269. doi:10.1037/h0070363
49.
UgazioG., LammC., & SingerT. (2012). The role of emotions for moral judgments depends on the type of emotion and moral scenario. Emotion, 12, 579–590. doi:10.1037/a0024611
50.
ValdesoloP., & DeStenoD. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x
51.
VanpaemelW., & StormsG. (2008). In search of abstraction: The varying abstraction model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 732–749. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4.732
52.
WebbE. J., CampbellD. T., SchwartzR. D., & SechrestL. (2000). Unobtrusive measures (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (Original work published 1966).
53.
WheatleyT., & HaidtJ. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780–784. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01614.x
54.
WongD. B. (2009). Natural moralities: A defense of pluralistic relativism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 2006).
55.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
