Would you kill one person to save five? People are more willing to accept such utilitarian action when using a foreign language than when using their native language. In six experiments, we investigated why foreign-language use affects moral choice in this way. On the one hand, the difficulty of using a foreign language might slow people down and increase deliberation, amplifying utilitarian considerations of maximizing welfare. On the other hand, use of a foreign language might stunt emotional processing, attenuating considerations of deontological rules, such as the prohibition against killing. Using a process-dissociation technique, we found that foreign-language use decreases deontological responding but does not increase utilitarian responding. This suggests that using a foreign language affects moral choice not through increased deliberation but by blunting emotional reactions associated with the violation of deontological rules.
BaronJ.ScottS.FincherK.MetzS. E. (2014). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)?Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 265–284.
2.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
3.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
4.
CipollettiH.McFarlaneS.WeissglassC. (2016). The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 29, 23–40.
5.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235.
6.
ConwayP.RosasA. (2017). Distinguishing between harm avoidance and outcome maximization in a new battery of process dissociation dilemmas, accounting for guilty victims, fated victims, and selfishness. Manuscript in preparation, Department of Psychology, Florida State University.
7.
CoreyJ. D.HayakawaS.FoucartA.ApariciM.BotellaJ.CostaA.KeysarB. (2017). Our moral choices are foreign to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1109–1128.
8.
CostaA.FoucartA.HayakawaS.ApariciM.ApesteguiaJ.HeafnerJ.KeysarB. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE, 9(4), Article e94842. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094842
9.
CushmanF. (2013). Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 273–292.
10.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
EpsteinS. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.
13.
FootP. (1978). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect in virtues and vices. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
14.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
15.
FriesdorfR.ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 696–713.
16.
FurrR. M.RosenthalR. (2003). Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics, 2, 45–67.
17.
GeipelJ.HadjichristidisC.SurianL. (2015a). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of emotions and norms. PLoS ONE, 10(7), Article e0131529. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131529
18.
GeipelJ.HadjichristidisC.SurianL. (2015b). How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 8–17.
19.
GreeneJ. D. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In Sinnott-ArmstrongW. (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 3. The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development (pp. 35–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154.
21.
HarrisC. L.AyçiçeğiA.GleasonJ. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 561–579.
22.
HayakawaS.CostaA.FoucartA.KeysarB. (2016). Using a foreign language changes our choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 791–793.
23.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
24.
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.
25.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
26.
KantI. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (BeckL. W., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785)
27.
KeysarB.HayakawaS. L.AnS. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23, 661–668.
28.
KlesseA.-K.LevavJ.GoukensC. (2015). The effect of preference expression modality on self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 535–550.
29.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Applied Social Research Methods, Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MillJ. S. (1998). Utilitarianism (CrispR., Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1861)
31.
OppenheimerD. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 237–241.
32.
PlassJ. L.ChunD. M.MayerR. E.LeutnerD. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221–243.
33.
PuntoniS.de LangheB.van OsselaerS. M. (2009). Bilingualism and the emotional intensity of advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 1012–1025.
34.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.
37.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–695.
38.
ThomsonJ. J. (1985). Double effect, triple effect and the trolley problem: Squaring the circle in looping cases. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.
39.
WangY.HighhouseS.LakeC. J.PetersenN. L.RadaT. B. (2017). Meta-analytic investigations of the relation between intuition and analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 15–25.
40.
ZellnerA. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.
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.
