Many theorize that cultural similarities in moral judgments arise from a specialized cognitive system devoted to morality. We claim, in contrast, that people make moral judgments using a general-purpose, value-based decision-making process. We present a computational cognitive model to predict response time and response choice to moral dilemmas using valuations as input. Cultural similarities in moral judgment are explained by a culturally stable set of valuations that drives choices that aid survival. Corresponding cultural differences are explained by changes in a decisional bias parameter that accounts for differences in the perceived costs of making various kinds of decisional errors. The model accurately predicts the timed choices of both U.K. and Chinese respondents from values collected from U.S. respondents.
AhleniusH.TännsjöT. (2012). Chinese and Westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmas. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 12, 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342073
AwadE.DsouzaS.KimR.SchultzJ.HenrichJ.ShariffA.BonnefonF.RahwanI. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
4.
AwadE.DsouzaS.ShariffA.RahwanI.BonnefonJ. F. (2020). Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911517117
5.
BagoB.De NeysW. (2019). The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective Dual Process Model of moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 148, 1782–1801. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000533
6.
BalakrishnanJ. D.RatcliffR. (1996). Testing models of decision making under confidence ratings in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.3.615
7.
BischlB.MersmannO.TrautmannH.WeihsC. (2012). Resampling methods for meta-model validation with recommendations for evolutionary computation. Evolutionary Computation, 20, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/EVCO_a_00069
8.
BusemeyerJ. R.JohnsonJ. G. (2004). Computational models of decision making. Blackwell.
9.
ChibbV. S.RangelA.ShimojoS.O’DohertyJ. P. (2009). Evidence for a common representation of decision values for dissimilar goods in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 12315–12320. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2575-09.2009
10.
CohenD. J.AhnM. (2016). A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 145, 1359–1381. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000210
11.
CohenD. J.CromleyA. R.FredaK. E.WhiteM. (2022). Psychological value theory: The psychological value of human lives and economic goods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48, 2015–2050. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001047
12.
de LeeuwJ. R. (2015). JsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
13.
DixonM. L.ChristoffF. (2014). The lateral prefrontal cortex and complex value-based learning and decision making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 45, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.04.011
14.
FellowsL. K. (2011). Orbitofrontal contributions to value-based decision making: Evidence from humans with frontal lobe damage. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1239, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06229.x
15.
FishburnP. C. (1981). Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories. Theory and Decision, 13, 139–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134215
16.
GescheiderG. A. (1988). Psychophysical scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 169–200.
17.
HareT. A.O’DohertyJ. P.CamererC. F.SchultzW.RangelA. (2008). Dissociating the role of the orbitofrontal cortex and the striatum in the computation of goal values and prediction errors. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 5623–5630. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1309-08.2008
18.
HauserM. D. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. Abacus.
19.
HauserM. D.CushmanF.YoungL.Kang-Xing JinR.MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
20.
KrajbichI. (2019). Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.008
21.
LevyD. J.GlimcherP. W. (2011). Comparing apples and oranges: Using reward-specific and reward-general subjective value representation in the brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 14693–14707. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-11.2011
22.
LevyD. J.GlimcherP. W. (2012). The root of all value: A neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22, 1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.001
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
MarksL. E. (1974). On scales of sensation: Prolegomena to any future psychophysics that will be able to come forth as science. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 358–376. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203956
Padoa-SchioppaC.AssadJ. A. (2006). Neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value. Nature, 441, 223–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04676
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (1989). The innate versus the manifest: How universal does universal have to be?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 36–37.
34.
WallisJ. D. (2012). Cross-species studies of orbitofrontal cortex and value-based decision-making. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2956
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.
