Sacrificial moral dilemmas, in which opting to kill one person will save multiple others, are definitionally suboptimal: Someone dies either way. Decision-makers, then, may experience regret about these decisions. Past research distinguishes affective regret, negative feelings about a decision, from cognitive regret, thoughts about how a decision might have gone differently. Classic dual-process models of moral judgment suggest that affective processing drives characteristically deontological decisions to reject outcome-maximizing harm, whereas cognitive deliberation drives characteristically utilitarian decisions to endorse outcome-maximizing harm. Consistent with this model, we found that people who made or imagined making sacrificial utilitarian judgments reliably expressed relatively more affective regret and sometimes expressed relatively less cognitive regret than those who made or imagined making deontological dilemma judgments. In other words, people who endorsed causing harm to save lives generally felt more distressed about their decision, yet less inclined to change it, than people who rejected outcome-maximizing harm.
BarrettL. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_2
BaumanC. W.McGrawA. P.BartelsD. M.WarrenC. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12131
4.
BennisW. M.MedinD. L.BartelsD. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of calculation and moral rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610362354
5.
BiałekM.De NeysW. (2016). Conflict detection during moral decision-making: Evidence for deontic reasoners’ utilitarian sensitivity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 631–639.
BostynD. H.RoetsA. (2017). An asymmetric moral conformity effect: Subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 323–330.
8.
BuchananJ.SummervilleA.RebJ.LehmannJ. (2016). The Regret Elements Scale: Distinguishing the affective and cognitive components of regret. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 275–286.
9.
BuchananT. M.BuchananJ.KadeyK. R. (2019). Predicting with your head, not your heart: Forecasting errors and the impact of anticipated versus experienced elements of regret on well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09772-y
10.
ByrdN.ConwayP. (2019). Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007
11.
CarusoE. M.GinoF. (2011). Blind ethics: Closing one’s eyes polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior. Cognition, 118, 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.008
12.
ChristensenJ. F.FlexasA.CalabreseM.GutN. K.GomilaA. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 607. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
15.
ConwayP.Goldstein-GreenwoodJ.PolacekD.GreeneJ. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
16.
ConwayP.ReynoldsC.RosasA. (2019). A new process dissociation dilemma battery distinguishing “pure” dilemmas from dilemmas involving fated victims, guilty victims, and self-interest [Manuscript in preparation].
17.
ConwayP.WeissA.BurgmerP.MussweilerT. (2018). Distrusting your moral compass: The impact of distrust mindsets on moral dilemma processing and judgments. Social Cognition, 36, 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.3.345
18.
CushmanF.GrayK.GaffeyA.MendesW. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025071
EverettJ. A.PizarroD. A.CrockettM. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000165
21.
EverettJ. A. C.SavulescuJ.FaberN.CrockettM. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
23.
Gamez-DjokicM.MoldenD. (2016). Beyond affective influences on deontological moral judgment: The role of motivations for prevention in the moral condemnation of harm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1522–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665094
24.
GawronskiB.ArmstrongJ.ConwayP.FriesdorfR.HütterM. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
GreeneJ. D.NystromL. E.EngellA. D.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
29.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
30.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A.EarpB. D.FariasM.SavulescuJ. (2015). “Utilitarian” judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
31.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093
32.
KantI. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (BeckL. W., Trans.). Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785).
33.
KoenigsM.YoungL.AdolphsR.TranelD.CushmanF.HauserM.DamasioA. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446, 908–911. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05631
34.
KrepsT. A.MoninB. (2014). Core values versus common sense: Consequentialist views appear less rooted in morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1529–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551154
35.
KunduP.CumminsD. D. (2013). Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions. Social Influence, 8(4), 268–279.
36.
LeeJ. J.GinoF. (2015). Poker-faced morality: Concealing emotions leads to utilitarian decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.006
37.
LiuB. S.DittoP. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 316–323.
38.
LucasB. J.LivingstonR. W. (2014). Feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in moral dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1–4.
39.
MataA. (2019). Social metacognition in moral judgment: Decisional conflict promotes perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 1061–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000170
40.
McPhetresJ.ConwayP.HughesJ. S.ZuckermanM. (2018). Reflecting on God’s will: Reflective processing contributes to religious peoples’ deontological dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.013
41.
MillJ. S. (1998). Utilitarianism (CrispR., Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1861).
42.
MillerR. M.HannikainenI. A.CushmanF. A. (2014). Bad actions or bad outcomes? Differentiating affective contributions to the moral condemnation of harm. Emotion, 14, 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035361
43.
PatilI.ZucchelliM.KoolW.CampbellS.FornasierF.CalòM.SilaniG.CikaraM.CushmanF. (in press). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q86vx
44.
PetrinovichL.O’NeillP.JorgensenM. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.467
45.
PiazzaJ.LandyJ. (2013). “Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral thinking. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 639–661.
46.
ReynoldsC. J.ConwayP. (2018). Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas. Emotion, 18, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000413
47.
ReynoldsC. J.KnightenK. R.ConwayP. (2019). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is deontological? Completing moral dilemmas in front of mirrors increases deontological but not utilitarian response tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.005
48.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1995). Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1094
49.
RomS. C.ConwayP. (2018). The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.003
50.
RomS. C.WeissA.ConwayP. (2017). Judging those who judge: Perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others’ moral dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.007
SaccoD. F.BrownM.LustgraafC. J.HugenbergK. (2017). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 125–132.
53.
SingerP. (2009). The life you can save. Random House.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219
56.
SummervilleA.BuchananJ. (2014). Functions of personal experience and of expression of regret. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213515026
57.
SzekelyR. D.MiuA. C. (2015). Incidental emotions in moral dilemmas: The influence of emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.895300
58.
TassoA.SarloM.LottoL. (2017). Emotions associated with counterfactual comparisons drive decision-making in Footbridge-type moral dilemmas. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9607-9
59.
TrémolièreB.BonnefonJ. F. (2014). Efficient kill-save ratios ease up the cognitive demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214530436
WhiteK.LehmanD. R. (2005). Looking on the bright side: Downward counterfactual thinking in response to negative life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276064
ZeelenbergM.BeattieJ.Van der PligtJ.De VriesN. K. (1996). Consequences of regret aversion: Effects of expected feedback on risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0013
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
