emotional dog rational tail

7/29/2019 Emotional Dog Rational Tail

1/21

P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e \ i t " A2 0 0 1 . V ol . 108. No. 4 , 814-834 C o p y r i g h t 2001 b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c .0033-295X/01 /55 .00 DOI : 10.1037//0033-295X. 108 .4.8 14

Th e E m ot i ona l Dog and I t s R at i ona l Tail:A Social Intui t ionist Approach to M o r a l JudgmentJonathan HaidtU n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a

R e s e a r c h o n m o r a l j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n d o m i n a t e d b y r a t i o n a l i s t m o de l s , i n w h i c h m o r a l j u dg m e n t i st h o u g h t t o b e c a u s e d b y m o r a l r e a s o n i n g . Th e a u t h o r g i v e s 4 r e a so n s f o r c o n si d e r in g t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a tm o r a l r e a s o n i n g d o e s n o t c a u s e m o r a l j u d g m e n t ; r a t h e r , m o r a l r e a s o n in g i s u s u a l l y a post h o c c o n s t r u c -t i o n , g e n e r a t e d a f t e r a j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n r e a c h e d . T h e s o c ia l i n t u i t i o n i s t m o d e l i s p r e s e n te d a s a na l t e r n a t i v e to r a t i o n a l i s t models . Th e m o d e l is a social model in t h a t it deemphas izes th e p r i v a t e r e a s o n i n gdone by i n d i v i d u a l s and emphas ize s ins te ad the impor tan ce of social and cul tural inf luences . The m odelis an i n t u i t i o n i s t m o d e l in t h a t it s t a t e s t h a t m o r a l j u d g m e n t is g e n e r a l l y th e resul t of q u i c k , a u t o m a t i ce v a l u a t i o n s ( i n t u i t i o n s ) . Th e m o d e l is m o r e c o n s i s t e n t t h a n r a t i o n a l i s t m o d e l s w i t h r e c e n t f in din gs ins o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , e v o l u t i o n a r y , a n d b i o l o g i c a l p s y c h o l o g y , a s w e l l a s i n a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d p r i m a t o l o g y .

J u l i e a n d M a r k a re b r o t h e r a nd s i s ter . They a re t r a v e l i n g t o g e t h e r inF r a n c e o n s u m m e r v a c a t i o n f r o m c o l l e g e . O n e n i g h t t h e y a r e s t a y i n ga l o n e in a c a b i n n e a r th e beach. They decide t h a t it w o u l d b ein t eres t in g a n d f u n i f t h e y t r i e d m a k i n g l o v e . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t it w o u l dbe a new e x p e r i e n c e fo r e a c h o f t h e m . J u l i e w a s a l r e a dy t a k i n g b i r t hc o n t r o l pi l l s , but Mark uses a condom too , jus t to be safe . They bo thenjo y m a k i n g l o ve , bu t t h e y d e c i d e no t to do i t a g a i n . T h e y k e e p t h a tn i g h t a s a s p e c i a l s e c r e t , w h i c h m a k e s t h e m f ee l e v e n c l o s e r to e a c ho t h e r . W h a t do y o u t h i n k a b o u t t h a t ? Was i t OK fo r t h e m to m a k el o v e ?

M o s t p e o p l e w h o h e a r th e a b o v e s t o r y i m m e d i a t e l y s a y t ha t itw a s wron g f or the s ib l in gs to mak e lov e , a nd t he y t he n b e g ins e a r c h i n g fo r r e ason s (Haid t , B jor k lund , & M u r p h y , 2000). T he yp o i n t o u t t h e dan ge rs o f in b re e din g , on ly to r e me mb e r t ha t J u l iea nd Mark u se d tw o f o r m s o f b ir t h con t ro l . The y a rgu e t ha t J u l iea nd M a r k w i l l b e h u r t , p e r h a ps e m o t i o n a l l y , e v e n t h o u g h th e storym a k e s i t c le a r t ha t no h a r m b e f e l l t h e m . E v e n t u a l l y , m a n y p e o p l es a y s o m e t h i n g l i k e , " I d o n ' t k n o w , I c a n ' t e x p l a i n it, I j u s t k n o wi t ' s wron g. " B ut w h a t m o d e l o f m o r a l j ud g m e n t a l l o w s a pe rson tok n o w t h a t s o m e t h i n g i s w r o n g w i t h o u t k n o w i n g w h y ?

Mor a l p s y c h o l o g y h a s lon g b e e n domin a t e d b y r a t i o n a l i s t m o d -e l s o f m o r a l j u d g m e n t ( F i g u re 1 ) . R a t i o n a l i s t a p p r o a c h e s in p h i -l o s o p h y s t r e ss " t he powe r o f a p r i o r i reason to grasp su b s t an t ia lt r u t h s a b o u t th e wor ld" ( W i l l i a m s , 1967, p . 6 9) . R a t ion a l i s t a p -

P r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s a r t i c l e w a s s u p p o r t e d b y N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o n D r u gA b u s e G r a n t 1 - R O 3 - D A 1 2 6 0 6 - O I .1 t h a n k S a r a A l g o e . Jo n B a r o n , F r e d r i k B j o r k l u n d , T a l bo t B r e w e r ,

D a n i e l F e s s l e r , A l a n F i s k e . N i c o F r i j d a , C h i p H e a t h , J e f f G r e e n b e r g ,D a c h e r K e l t n e r , A n g e l i n e L i l l a r d . G e o r g e L o e w e n s t e i n , Char lesM a t h e w e s . E d R o y z m a n , P a u l R o z i n , J o h n S a b i n i , J o n a t h a n S c h o o l e r,S t a c e y S i n c l a i r , B a r b a r a S p e l l m a n , S t e p h e n S t i c h , S t e p h e n Stose, D a n i e lW e g n e r , D a n i e l W i l l i n g h a m , a nd T i m o t h y W i l so n fo r h e l p f u l c o m m e n t s o ndraf ts .

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h i s a r t i c l e s h o u l d b e addressed to J o n a t h a nH a i d t , D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , P . O . B o x400400, C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , V i r g i n i a 22904-4400. E l e c t r o n i c m a i l m a y b e s e n tt o h a i d t @ v i r p i n i a . e d u .

preaches in mora l psycho logy , b y e x t e n s ion , say t ha t mora l k n owl-edge a nd mora l ju dgme n t a r e r e a c h e d primarily by a process o fr e ason in g a nd reflect io n (Kohlberg, 1969; P i a g e t , 1932/1965; Tu -r i e l , 1983). Moral emotions su ch as s y m p a t h y m a y s o m e t i m e s b ei n p u t s t o t he re ason in g proces s , b ut moral e m o t i o n s are n o t t hedire c t cau se s o f mora l ju dgme n t s . In rat ionalist models, one b r ie f lyb e c o m e s a ju dge , we igh in g i s su e s o f harm, r ights, just ice , a ndf a i r nes s , before passing judgment on Julie and Mark. If no con-de mn in g e v ide n ce i s fou n d, n o con de mn at ion i s i s su e d.

T his a r t ic le r e v ie ws e v ide n ce aga in s t r a t ion a l i s t mode ls a ndpropose s a n alternat ive: th e social in tuit ionist model (Figure 2 ).In tu i t ion is m in philosophy refers t o t he view that there a re mora lt r u t h s an d t ha t whe n people grasp these t ru t hs t he y do so n o t b y aprocess of rat iocinat ion and reflect ion but rather by a process morea kin t o pe rce p t ion , in which on e " ju s t sees wit hou t a rgu me n t t ha tt h e y are and m u s t be true" (Harrison, 1967, p. 72). ThomasJeffers on 's declarat ion that cer tain t ruths a re "se lf-evident" is ane x ample o f e t h ica l in t u it ion ism. In t u i t ion is t approache s in mora lpsycho logy , b y e x t e n s ion , say t ha t mora l in t u i t ion s ( in c lu din gm o r a l e mot ion s) come f i rs t an d dir e c t ly cau se mora l ju dgme n t s( H a i d t , in press; Kagan, 1984; Shweder & Haidt , 1993; J . Q.Wilson, 1993). Moral in tuit ion is a kind of cognit ion, but i t is nota k in d of r e ason in g .

