Typical moral dilemmas pitting the consequences of a given action against the action’s consistency with moral norms confound several determinants of moral judgments. Dissociating these determinants, the CNI model allows researchers to quantify sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to norms, and general preference for inaction over action regardless of consequences and norms. However, with the currently available set of dilemmas for research using the CNI model, the model is not suitable for studies with individual-difference designs. To overcome this limitation, the current research investigated the suitability of an extended dilemma battery to make the CNI model amenable for individual-difference research, examining relations of its parameters with psychopathy, empathic concern, need for cognition, self-reported utilitarianism, behavioral activation/inhibition, moral identity, and religiosity. The results support the suitability of the CNI model for individual-difference research with the extended dilemma battery, providing more nuanced insights into the underpinnings of individual differences in moral dilemma judgments.
AquinoK.ReedA.II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
2.
ArmstrongJ.FriesdorfR.ConwayP. (2019). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 353–363.
3.
Barak-CorrenN.BazermanM. (2017). Is saving lives your task or God’s? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 12, 280–296.
4.
BartelsD. M.BaumanC. W.CushmanF. A.PizarroD. A.McGrawA. P. (2015). Moral judgment and decision making. In KerenG.WuG. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 478–515). Wiley.
5.
BartelsD. M.PizarroD. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161.
6.
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.
7.
BiałekM.Paruzel-CzachuraM.GawronskiB. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103855.
8.
BrannonS. M.CarrS.JinE. S.JosephsR. A.GawronskiB. (2019). Exogenous testosterone increases sensitivity to moral norms in moral dilemma judgments. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 856–866.
9.
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.
10.
CaleE. M.LilienfeldS. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1179–1207.
11.
CarverC. S.WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
12.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235.
13.
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.
14.
CroneD. L.LahamS. M. (2017). Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 476–481.
15.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100.
16.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
17.
EpsteinS.PaciniR.Denes-RajV.HeierH. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.
18.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
19.
FunderD. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21–34.
20.
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.
21.
GawronskiB.BrannonS. M. (2020). Power and moral dilemma judgments: Distinct effects of memory recall versus social roles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103908.
22.
GawronskiB.ConwayP.ArmstrongJ.FriesdorfR.HütterM. (2016). Understanding responses to moral dilemmas: Deontological inclinations, utilitarian inclinations, and general action tendencies. In ForgasJ. P.JussimL.Van LangeP. A. M. (Eds.), Social psychology of morality (pp. 91–110). Psychology Press.
23.
GawronskiB.ConwayP.ArmstrongJ.FriesdorfR.HütterM. (2018). Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion, 18, 989–1008.
24.
GleichgerrchtE.YoungL. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLOS ONE, 8, Article e60418.
25.
GlennA. L.KolevaS.IyerR.GrahamJ.DittoP. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 497–505.
26.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
27.
HennigM.HütterM. (2020). Revisiting the divide between deontology and utilitarianism in moral dilemma judgment: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 22–56.
28.
HütterM.KlauerK. C. (2016). Applying processing trees in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 27, 116–159.
29.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.HeppS. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521–537.
30.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164.
31.
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.
32.
KoenigL. B.McGueM.KruegerR. F.BouchardT. J.Jr. (2005). Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: Findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings. Journal of Personality, 73, 471–488.
33.
KörnerA.JoffeS.DeutschR. (2019). When skeptical, stick with the norm: Low dilemma plausibility increases deontological moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103834.
34.
KörnerA.VolkS. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139–145.
35.
LevensonM. R.KiehlK. A.FitzpatrickC. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.
36.
LiZ.GaoL.Zhao LiB. (2019). Deconfounding the effects of acute stress on abstract moral dilemma judgment. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00453-0
37.
MacCallumR. C.ZhangS.PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D. (2002). On the price of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.
38.
McPhetresJ.ConwayP.HughesJ. S.ZuckermanM. (2018). Reflecting on God’s will: Reflective processing contributes to religious people’s deontological dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 301–314.
39.
MooreA. B.StevensJ.ConwayA. R. (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment predict moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 621–625.
40.
MoshagenM. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54.
41.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
42.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.
43.
PatilI. (2015). Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgement: The mediating role of action aversion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 349–366.
44.
PatilI.SilaniG. (2014). Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 501.
45.
PatilI.ZucchelliM. M.KoolW.CampbellS.FornasierF.CalòM.CushmanF. (2020). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281
46.
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.
47.
SzekelyR. D.OpreA.MiuA. C. (2015). Religiosity enhances emotion and deontological choice in moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 104–109.
48.
TassyS.OullierO.ManciniJ.WickerB. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 250.
49.
van den BosK.MüllerP. A.DamenT. (2011). A behavioral disinhibition hypothesis of interventions in moral dilemmas. Emotion Review, 3, 281–283.
50.
WhitlockC. (2006, February16). German court overturns law allowing hijacked airliners to be shot down. The Washington Post Foreign Service. http://www.washingtonpost.com
51.
WiechK.KahaneG.ShackelN.FariasM.SavulescuJ.TraceyI. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition, 126, 364–372.
52.
ZhangL.KongM.LiZ.ZhaoX.GaoL. (2018). Chronic stress and moral decision-making: An exploration with the CNI model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1702.
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.
