Moral dilemmas entail situations where decisions consistent with deontological principles (following moral rules) conflict with decisions consistent with utilitarian principles (maximizing overall outcomes). Past work employing process dissociation (PD) clarified that gender differences in utilitarianism are modest, but women are substantially more deontological than men. However, deontological judgments confound two motivations: harm aversion and action aversion. The current work presents a mega-analysis of eight studies (N = 1,965) using PD to assess utilitarian and deontological response tendencies both when deontology entails inaction and when it requires action, to assess the independent contributions of harm aversion and action aversion. Results replicate and clarify past findings: Women scored higher than men on deontological tendencies, and this difference was enhanced when the deontological choice required refraining from harmful action rather than acting to prevent harm. That is, gender differences in deontological inclinations are caused by both harm aversion and action aversion.
AmitE.GreeneJ. D. (2012). You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23, 861–868.
2.
AndrewR. J.RogersL. J. (1972). Testosterone, search behaviour and persistence. Nature, 237, 343–346. doi:10.1038/237343a0
3.
ArutyunovaK. R.AlexandrovY. I.HauserM. D. (2016). Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East–west, male–female, and young–old. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1334. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01334
4.
BartelsD. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381–417. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.001
5.
BartelsD. M.PizarroD. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
6.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
7.
CarneyD. R.MasonM. F. (2010). Decision making and testosterone: When the ends justify the means. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 668–671. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.003
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
9.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235. doi:10.1037/a0031021
10.
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. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.022
11.
CushmanF.YoungL.HauserM. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
12.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. doi:10.1177/0146167200262001
13.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
14.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.54.6.408
15.
EisenbergN.LennonR. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
16.
EverettJ. A.PizarroD. A.CrockettM. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 772–787.
17.
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.
18.
FischerA. H.MansteadA. S. R. (2000). The relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. In FischerA. H. (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 71–94). Paris, France: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
20.
FriesdorfR.ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 696–713. doi:10.1177/0146167215575731
21.
FumagalliM.FerrucciR.MameliF.MarcegliaS.Mrakic-SpostaS.ZagoS.…PrioriA. (2011). Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing, 11, 219–226. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2
22.
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.
23.
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). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24.
GoldN.ColmanA. M.PulfordB. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65–76.
25.
GreeneJ. D. (2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In Sinnott-ArmstrongW. (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 3: The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, disease, and development (pp. 35–80). Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 293, 2105–2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
27.
HaidtJ.BaronJ. (1996). Social roles and the moral judgement of acts and omissions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 201–218.
28.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
29.
KahaneG. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10, 551–560. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400
30.
KantI. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals (BeckL. W.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785)
31.
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
32.
MeyerN. D.TormalaZ. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443–454.
33.
MikhailJ. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.007
34.
MillJ. S. (1998). Utilitarianism. In CrispR. (Ed.), Mill on utilitarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1861)
35.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.
36.
RomS. C.ConwayP. (2018). The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 24–37.
37.
RomS. C.WeissA.ConwayP. (2016). 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.
38.
SaccoD. F.BrownM.LustgraafC. J.HugenbergK. (2016). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 1–8.
39.
ScottH. (2008). The “gentler sex”. In KocsisR. N. (Ed.), Serial murder and the psychology of violent crimes (pp. 179–196). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
40.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
41.
SouthernA. L.TochimotoS.CarmodyN. C.IsurugiK. (1965). Plasma production rates of testosterone in normal adult men and women and in patients with the syndrome of feminizing testes. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 25, 1441–1450.
42.
SprancaM.MinskE.BaronJ. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76–105.
43.
ThomsonJ. J. (1986). Rights, restitution, and risk: Essays in moral theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
UhlmannE. L.ZhuL. L.TannenbaumD. (2013). When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition, 126, 326–334.
45.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123.
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.