Th e social par t o f t he social in tuit ionist model proposes thatmora l ju dgme n t shou ld b e s t u die d as an in t e rpe r son a l process.Moral r e ason in g i s u su a l ly an e x pos t fac t o process used toi n f l u e n ce th e in t u i t ion s (an d he n ce ju dgme n t s ) o f o t he r pe op le . Int he soc ia l in t u i t io n is t mode l , on e fe e ls a q u ick f lash of r e v u ls ion a tt he t hou gh t o f in ce s t an d on e k n ows in t u i t iv e ly t ha t some t h in g i swron g . T he n , whe n face d wi t h a soc ia l de man d fo r a v e rb a ljus t i f i c a t ion , o ne b e c o m e s a lawye r t ry in g t o b u i ld a case ra t he rt h a n a ju dge se a rch in g fo r t he t ru t h . O n e pu t s fo r t h a rgu me n t a f t e ra r g u m e n t , n e v e r wav e r in g in the con v ic t ion t ha t J u l ie a n d Markwe re wron g , e v e n a f t e r on e ' s la s t a rgu me n t has b e e n sho t dow n . Inth e soc ia l in t u i t io n is t mode l i t becomes plau s ib le t o say , " I don ' tk n o w , I can ' t e x p la in it, I just know it ' s w rong."T he a r t ic le b e g in s wi t h a b r ie f r e v ie w of t he h is t o ry o f r a t ion a l-is m in p h i l o s o p h y an d psycho logy . It then describes th e social

8 14


2/21

INTUITION A N D M O R A L J U D G M E N T 815

Figure 1. Th e ra t iona l i s t mode l o f m o r a l j u d g m e n t . M o r a l af fec t s such a s s y m p a t h y m a y somet imes be i n p u t st o m o r a l r e a s o n i n g .

in t u i t ion is t mode l an d r e ce n t r e le v an t f in din gs f rom a v ar ie t y o ffie lds. These f in din gs offer f our r e ason s fo r dou b t in g t he cau sa l i t yo f r e ason in g in mora l ju dgme n t : ( a ) There are t wo cogn i t iv eprocesses a t w o r k r e a s o n i n g an d in t u i t ion an d t he r e ason in gprocess h a s been ov e re mphas iz e d; (b ) r e ason in g is of ten m o t i -vated; (c) t he r e ason in g process constructs post h o c j u s t i f i c a t i o n s ,y e t w e e x pe r ie n ce th e i l lu s ion o f ob je c t iv e r e ason in g ; and (d)mora l ac t ion covaries w i t h mora l e mot ion more t han wi t h mora lr e a s o n i n g . B e c a u s e m u c h o f t h i s e v i d e n ce i s d r a w n f rom researchou t s ide o f t he domain o f mora l ju dgme n t , t he soc ia l in t u i t ion is tm o d e l is pre se n t e d here on ly as a plau s ib le a l t e rn a t iv e approach tom o r a l p s y c h o l o g y , not as an e s t ab l i she d fac t . Th e article t he re fo recon c lu de s wi t h su gge s t ion s fo r future research and for ways of in-t e g ra t in g th e f indings a nd in s igh t s o f ra t ion a l i sm and in t u i t ion ism.

I t mu s t be st ressed a t t he ou t se t t ha t th e soc ia l in t u i t ion is t mode lis an an t i r a t ion a l i s t mode l on ly in on e l imi t e d sense: I t says t ha tmora l r e ason in g is ra re ly th e dire c t cau se o f m o r a l j u dg m e n t . T h a tis a de scr ip t iv e c la im, ab ou t h o w m o r a l j u d g m e n t s a re ac t u a l lymade. I t i s not a n ormat iv e o r pre sc r ip t iv e c la im, ab ou t h o w mora lj u d g m e n t s o u g h t t o b e m a d e . B a r o n (1998) h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a tpe op le fo l lowin g t he i r mora l in t u i t ion s of ten b r in g ab ou t n on op t i -mal o r e v e n d isas t rou s con se q u e n ce s in mat t e r s o f pu b l ic po l icy ,pu b l ic he a l t h , an d t he t o r t sys t e m. A cor re c t u n de rs t an din g o f t hein tu i t ive b as is o f mora l ju dgme n t may t he re fore b e useful in

he lp in g de c is ion mak e rs av o id mis t ak e s an d in he lp in g e du ca t o r sde s ign programs (an d e n v iron m e n t s ) t o improv e t he q u a l i t y o fm o r a l j u dg m e n t a nd b e hav ior .

P h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e Wo r s h i p o f Re a s o nP h i l o s o p h e r s h a v e f r equen t ly wri t t e n ab ou t t he con f l ic t b e t we e nre ason a nd e m o t i o n as a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n divini ty a nd a n i m a l i t y .

Plato's Timaeus (4 t h ce n t u ry B.C./1949) presents a c h a r m i n g m y t hin which t he gods f i r s t c r e a t e d hu man heads, wit h t he i r d iv in ecargo o f reason, and t he n fou n d t he mse lv e s fo rce d to create seeth-in g , pass ion a t e b odie s t o he lp t he he ads mov e a rou n d in t he wor ld .T h e d r a m a o f h u m a n m o r a l life was t he s t ru gg le o f t he he ads t ocon t ro l th e bodies b y c h a n n e l i n g th e b odie s ' pass ion s t owardv i r t u o u s e n ds . The s t o ic ph i losophe rs t ook an e v e n dimme r v ie w ofth e e mot ion s , se e in g t he m a s con ce p t u a l e r ro r s t ha t b ou n d one tot he ma t e r ia l w or ld an d t he re fore t o a life of mise ry (R . C . S o lomon ,1993). Me die v a l Chr is t ian ph i losophe rs s imi la r ly de n igra t e d th ee m o t i o n s b e c a u s e o f t h e i r l ink to desire and hence to sin. The 17thce n t u ry ' s con t in e n t a l r a t ion a l i s t s ( e .g . , L e ib n iz , Descartes) w o r -sh ipe d re ason a s m u c h as P la t o had, hop in g to m o d e l all ofp h i l o s o p h y on t he de du c t iv e me t hod de v e lope d b y E u c l id .

In th e 18th ce n t u ry , howe v e r , E n g l ish an d S co t t i sh ph i losophe rs(e .g ., S haf t e sb u ry , Hu t ch e son , Hu m e , an d S mit h ) b e gan discu ss in g

Figure 2. Th e social in tu i t ionis t mode l of mora l judgmen t . The numbered l inks, drawn for Pe rson A only, a re( 1) th e i n t u i t i v e j u d g m e n t l i nk, (2 ) the post h o c reasoning l ink, (3) the reasoned persuasion l i nk, and (4) the socialpersuasion l ink. Tw o addi t iona l l inks a re h y p o t h e s i z e d to occur le ss f r equent l y : (5) the r e a s o ne d j u d g m e n t l inka nd (6) the priva te re f lec t ion l ink.


3/21

8 16 H A I D Ta l t e r n a t i v e s to r a t i o n a l i s m . T h e y a r g u e d t h a t p e o p l e h a v e a b u i l t - i nm o r a l s e n s e t h a t c r e a t e s p l e a s u r a b l e f e e l i n g s o f a p p r o v a l t o w a r db e n e v o l e n t ac t s a nd c o r r e s p o n d i n g f e e l i n g s o f disapprov a l t owarde v i l a nd v i c e . D a v i d H u m e in par t i cu la r p ropose d t h a t mora lj u d g m e n t s a re s imi la r in form to aesthetic judgments: They ared e r i v e d from s e n t i m e n t , no t r e ason , a nd we a t t a i n m o r a l k n o w l -e dge b y a n " i m m e d i a t e f e e l i n g a nd f i n e r i n t e r n a l sense," not by a" c ha in of a r g u m e n t a nd i n d u c t io n " ( H u m e , 1777/1960, p. 2) . Hism o s t r a d i c a l s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s p o s i t i o n w a s t h a t " w e s p e a k no ts t r i c t l y a nd p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y w h e n w e t a l k of the c o m b a t o f pass ionand o f r e a s o n . R e a s o n is , and o u g h t o n l y t o b e t h e s l a v e of thep a s s i o n s , an d can n e v e r p re t e n d t o an y o t he r o f f ice t han t o se rv eand o b e y t h e m " 1 ( H u m e . 1739-1740/1969, p. 462).

Th e t h r us t o f H u m e ' s a t t a c k o n r a t i o n a l i s m w a s t ha t r e asona l o n e c a n n o t a c c o m p l i s h th e m a g n i f i c e n t r o l e i t ha s b e e n g i v e ns inc e P la t o . Hu me saw re ason as a t oo l u se d b y t he min d t o ob t a ina nd proce ss i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e v e n t s in the w o r l d o r ab ou t r e la -t i o n s a m o n g o b je c t s . R e a s o n c a n l e t us i n f e r th a t a par t icu la r ac t ionw i l l l e a d t o t h e d e a t h o f m a n y i n n o c e n t p e o p l e , b ut u n l e s s w e carea b o u t t h o s e p e o p l e , u n l e s s w e h a v e s o m e sentiment t h a t v a l u e sh u m a n l i fe , r e ason a lon e can n o t adv ise aga in s t t ak in g th e a c t i o n .H u m e a r g u e d t h a t a p e r s o n in ful l posse ss ion o f reason y e t l a c k i n gmor a l s e n t i m e n t w o u l d h a v e dif f icu l t y choos in g a ny e n ds o r goa lst o p u r s u e a n d w o u l d l o o k l i k e w h a t w e n o w c a l l a p s y c h o p a t h( C l e c k l e y , 1955; Hume, 1777/1960).

H u m e ' s e m o t i v i s t a p p ro a c h to e t h i c s w a s n o t w e l l r e c e i v e d b yp h i l o s o p h e r s . K a n t ' s (1785/1959) rat ionalis t e thical theory2 w a sc r e a t e d a s a n a t t e m p t to re f u t e H u m e , a nd K a n t ha s ha d a m u c hl a r ger imp ac t t han Hu me on mode rn mora l ph i losoph e rs ( e .g . ,R . M. H a r e , 1981; R a w l s , 1 971 ) , man y o f w h o m h a v e f o l l o w e dK a n t i n a t t e m p t i n g t o de du ce a f o u n da t i o n f o r e t h ics f ro m th em e an i n g o f ra t i o n a l i ty i t s e l f .

P s y c h o l o g y a n d t h e Fo c u s o n Re a s o n i n gP s y c h o l o g i s t s , h o w e v e r , f r e e d t h e m s e l v e s f rom th e w o r s h i p o f

r e ason in the la te 19th c e n t u r y , w h e n t h e y a b a n d o n e d th e a r m c h a i ra nd w e n t i n t o t h e l a b o r a t o r y . U n t i l t h e c o g n i t i v e r e v o l u t i o n o f t h e1960s. th e m a j o r s c h o o l s of p s y c h o l o g y did not see re ason as t hem a s t e r o f a n y t h i n g , a nd t h e i r v i e w s o n m o r a l i t y w e r e c o m p a t i b lew i t h Hu m e ' s e m pha s is on e mot ion s . F re u d (1 90 0/ 1 976 ) saw pe o-p l e ' s j u d g m e n t s a s d r i v e n b y u n c o n s c i o u s m o t i v e s a n d f e e l i n g s ,w h i c h a re t he n ra t ion a l iz e d wi t h pu b l ic ly acce p t ab le r e ason s . Th eb e h a v i o r i s t s a lso s a w m o r a l r e a s o n i n g a s e p i p h e n o m e n a l in thep r o d u c t i o n o f m o r a l b e h a v i o r , e x p l a i n i n g m o r a l it y a s the ac t s t ha ta s o c i e t y h a p p e n s to r e ward o r p u n i s h (S k in n e r , 1 971 ) .

t o s t e a l a dru g t ha t may sav e t he l ife of h is dy in g wife . K oh lb e rgf o u n d a s ix - le v e l p rogre ss ion o f in cre as in g soph is t ica t ion in howp e o p l e han dle d su ch d i le mmas. He c la ime d t ha t ch i ldre n s t a r t a se go is t s , ju dg in g ac t ion s b y t he g o o d or b ad con se q u e n ce s t he ybring to the self, but as children's cognitive abilities expand t he yd e v e l o p th e a b i l i t y to "role-take," or se e a s i t u a t i o n f rom o t h e rpeople's pe rspe c t iv e s . Th e e x pe r ie n ce o f ro le - t ak in g dr iv e s th ec hi ld on t o t he less e goce n t r ic a n d more po we rfu l con v e n t io n a l an dt h e n pos t con v e n t ion a l l e v e ls o f mora l r e ason in g .

K o h l b e r g ' s focu s was on de v e lopme n t , b u t he o f t e n addressedt he q u e s t ion o f me chan ism. He c on s is t e n t ly e n dorse d a r a t ion a l i s tan d some wha t P la t on ic mode l in which a f fe c t may b e t ak e n in t oa c c o u n t b y r e ason (as in Figure 1) but in which r e ason in g u l t i -m a t e l y m a k e s t h e decisions:

W e a r e c l a i m i n g . . . t h a t th e moral force in p e r s o n a l i t y is c o g n i t i v e .A f f e c t i v e forces are involved in moral deci s ions , but affect i s ne i therm o r a l n o r i m m o r a l . W h e n th e a f f e c t i v e a r o u s a l is channeled intom o r a l d i r e c t i o n s , it is m o r a l ; w h e n i t i s not so c h a n n e l e d , i t i s not . Th em o r a l c h a n n e l i n g m e c h a n i s m s t h e m s e l v e s a r e c o g n i t i v e . (K o h l b e r g ,1971, p p . 230-231)

K ohlb e rg was q u i t e e x p l ic i t t ha t t he cogn i t iv e me chan isms hediscu sse d in v o lv e d conscious, lan gu age - b ase d t h in k in g . H e w a sin t e r e s t e d in t he phe n ome n ology o f mora l r e ason in g , an d he de -sc r ib e d on e o f t he p i l la r s o f h is approach as t he a ssu mpt ion t ha t"mora l r e ason in g is t he con sc iou s process o f u s in g o rdin ary mora llanguage" (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983, p. 69).After Kohlberg

K ohlb e rg t r a in e d o r in sp ir e d mos t of t he leading researchers inmora l psycho logy t oday ( se e chap t e r s in K u r t i n e s & G e w i r t z ,1991; Lapsley, 1996). Rat ionalism st i l l rules, and there a p p e a r s tob e a con se n su s t ha t mora l i t y l iv e s wi t h in t he in div idu a l min d as at r a i t l ik e cogn i t iv e a t t a in me n t , a se t o f k n owle dge s t ru c t u re s ab ou tm o r a l s t an dards t ha t ch ildre n c re a t e fo r t he m se lv e s in the co u rse o ft h e i r e v e ryday r e ason in g ( se e Dar le y , 1 993) .

Th e soc ia l in t e rac t ion is t pe r spe c t iv e (Nu cc i & Turie l, 1978;T u r ie l , 1983, 1998; Turie l, Killen, & Helwig, 1987), one of themos t wide ly u se d approache s a t p re se n t , can se rv e as an i l lu s t ra t iv emodel. This res earch is based on a me t hod de v e lope d b y Nu cc i an dTur ie l (1 978) in which ch i ldre n a re in t e rv ie we d ab ou t ru le v io la -t ion s . Af t e r g iv in g a n i n i t i a l j u d g m e n t , th e c h i l d is ask e d tor e spon d t o a se r ie s o f p r o b e q u e s t ion s de s ign e d t o a sse ss how t hec hi ld t h in k s ab ou t t he ru le in q u e s t ion ( e .g . , i f t he re we re n o ru le ,w o u l d t he ac t ion b e O K ? Cou ld t he ru le b e chan ge d? ) . P ar t ic ipan t sa re a lso ask e d t o p rov ide ju s t i f ica t ion s o f t he i r ju dgme n t s .

Kohlberg and the Cognitive RevolutionB ut t h e n c a m e L a w r e n c e K o h l b e r g . K o h l b e r g ' s w o r k w a s a

s us ta ined a t t ack o n "irrat ional emot ive theories" (1971, p . 188),an d h is cogn i t iv e - de v e lopm e n t a l t he ory was an impor t an t par t o fth e cogn i t iv e r e v o lu t ion . K ohlb e rg b u i l t on Piaget's (1932/1965)p i o n e e r i n g work , de v e lop in g an in t e rv ie win g me t hod t ha t wass u i ta b le fo r u se wi t h adu l t s a s we l l a s ch i ldre n . K ohlb e rg p re se n te dpar t ic ipan t s wi t h d i le mmas in which mora l an d n on mora l c la imsw e r e p r e s e n t o n b o t h sides, and he t h e n looked t o s ee how peopler e so lv e d t he con f l ic t s . In h is b e s t k n own di le mma, a man n ame dH e i n z m u s t de c i d e w h e t h e r h e s h o u l d b r e a k i n t o a d ru g g i s t 's s h o p

' This is one of Hume's most radical statements, t aken f rom his firstbook, A Treatise of Human Nature. H is more m a t u r e w o r k , An EnquiryConcerning the Principles of Morals, ra i ses reason f rom a s l a v e t o arespected ass i s tant of the moral sense , ye t i t ma inta ins the bas ic pos i t ionthat " the ul t imate ends o f h u m a n a c t i o n s c a n n e v e r . . . b e a c c o u n t e d f o r b yr e a s o n , b u t r e c o m m e n d t h e m s e l v e s e n t i r e l y t o t h e s e n t i m e n t s a n d a f f e c t i o n so f mankind" (1777/1960, p . 131) .

2 Kant responded to H u m e ' s s k e p t i c i s m a b o u t th e p o w e r s o f reason. H eargued that any ra t ional agent could and should figure o u t t h e m o r a l l ycorrect th ing t o d o b y a p p l y i n g th e categor ical imperat ive: " I s h o u l d n e v e ra c t i n s u c h a w a y t h a t I c o u l d n o t a l s o w i l l t h a t m y m a x i m s h o u l d b e au n i v e r s a l law" (1785/1959, p. 18).


4/21

I N T U I T I O N A N D M O R A L J U D G M E N T 817In th e soc ia l in t e rac t ion is t mode l , pe op le a re said to t h in k ab ou t

t he con se q u e n ce s o f an ac t ion b e fore de t e rmin in g whe t he r t heact ion is a mora l v io la t ion . Ac t ion s t ha t l e ad to in ju s t ice , to h a r m ,or t o t he v io la t ion o f r igh t s a re recognized as fal l ing w i t h i n th emora l dom ain an d a re t r e a t e d d if fe re n t ly f rom o t he r k in ds o f ru lev io la t ion s . R u le s p roh ib i t in g mora l v io la t ion s a re ju dge d, e v e n byyou n g ch i ldre n , t o b e u n iv e r sa l ly app l icab le an d u n a l t e rab le . Ac-t ion s t ha t in v o lv e no in ju s t ice , ha rm, o r rights violat ions a re t reatedas v io la t ion s o f soc ia l con v e n t ion s ( in v o lv in g loca l ly agreed o nu n iformi t ie s o f b e hav ior wi t h in soc ia l sys t e ms) or as personalissues (areas o f in div idu a l p re roga t iv e ) .R e se arche rs in t h is t r adi t ion a re se n s i t iv e t o how mora l de v e l-opme n t occu rs in a soc ia l con t e x t , dr iv e n fo rward b y ch i ldre n ' sin t e rac t ion s wi t h peers in su ch con t e x t s a s t ak in g t u rn s , shar in g ,h a r m i n g , a nd r e spon din g to harm. T his e mphas is o n social in t e r -ac t ion i s in harmon y wi t h t he soc ia l pa r t o f t he social i n t u i t i o n i s tmode l and is not a source o f con t e n t ion in the present ar t icle . Th ece n t ra l sou rce o f con t e n t ion , an d t he focu s o f t he p re se n t a r t ic lecon ce rn s th e cau sa l ro le o f r e f le c t iv e , con sc iou s r e ason in g .Questioning the Causality of Reasoning

P e ople u n de n iab ly e n gage in mora l r e ason in g . Bu t does th ee v ide n ce r e a l ly show t ha t su ch r e ason in g i s t he cau se , r a t he r t hanth e con se q u e n ce , o f mora l ju dgme n t ? T u r ie l , Hi lde b ran dt , an dW a i n r y b (1991) e x amin e d you n g adu l t s ' r e ason in g ab ou t i s su e s o fab or t ion, ho mose x u a l i t y , porn ography , an d in ce s t . The y f o u n d t ha tpeople w h o j u d g e d th e ac t ion s t o be mora l v io la t ion s a lso t a lk e dab ou t ha rmfu l con se q u e n ce s , whe re as people w h o t h o u g h t th eac t ion s were n o t wron g ge n e ra l ly c i t e d n o harmfu l con se q u e n ce s .Turie l e t a l. (1 991 ) in t e rpre t e d t he se f in din gs as showin g t heimportance o f "informat ional assumptions"; fo r example, peoplew h o t h o u g h t t h a t life b e g in s a t con ce p t ion we re ge n e ra l ly oppose dt o ab or t ion , whe re as people w h o t h o u g h t t h a t life b e g in s la t e r we rege n e ra l ly n o t oppose d t o ab or t ion . In mak in g t h is in t e rpre t a t ion ,how e v e r , T u r ie l e t a l . made a ju mp f rom co r re la t ion t o cau sa t ion .T he cor re la t ion t he y f o u n d b e t we e n ju dgme n t an d su ppor t in gb e l ie f doe s n o t n e ce ssa r i ly m e an t ha t t he b e l ie f cau se d t he ju dg-me n t . A n in t u i t io n is t in t e rpre t a t ion i s ju s t a s p lau s ib le : The an t i -ab or t ion ju dgme n t ( a gu t fe e l in g t ha t ab or t ion i s b ad) cau se s t heb e l ie f t ha t l ife b e g i n s a t con ce p t ion ( a n ex pos t fac t o r a t ion a l iz a-t ion of the gu t fe e l in g) .

Haidt, Koller, and Dias (1993) fou n d evidence for such anin tu i t ion is t in t e rpre t a t ion . T he y e x am in e d A me r ican an d Braz i l ianre spon se s to a c t i o n s t h a t w e r e o f f e n s i v e y e t harmle ss , su ch a se a t in g one's dead p e t dog, c le an in g one's t o i le t wi t h th e n a t i o n a lf l a g , or e a t in g a ch ick e n ca rcass o n e has ju s t u se d fo r mas t u rb a t ion .Th e s t o r ie s we re c a re fu l ly con s t ru c te d s o t h a t n o p lau s ib le ha rmcou ld b e fo u n d, an d mos t pa r t ic ipan t s d ir e c t ly s t a t e d t ha t n ob odyw a s h u r t b y t h e ac t ion s in q u e s t ion , y e t par t ic ipan t s s t i l l u su a l lysa id t he ac tion s we re wro n g , an d u n iv e r s a l ly wron g . T he y f r e -q u e n t l y made s t a t e me n t s su ch as , " I t ' s ju s t wron g t o hav e se x wi t ha ch ick e n . " F u r t he rmo re , t he i r a f fe c t iv e r e ac t ion s t o t he s t o r ie s(statements that it wou ld bother t h e m to witness the act ion) wereb e t t e r p re dic t o r s o f t he i r mora l ju dgme n t s t han we re t he i r c la imsab ou t ha rm fu l con se q u e n ce s . Ha id t an d He rsh (2 0 0 1 ) fou n d t hesame t h in g whe n t he y in t e rv ie we d con se rv a t iv e s an d l ib e ra ls ab ou tse x u a l mo ra l i t y i s su e s , in c lu din g hom ose x u a l i t y , in ce s t , an d u n -us ua l fo rms of mas t u rb a t ion . F or b o t h g rou ps , af f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s

we re good pre dic to r s o f ju dgm e n t , whe re as pe rce p t ion s o f ha rm-f u lnes s we re n o t . Ha id t an d He rsh a lso fou n d t ha t pa r t ic ipan t s we reof ten "morally du mb fou n de d" (Haid t e t al., 2000); t ha t i s , t he yw o u l d s t u t t e r , lau gh , an d e x pre ss su rprise a t t he i r in ab i l i t y t o f indsu ppor t in g r e ason s , ye t t he y wo u ld no t chan ge t he i r in i t ia l ju dg-me n t s o f con de mn at ion .

It se e ms, t he n , t ha t fo r a f fe c t iv e ly charge d e v e n t s su ch as in ce s tan d o t he r taboo v io la t ion s , a n in t u i t ion is t mode l m a y b e morep lau s ib le t han a r a t ion a l i s t mode l . Bu t can an in t u i t ion is t mode lhan dle t he e n t i r e ran ge o f mora l ju dgm e n t ? Can i t accommodat et he f in din gs from ra t ion a l i s t re se a rch p rograms w hi le a l so e x p la in -in g n e w phe n ome n a an d le adin g t o n e w an d t e s t ab le p re dic t ion s?T he soc ia l in t u i t io n is t mode l m ay b e ab le t o do so .

The Socia l In tui t ionis t ModelTh e central claim of t he soc ia l in t u i t io n is t mode l is t h a t m o r a l

j u d g m e n t i s cau se d b y q u ick mo ra l in t u i t ion s an d i s fo l lowe d(whe n n e e de d) b y s low, e x pos t fac t o mora l r e ason in g . C le a rd ef in i t ions of mora l ju dgm e n t , mora l in t u i t ion , an d mora l r e ason -in g are t he re fore n e e de d.Moral Judgment

Moral ph i losophe rs hav e lon g s t ru gg le d t o d is t in gu ish mora lju dgm e n t s f rom o t he r k in ds o f ju dgm e n t s ( e .g . , ae s t he t ic s , sk i l l , o rpe r son a l t a s t e ) . R a t he r t han se e k in g a formal de f in i t ion t ha t l i s t st he n e ce ssa ry an d suf f i c i e n t fe a t u re s o f a mora l ju dgme n t , t hepresent ar t icle takes a more e mpir ica l approach , s t a r t in g f rom ab e h a v i o r a l fac t ab ou t hu man b e in gs : t ha t in e v e ry soc ie t y , pe op letalk ab ou t an d e v a lu a t e t he ac t ion s o f o the r pe op le , an d t he see v a lu a t ion s hav e con se q u e n ce s fo r fu t ur e i n t e r a c t i o n s ( B o e h m ,1999). Many o f t he se e v a lu a t ion s occu r aga in s t th e b ack drop o fspe c i f ic cu l t u ra l practices, in which on e p ra ise s o r c r i t ic iz e s t hesk i l ls o r t a le n t s o f an in div idu a l (e .g . , " she i s a dar in g ch e f" ) .H o w e v e r , an impor t an t su b se t o f t h e s e e v a l u a t i o n s a re made wi t hre spe c t t o v i r t u e s o r goods t ha t a r e app l ie d t o e v e ryon e in t hesoc ie t y ( e .g . , fa i rn e ss , hon e s t y , o r p ie t y in some cu l t u re s ) , o r t oe v e ryo n e in a ce r t a in soc ia l ca t e gory ( e .g . , chas t i t y fo r yo u n gwom e n in some cu l t u re s o r ge n e ros i t y fo r l in e age he ads) . Thesev ir t u e s a re ob l iga t o ry in t h a t e v e r y o n e ( w i t h i n th e r e l e v a n t c a t e -gor ie s ) i s e x pe c t e d t o s t r iv e t o a t t a in t he m. P e op le who fail toe mb o dy t he se v i r t u e s o r whose a c t ion s b e t ray a lack o f r e spe c t fo rt he m are su b je c t t o c r i t ic i sm , os t rac ism, o r some o t he r pu n is hm e n t .It is t h is su b se t o f e v a l u a t i o n s t h a t is a t i s su e in the pre se n t a r t ic le .(F or more on mora l goods , se e R oss , 1 930 ; S hwe de r & Haidt ,1993.)

Moral judgments are t he re fore de f in e d as e v a lu a t io n s (good v s .b ad) o f t he ac t ion s o r charac t e r o f a pe r son t ha t a r e made wi t hre spe c t t o a se t o f v i r t u e s he ld t o b e ob l iga t o ry b y a cu l t u re o rs u b c u l t u r e . T his de f i n i t i o n is l e f t b road i n t e n t i o n a l l y to a l l o w al a rg e g r a y a r e a o f m a r g i n a l l y m o r a l j u d g m e n t s . F o r e x a m p l e ," e a t in g a low- fa t diet" m a y n o t qua l i fy as a mora l v i r t u e fo r mos tph i losoph e rs , ye t in he a l t h - con sc io u s su b c u l t u re s , pe op le who e a tche e se b u rge rs an d mi lk sh ak e s a re se e n as mora l ly in fe r io r t o t hosewho e a t sa lad an d ch ick e n (S t e in & Ne me roff , 1 995) .Moral Reasoning

E v e r y d a y mora l r e ason e rs a re some t ime s sa id t o b e l ik e sc ie n -t i s t s , who le a rn b y fo rmin g an d t e s t in g hypo t he se s , who b u i ld


5/21

818 H A I D Tw o r k i n g m o d e l s of the soc ia l wor ld a s t h e y i n t e r a c t w i t h i t , andw h o c o n s u l t t h e s e m o d e l s w h e n m a k i n g m o r a l j u d g m e n t s ( Tu r i e l ,1983). A key f e a tu re of the s c i e n t i s t m e t a p h o r is t h a t j u d g m e n t isa k i n d o f in f er enc e made in se v e ra l s t e ps . T he r e ason e r se a rche sfo r r e le v an t e v ide n ce , weighs evidence, coordinates evidence wit ht h e o r i e s , an d re ache s a de c is ion ( K u h n , 1 989; Nisb e t t & R oss ,1980). S o m e o f t h e s e s t e p s m a y b e p e r f o r m e d u n c o n s c i o u s l y a n dany of t he s t e ps m a y b e s ubjec t to b i a s e s a nd e r rors , b u t a k e y par tof the d e f i n i t i o n o f r e a s o n i n g is t h a t i t ha s s t e ps , a t l e as t a f ew ofw h i c h a re p e r f o r m e d c o n s c i o u s l y . G a l o t t i ( 1 9 8 9 ), i n h e r de f in i t iono f e v e r y d a y r e a s o n i n g , s p e c i f ic a l l y e x c l u d e s " a n y o n e - s t e p m e n t a lprocesses" s u c h a s s u d d e n f l a s h e s o f i n s i g h t , g u t r e a c t i o n s , o r o t h e rf o rm s o f " m o m e n t a r y i n t u i t i v e r e s p o n s e " (p . 333).

B u i l d i n g on Galo t t i (1 989) , moral reasoning can n ow b e de f in e da s c o n s c i o u s m e n t a l a c t iv i ty t h a t c o n s i s t s o f t r a n s f o r m i n g g i v e ni n f o rm at i o n a b o u t p e o p l e in orde r to r e a c h a m o r a l j u dg m e n t . Tos ay th a t m o r a l r e a s o n i n g is a c o n s c i o u s p r o c e s s m e a n s t h a t th eproce ss is i n t e n t i o n a l , e f f o r t f u l , a nd c o n t r o l l a b l e a nd t h a t th er e a s o n e r i s a w a r e t h a t it is g o i n g o n (Bargh , 1 994 ) .

Moral IntuitionC o m m e n t a t o r s o n i n t u i t i o n h a v e g e n e r a l ly s t re s s e d t h e fact t h a t

a ju dg me n t , so lu t ion , o r o t he r con c lu s ion a ppe ars su dde n ly an def f or t l es s ly i n c o n s c i o u s n e s s , w i t h o u t a ny a w a r e n e s s b y t h e p e r s o nof t he me n t a l p roce sse s t ha t l e d t o t he ou t come (Bas t ick , 1 982 ;S i m o n , 1992). B r u n e r (1960) said that in tu i t ion does no t adv an cein care fu l s t e ps ; r a t he r , it i n v o l v e s " m a n o e u v e r s b a s e d s e e m i n g l yo n an impl ic i t pe rce p t ion o f t he t o t a l p rob le m. T he t h in k e r a r riv e sa t a n a n s w e r , w h i c h m a y b e r i g h t o r w r o n g , with l i t t le if anyaware n e ss o f t he p roce ss b y which he r e ache d i t " (p . 57) . I t mu s tb e s t r e sse d t ha t t he con t ras t o f i n tu i t i o n an d re ason in g i s n o t t hecon t ras t o f e mot ion an d cogn i t ion . In t u i t ion , r e ason in g , an d t heappra isa ls con t a in e d in emot ions (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991) area ll f o r m s o f c o g n i t i o n . R a t h e r , th e words intuition and reasoningare in t e n de d t o cap t u re t he con t ras t made b y doz e n s o f ph i loso-phe rs an d psycho log is t s b e t we e n t wo k in ds o f cogn i t ion . T he mos timpor ta n t d i s t inc t ions ( se e T ab le 1) are t h a t i n t u i t i o n o c c u r sq u i c k l y , e f fo r t le ss ly , an d au t omat ica l ly , su ch t ha t t he ou t come b u tno t t he p roce ss i s acce ss ib le t o con sc iou sn e ss , whe re as r e ason in g

occu rs more s lowly , r e q u ire s some effor t , an d in v o lv e s a t l e as tsome s t e ps t ha t a re accessible to con sc iou sn e ss .B ui ld ing o n Bas t ick (1 982 ) , Bru n e r (1960), Simon (1992), a nd

o t he r s , moral intuition c a n b e de f in e d as the su dde n appe aran ce inconsciousness of a moral judgment, including an affe c t iv e valence(good-bad, like-dislike), w i t h o u t a ny con sc iou s aware n e ss o fh a v i n g g o n e t h r o u g h steps o f s e a r c h i n g , w e i g h i n g e v i d e n c e , o rinferr ing a con c lu s ion . Mora l in t u i t io n i s t he re fore t he psy cho log-ica l p roce ss t ha t th e S co t t i sh ph i losophe rs t a lk e d ab ou t , a proce ssakin to a e s t h e t i c j u d g m e n t : O ne se e s o r h e a r s a b o u t a soc ia l e v e n ta nd on e in s t a n t ly fe e ls approv a l o r d isapprov a l .

Th e Links in the ModelT he soc ia l in t u i t ion is t mode l i s compose d of fou r p r in c ipa l l in k s

o r processes, s h o w n as solid arrows in Figure 2. The e x is t e n ce o fe ach l in k i s we l l e s t ab l i she d b y pr io r r e se a rch in some domain s o fj u d g m e n t , a l t h o u g h no t n e ce ssa r i ly in the d o m a i n o f mora l ju dg-m e n t . Th e m o d e l is t he re fo re p re se n t e d as a proposa l to spu rt h i n k i n g an d n e w research o n m o r a l j u d g m e n t .

1 . The intuitive judgment link. Th e mode l p ropose s t ha t mora lju dgme n t s appe ar in con sc iou sn e ss au t omat ica l ly an d e f fo r t le ss lyas t he r e su l t o f mora l in t u i t ion s . E x ample s o f t h is l in k in n on mo ra lcogn i t ion in c lu de Zajon c ' s (1980) de mon s t ra t ion s t ha t a f fe c t iv e lyv a le n ce d e v a lu a t ion s a re m a d e u b i q u i t o u s l y and rap idly , b e forea ny con sc iou s p roce ss in g h a s t ak e n place. More r e ce n t e x ample sin c lu de f in din gs t ha t mu c h of soc ia l cogn i t ion ope ra t e s au t omat i -c a l ly a nd i m p l i c i t l y ( B a r g h & C har t rand , 1999; Greenwald &B a na j i , 1995).

2. The post hoc reasoning link. Th e mode l p ropose s t ha t mora lr e ason in g i s an effortful process, e n gage d in af ter a mora l ju dg-me n t i s made , in which a pe r son se a rche s fo r a rgu me n t s t ha t wi l lsu ppor t an a l r e ady- made ju dgme n t . Nisb e t t an d Wilson (1 977)de mon s t ra t e d su ch pos t hoc r e ason in g fo r cau sa l e x p lan a t ion s .K u h n (1991), Kunda (1990), a nd P e rk in s , F arady , a nd B u s h e y(1 991 ) f ound t ha t e v e ryday r e ason in g is h e a v i l y m a r r e d b y t h eb iase d se a rch on ly fo r r e ason s t ha t su ppor t one's already-statedh y p o t h e s i s .

3. The reasoned persuasion link. Th e mode l p ropose s t ha tmora l r e ason in g i s p rodu ce d an d se n t fo r t h v e rb a l ly t o jus t i f y one's

T ab le 1General Features of the Two Systems

Th e i n t u i t i v e s y s t e m T h e r e a s o n i n g s y s t e mFas t and e f f o r t l e s sProcess is u n i n t e n t i o n a l a n d r u n s a u t o m a t i c a l l yProcess is inaccess ible ; o nl y r e s u l t s e n t e r a w a r e n e s sDoes not demand a t ten t iona l re sourcesP a r a l l e l dis tr ibuted process ingP a t t e r n m a t c h i n g ; t h o u g h t is m e t a p h o r i c a l , h o l i s t i cC o m m o n to a l l m a m m a l sC o n t e x t d e p e n d e n tPl a t fo r m d e p e n d e n t ( d e p e n d s o n t h e b r a i n a nd b o d y t h a t h o u s e s it )

Slow a nd effortfulProcess is i n t e n t i o n a l a nd control lableProcess is consc iously accessible an d v i e w a b l eDemands a t ten t iona l re sources , which ar e limitedSerial processingS y m b o l m a n i p u l a t io n ; t h o u g h t is t r u th p r e s e r v i n g , a n a l y t i c a lU n i q u e t o h u m a n s o v e r a g e 2 a n d p e r h ap s s o m e l a n g u a g e - t r a i ne d a p e sContext independentPla tform independent ( the process can be t ranspor ted to any ru le fol lo wingorganism o r m a c h i n e )Note. These c o n t r a s t s a re discussed in B r u n e r (1986), C h a i k e n (1980), Epstein (1994), Freud (1900/1976), Margolis (1987), Metcalfe a nd M i s c h e l (1999),P e t t y and Cac ioppo (1986), Posner and Snyder (1975), Pyszczynski and Greenberg (1987), Reber (1993), Wegner (1994), T. D. Wilson ( in press) , andZajonc (1980).


6/21

I N T U I T I O N A N D M O R A L J U D G M E N T 819a l r e ady- made mora l ju dgme n t t o o t he r s . S u ch r e ason in g can some -t i m e s affect o t he r pe op le , a l t hou gh mora l d iscu ss ion s an d argu -me n t s a re n o t o r iou s fo r t he r a r i t y wi t h which pe r su as ion t ak e sp lace . Be cau se mora l pos i t ion s a lways hav e an a f fe c t iv e compo-n e n t t o t he m, i t i s hypo t he s iz e d t ha t r e asone d pe r su as ion w ork s n o tby prov idin g log ica l ly compe l l in g a rgu me n t s b u t b y t r igge r in gne w affe c t iv e ly v a le n ce d in t u i t ion s in t he l i s t e n e r . T he impor t an ceo f u s in g a f fe c t iv e pe r su as ion t o chan ge a f fe c t iv e ly b ase d a t t i t u de shas b e e n de mon s t ra t e d b y E dwards an d v on Hippe l (1 995) an d b yS hav i t t (1990).4. The social persuasion link. Be cau se pe op le a re h igh ly a t -t u n e d t o t he e me rge n ce o f g rou p n orms, t he mode l proposes t h a tth e me re fac t t ha t f r ie n ds , a l l i e s , an d acq u a in t an ce s hav e made amora l ju dgme n t e x e r t s a dire c t in f lu e n ce o n o t h e r s , e v e n if noreasoned persuasion is used. Such social forces may e lici t onlyou t ward con formi t y (Asch , 1 956 ) , b u t in man y cases people'sp r i v a t e l y he ld ju dgme n t s a re d i r e c t ly shape d b y t he ju dgme n t s o fo t he r s (Be rge r & Luckman, 1967; Davis & R u s b u l t , 2001; N e w -com b, 1943; She rif, 1935).

These fou r l in k s fo rm t he core o f t he soc ia l in t u i t io n is t mode l .Th e core of the mode l gives mora l r e ason in g a cau sa l role in m o r a lju dgme n t b u t on ly whe n r e ason in g ru n s t h rou gh o t he r pe op le . I t i sh y p o t h e s i z e d t ha t pe op le r a re ly ov e r r ide t he i r in i t ia l in t u i t iv e ju dg-me n t s ju s t b y r e ason in g pr iv a t e ly t o t he mse lv e s b e cau se r e ason in gis ra re ly u se d to q u e s t ion one's o w n at t i t u de s o r b e l ie fs ( se e th emot iv a t e d r e ason in g prob le m, b e low) .

Howe v e r , pe op le a re capab le o f e n gag in g in p r iv a t e mora lr e ason in g , an d man y people can po in t t o t ime s in t he i r l iv e s whe nt h e y chan ge d t he i r min ds on a mora l i s su e ju s t f rom mu l l in g them a t t e r o v e r b y t h e m s e l v e s . A l t h o u g h s o m e o f t h e s e c a s e s m a y b ei l l u s i o n s (see th e pos t h o c r e ason in g prob le m, b e low) , o t he r casesm ay be real, particularly amon g philosophers, one of the f ewgrou ps t ha t has b e e n f o u n d t o r e ason we l l (K u hn , 1 991 ) . T he fullsoc ia l in t u i t ion is t mode l t he re fore in c lu de s tw o w a y s in w h i c hp r i v a t e r e a s o n i n g c a n s h a p e m o r a l j ud g m e n t s .

5. Th e reasoned judgment link. P e ople may a t t ime s r e asont h e i r way t o a ju dgm e n t b y she e r fo rce o f log ic , ov e r r id in g t he i rin i t i a l in t u i t ion . In su ch case s r e ason in g t ru ly i s cau sa l an d can n o tbe sa id t o be the "slave of the pass ion s . " Howe v e r , su ch r e ason in gis hypo t he s iz e d t o b e r a re , occu r r in g p r ima r i ly in case s in wh ichth e i n i t i a l i n t u i t i o n is w e a k and proce ss in g capac i t y is h i g h . Incase s w he re t he r e ason e d ju dgm e n t con f l ic t s wi t h a s t ron g in t u i t iv eju dgme n t , a person u su a l ly has a "dual attitude" (T. D. Wilson,L in dse y , & Schooler, 2000) i n w h i c h t h e r e a s o n e d j u d g m e n t m a yb e expressed v e rb a l ly ye t t he i n tu i t i v e j u d g m e n t c o n t i nu e s t o e x i s tu n de r t he su r face .

6. The private reflection link. In t he cou rse o f t h in k in g ab ou ta s i t u a t i o n a p e r s o n m a y s p o n t a n e o u sl y a c t i v a t e a n e w i n t u i t i o nt ha t con t radic t s t he in i t ia l in t u i t iv e ju dgm e n t . T he mos t wide lydiscu sse d me t hod of t r igge r in g n e w in t u i t ion s i s ro le - t ak in g (Se l -m a n , 1 971 ) . S imply b y pu t t in g on e se l f in t o t he shoe s o f an o t he rpe r son , on e may in s t an t ly fe e l pa in , sympa t hy , o r o t he r v ica r iou se mot ion a l r e spon se s . T h is i s on e o f t he p r in c ipa l pa t hways o fmoral reflect ion according to Piaget (1932/1965), Kohlberg (1969,1 971 ) , an d o t he r cog n i t iv e de v e lopme n t a l i s t s . A pe r son come s t ose e an i s su e o r d i le mma f rom more t han on e s ide an d t he re b ye x p e r ie n c e s m u l t i p l e c o m p e t i n g i n tu i t i o n s . T h e f i n a l j u d g m e n tm ay b e de t e rmin e d e i t he r b y go in g w i t h t he s t ron ge s t in t u i t io n o rb y a l lowin g r e ason t o choose amon g t he a l t e rn a t iv e s on t he b as is

o f t he con sc iou s app l ica t ion o f a ru le o r p r in c ip le . T h is pa t hwayamou n t s t o hav in g an in n e r d ia logu e wi t h on e se l f (T appan , 1997),ob v ia t in g th e n e e d for a discou rse par t n e r .R a t ion a l i s t mode ls focu s o n L in k s 5 and 6. In the social in tu-i t ion i s t mode l , in con t ras t, mora l ju dg me n t con s is ts p r imar i ly o fLinks 1-4, al though th e mode l a l lows t ha t L in k s 5 and 6 m aysome t ime s con t r ib u t e ( su ch as du r in g a fo rmal mora l ju dgme n ti n t e r v i e w ) . T he n e x t se c t ion o f t h is a r t ic le r e v ie ws fou r p rob le msfo r ra t ion a l i s t mode ls . F or each prob le m, a soc ia l in t u i t ion is tr e in t e rpre t a t ion o f t he e v ide n ce i s o f fe re d, r e ly in g pr imar i ly onLinks 1-4.

Fo u r Re a s o n s t o D o u b t t h e C a u s a l I m p o r t a n c e o f Re a s o n1 . Th e Dual Process Problem: There Is a Ubiquitous an dUnder-Studied Intuitive Process at Work

It i s n ow wide ly acce p t e d in soc ia l an d cogn i t iv e psycho logyt h a t t wo proce ss in g sys t e ms a re o f t e n a t work whe n a pe r sonmak e s ju dgme n t s o r so lv e s p rob le ms ( se e T ab le 1 ; se e a lsoC h a i k e n & Trope, 1999). Be cau se t he se t wo sys t e ms t yp ica l ly ru nin para l le l an d a re capab le o f r e ach in g differing con c lu s ion s , t he semode ls a r e u su a l ly ca l le d dual process mode ls . Du a l p roce ssmode ls h av e t hu s fa r had li t t l e impac t on mo ra l ju dgme n t r e se a rchb e cau se mos t r e se a rche rs h av e focu se d t he i r e f fo r t s on u n de rs t an d-in g t he r e ason in g proce ss (b u t se e E ise n b e rg , S he a , Car lo , &K n i g h t , 1991; Gibbs, 1991). There is evidenc e, ho we ve r, tha tmora l ju dgme n t work s l ik e o t he r k in ds o f ju dgm e n t , in which mos tof t he ac t ion i s in t he in t u i t iv e p roce ss .

Automatic evaluation. A f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o c c u rs s o q u i c k l y ,a u t o m a t i c a l l y , an d pe rv as iv e ly t ha t i t is ge n e ra l ly t ho u gh t t o b e anintegral par t of percep t ion. Zajonc (1980) syn t he s iz e d f in din gsf rom a v ar ie t y o f f ie lds t o c re a t e a mode rn v e r s ion o f Wu n dt ' s(1 897/1 96 9) a f fe c t iv e p r imacy t he o ry , in w h i c h h e argued thatf ee l ing an d t hou gh t a r e to some e x t e n t se para t e sys t e m s wi t hse para t e b io log ica l b ase s . T he af f e c t i v e sys t e m has p r imacy ine v e ry sense: It c a m e first in p h y l o g e n y , it e m e r g e s first in on t og-eny, i t i s t r igge re d more q u ick ly in r e a l - ti m e j u d g m e n t s , and i t ismore powe rfu l an d i r r e v ocab le whe n t he t wo sys t e ms y ie ld con -flic t ing ju dgme n t s ( se e a lso R e b e r , 1 993) . R e se arch on t he au t o-m a t i c e v a l u a t i o n e f f e c t con f i rms t ha t v e ry b r ie f o r e v e n su b l imin a lpre se n t a t ion s o f af f e c t i v e l y v a le n ce d words (Bargh , Cha ik e n , R ay-mond, & Hymes, 1996; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes,1986), fac ia l e x pre ss ion s (M u rphy & Zajon c , 1 993) , an d pho t o-graphs of pe op le an d an imals (He rman s , De Hou we r , & E e l e n ,1 994 ) a l t e r t he t ime i t t ak e s t o e v a lu a t e a t a rge t ob je c t p re se n t e di m m e d i a t e l y af t e rward, in dica t in g t ha t af f e c t i v e proce ss in g is a tw o r k w i t h i n a q u ar t e r second o f s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n .Autom atic moral judgment. M o r a l j u d g m e n t s t y p i c a l l y i n -v o lv e more comple x soc ia l s t i m u l i t han t he s imple words an dv i s u a l ob je c t s u se d in au t omat ic e v a lu a t ion s t u die s . Cou ld mora lj u d g m e n t s b e made au t omat ica l ly a s we l l? T he e me rg in g v ie w insoc ia l cogn i t ion i s t ha t most of ou r b e ha v iors an d ju dgm e n t s a re infact made automat ically (i.e., without in tent ion, effor t , or aware-n e ss o f process; Bargh, 1994; Bargh & C har t rand , 1999; Green-w a l d & B an aj i , 1995).

T he l i t e ra t u re mos t r e le v an t t o mora l ju dgme n t i s t he l i te ra t u reon a t t i t u de s , whe re a ce n t ra l q u e s t ion has b e e n how pe op le fo rmat t i t u de s ab ou t o t he r pe op le . Th e e v ide n ce in dica t e s t ha t a t t i t u de


7/21

82 0 H A I D Tf o r m a t i o n i s b e t t e r de sc r ib e d as a se t o f au t omat ic p roce sse s t hana s a proce ss o f d e l i b e r a t i o n a nd r e f le c t ion ab ou t th e t rai t s o f ap e r s o n . P e op le form f ir s t impre ss ion s a t first s i g h t ( A l b r i g h t ,K e n n y , & Mal loy , 1 988) , a nd the impre ss ion s t ha t t he y fo rm f romob se rv in g a " thin slice" of b e hav ior (as l i t t le as 5 s) are a lmos ti de n t i ca l t o t h e i m p r e s s i o n s t h e y f o r m f rom m u c h l o n g e r a nd morel e i s u r e l y o b s e r v a t i o n a n d d e l i b e r a t i o n ( A m b a d y & R o s e n t h a l ,1992). T he se f i r s t impre ss ion s a l t e r su b se q u e n t e v a lu a t ion s , c r e a t -in g a h a l o .effect (T horn dik e , 1920), in w h i c h p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n so f n o n m o r a l t r a i t s s u c h a s a t t r ac t iv e n e ss l e ad to b e l ie fs t ha t aper s on posse sse s cor re spon din g mora l t r a i t s su ch as k in dn e ss an dgood cha rac t e r (Dio n , Be rsche id , & Wals t e r , 1 972) . P e op le a lsoca t e gor iz e o t he r pe op le i n s t an t l y a n d a u t o m a t i c a l l y , a p p l y i n g s t e -r e o t y p e s t h a t o f t e n i n c l u d e m o r a l l y e v a lu a t e d t r a i t s ( e .g . , aggre s-s ivenes s f or A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s ; D e v i n e , 1989). A l l o f t he se f ind-i n g s i l l us t r a t e t h e ope ra t ion o f th e i n t u i t i v e ju dgme n t l in k (L in k 1in F i g u r e 2), in w h i c h th e pe rce p t ion o f a pe rson or a n e v e n t l e adsi n s t an t l y a nd a u t o m a t i c a l l y to a m o r a l j u d g m e n t w i t h o u t a nyc o n s c i o u s re f l e c t i o n o r r e a s o n i n g .

A n o t h e r i l l u s t ra t i o n o f a u t o m a t i c m o ra l ju d g m e n t c a n be seen inth e l i t e ra tu re o n pe rsu as ion . Mora l d iscou rse in i ts n a t u ra l se t t in gis o f t e n a k in d o f p e r s u a s i o n , in w h i c h o ne pe rson t e l l s o t he r s ab ou ta n e v e n t a nd t r i e s to re c ru i t t h e m t o h e r r e adin g of the e v e n t .A ccordin g t o Ch a ik e n ' s (1 987) he u r is t ic - sys t e m at ic mode l o f pe r -s u a s i o n , pe op le a re g u i d e d in par t b y t h e "pr in c ip le o f l e as t e f fo r t . "Be ca u se pe op le hav e l im i t e d cog n i t iv e r e sou rce s , an d b e cau seh e u r i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g is e a s y a nd ade q u a t e fo r most t a sk s , he u r is t icp r o c e s s i n g ( t h e i n t u i t i v e proce ss ) is g e n e r a l l y u s e d u n l e s s t h e r e isa spe c ia l n e e d t o e n gage in sys t e mat ic p roce ss in g ( se e a lso S imon ,1967). A p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t h e u r i s t i c for the s t u dy o f mora l

j u d g m e n t i s t h e " I agre e w i t h people I l ik e " he u r is t ic (Cha ik e n ,1980). If y o u r f riend is t e l l i n g y o u h o w R ob e r t mis t r e a t e d he r ,t h e r e is l i t t l e n e e d f or you to t h i n k s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a b o u t th e goodr e a s o n s R o b e r t m i g h t h a v e h a d . Th e me re fact t h a t y o u r f riend h a sm a d e a j u d g m e n t af f e c t s y o u r o w n i n tu i t i o n s dire c t ly , i l lu s t ra t in gth e soc ia l pe r su as ion l i nk ( L i n k 4) . O n l y i f the agre e me n t he u r is t icl ea d s to o t h e r co n f l i c t s (e .g. , if R o b e r t is a f r ie n d o f y o u r s ) w i l ly o u r suf f i c i e nc y t h r e s h o l d b e ra ise d ab ov e you r ac t u a l l e v e l o fc o n f i d e n c e , t r i g g e r i n g effor t ful sys t e mat ic p roce ss in g (L in k s 5 a nd6 ) t o c lose t he gap .

H o w e v e r , th e s o c i a l i n t u i t i o n i s t mode l pos i t s t ha t mora l r e ason -in g is u s u a l l y don e in t e rpe r son a l ly r a t he r t han pr iv a t e ly . If R o b e r tis in fac t a f r i e nd o f y o u r s , t h e n you a nd you r f r ie n d migh t p re se n ta r g u m e n t s to e a c h o t h e r ( L i n k 3, the r e ason e d pe r su as ion l in k ) inth e hope o f t r igge r in g n e w in t u i t ion s , ge t t in g the o t he r t o se eR o b e r t ' s a c t i o n s in a b e t t e r o r worse l igh t . Mora l d iscu ss ion s c a nt h e n be m o d e l e d a s a r e pe a t e d cyc le t h rou gh L in k s 1, 2, and 3 inPerson A , t h e n in Person B , t he n in Person A, and s o on . Link 4w o u l d e x e r t a con s t an t p re ssu re t oward agre e me n t i f the twopar t ie s we re f r ie n ds an d a con s t an t p re ssu re aga in s t ag re e me n t i fth e tw o par t ie s d is l ik e d e ach o t he r . If a t l e as t on e o f t he part iesb e g a n w i t h o u t a s t ron g i n i t i a l in t u i t io n , t he n some degree o fc o n v e r g e n c e wou ld b e l ik e ly . Dav is an d R u sb u l t (2 0 01 ) r e ce n t lydocu me n t e d t h is con v e rge n ce p roce ss , which t he y ca l le d attitudealignment. Howe v e r , i f b o t h par t ie s b e gan wi t h s t ron g ly fe l t o p-p o s i n g i n tu i t i o n s (as in a de b a t e ov e r ab or t ion ) , t he n r e ason e dp e r s u a s i o n w o u l d b e l ikely t o hav e l i t t l e e f fe c t , e x ce p t t ha t t he pos t/ we r e ason in g t r igge re d in the o t h e r p e r s o n c o u l d l e a d to e v e n

greater disagreement , a process labeled "at t i tude polarizat ion" b yL ord, R oss , a nd Lepper (1979).P e t t y a n d Cacioppo's (1986) elaboration-likelihood mode l

g i v e s a similar reading of the standard moral judgment discussion.If you fee l a strong identification with the source of the persuasiveme ssage (you r f r ie n d) , an d you hav e n o con f l ic t mot iv a t in g e lab -ora t e d t h in k in g , t he n a pe r iphe ra l process is suff icient to lead to ana t t i tud e shif t , a ju dgm e n t t ha t R ob e r t i s e v i l . Howe v e r , i f t hepe rson t a lk in g t o you i s a s t r an ge r ( a r e se a rch psycho log is t ) whocha l le n g e s yo u r ju dgme n t a t e v e ry t u rn ( "What i f He in z d idn ' t lov eh is wife , shou ld he s t i l l s t e a l t he d rug?") , t he n you wi l l b e fo rce dt o e n gage in e x t e n s iv e effortful , verbal, central processing. Stan-dard mora l ju dgm e n t in t e rv ie ws ma y t he re fore c re a t e an u n n a t u -ra l ly reasoned form o f mora l ju dgme n t , l e adin g t o t he erroneouscon c lu s ion t ha t mora l ju dgme n t i s p r imar i ly a r e ason in g process.Also , b e cau se fo rc in g people to in t rospect to f ind reasons for theira t t i t u de s can chan ge t hose a t t i t u de s t e mporar i ly (T . D. Wilson e tal. , 2000; T. D. W i l s o n & Schooler , 1991), s tandard moral judg-me n t in t e rv ie w s mig h t n o t e v e n prov ide a v a l id me asu re o f pe o-ple's real moral beliefs. (See also Schooler, Fiore , & B r a n d i m o n t e ,1997, on t he impairme n t s cau se d b y forc in g pe op le to v e rb a l iz ew h a t t h e y k n o w i n t u i ti v e l y . )

Th e social intuitionist solution. Th e social in t u i t ion is t mode l isfully compat ib le w i t h mode rn du a l process theories. L ik e t hoset he or ie s , t he mode l pos i t s t ha t t he in t u i t iv e process i s t he de fau l tp roce ss , han dl in g e v e ryday mora l ju dgme n t s in a r ap id , e asy , an dho l is t ic way . I t i s p r imar i ly whe n in t u i t ion s con f l ic t , o r whe n t hesoc ia l s i t u a t ion de man ds t horou gh e x amin a t ion o f a l l face t s o f asce n ar io , t ha t th e reasoning process is ca l le d u pon . R e ason in g c a noccu r p r iv a t e ly (L in k s 5 and 6), and su ch so l i t a ry mora l r e ason in gm ay b e common amon g ph i losophe rs a nd amon g t hose w h o hav ea h igh n e e d fo r cogn i t ion (Cac ioppo & P e t t y , 1982). Ye t e v e r s in ceP la t o wro t e h is Dialogues, phi losophe rs hav e r e cogn iz e d t ha tmora l r e ason in g n a t u ra l ly occu rs in a soc ia l se t t in g , b e t we e npeople w h o c a n cha l le n ge e ach o t h e r ' s argu me n t s a nd t r igger ne wi n tu i t i o n s (Links 3 and 4). The social in tuit ionist model avoids thet radi t ion a l focu s on con sc iou s p r iv a t e r e ason in g an d draws a t t e n -t i o n to the role of moral in tuit ions, and of other people , in shapingm o r a l j u d g m e n t s .2. The Motivated Reasoning Prob lem: The Reason ingProcess Is More Like a Lawyer Defending a Client Thana Judge or Scientist Seeking Truth

It appe ars , t he n , t ha t a du a l p roce ss mode l may b e appropr ia t efo r a t he ory o f mora l ju dgme n t . I f so , t he n t he r e la tion sh ip b e t we e nth e tw o proce sse s mu s t be specified. Is the r e ason in g process th e"smarter" but more cogn i t iv e ly e x pe n s iv e process, called in w h e n -e v e r th e in t u i t iv e p roce ss is unable to solve a prob le m che ap ly? O ris t he r e la t ion sh ip on e o f mas t e r an d se rv an t , a s Hu me su gge s t e d,in w h i c h reason's main job i s t o fo rmu la t e a rgu me n t s t ha t su ppor tone's in t u i t iv e con c lu s ion s? R e se arch o n b o t h mot iv a t e d r e ason in gan d e v e ryday r e ason in g su gge s t s t ha t th e post h o c reasoning link(Link 2) is more impor t an t t han th e r e ason e d ju dgme n t a nd pr iv a t ereflect ion links (Links 5 an d 6 ) .Tw o major c lasse s o f mot iv e s hav e b e e n shown to bias a nddirect reasoning. The f i rs t class can be called relatedness motives,fo r i t in c lu de s concerns ab ou t impression man age me n t an d smoot hi n t e r a c t i o n w i t h other people. Th e second class c a n b e called


8/21

I N T U I T I O N A N D M O R A L J U D G M E N T 821coherence motives, fo r i t in c lu de s a v ar ie t y o f de fe n s iv e me cha-n i s m s triggered by cogn i t iv e d isson ance a nd threats t o the v a l id i t yo f one's cu l t u ra l wor ldv ie w.

Relatedness motives. F rom an e v o lu t ion ary pe r spe c t iv e , i tw o u l d b e s t r an ge i f our mora l ju dgme n t mach in e ry w a s designedpr in c ipa l ly fo r accu racy , wi t h n o con ce rn fo r t he d isas t rou s e f f e c t sof pe r iodica lly s id in g wi t h ou r e n e mie s an d aga in s t ou r f r ie n ds .Studies of at t i tudes , pe rson pe rce p t ion , and pe rsu as ion show t ha tde s i r e s fo r ha rmon y an d agre e me n t do in de e d hav e s t ron g b ias in gef f ec t s o n j u d g m e n t s . C h a i k e n and her colleagues incorporatedimpression motivation in to th e he u r is t ic - sys t e mat ic mode l , whichis described as "the desire to hold attitudes and beliefs that wil lsat is fy current social goals" ( C h e n & Chaiken, 1999, p. 78) . Che n ,S he ch t e r , a nd C h a i k e n (1996) fou n d t ha t pe op le w h o expected todiscu ss an i ssu e w i t h a par t n e r whose v ie ws we re k n o wn e x pre sse din i t i a l a t t i t u de s , b e fore t he in t e rac t ion , t ha t we re sh i f t e d t owardt hose o f the ir ant icipated partner. More broadly, Darley a nd Be r-scheid (1967) f o u n d t ha t pe op le r a t e a descript ion o f a pe rson ' spersonality as more likable if t he y expect to interact with thepe rson t han i f t he y do n o t e x pe c t t o in t e rac t .

T he e x is t e n ce o f m ot iv a t ion s t o agre e wi t h ou r f rie n ds an d a l l ie sme an s t ha t w e can b e d i r e c t ly a f fe c t e d b y t he i r ju dgm e n t s ( t hesocial persuasion link) . The mere fac t t h a t y o u r f riend expresses am o r a l j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t X is of ten suff icient to cau se in you acr i t ica l a t t i t u de t oward X . S u ch dir e c t in f lu e n ce , c i r cu m v e n t in greasoning ent ire ly, fits wit h C har t rand and Bargh's (1999) recentde mon s t ra t ion of the "chame le on e f fe c t , " in w h i c h p e o p le u n c o n -sc iou s ly mim ic t he pos t u re s , man n e r isms, an d fac ia l e x pre ss ion s o ft he i r in t e rac t ion par t n e r s . Char t ran d an d B a r g h fou n d t ha t su chau t omat ic mimicry is soc ia l ly adap t iv e , fo r pe op le w h o a r e " i nsyn c" wi t h an o t he r pe r son a re l iked bet ter by t ha t pe r son .

Coherence motives. P sycho log is t s s in ce F re u d hav e a rgu e dt h a t people con s t ru c t v ie w s o f t he mse lv e s an d of the wor ld an d tha tt h e y e x pe r ie n ce po t e n t ia l ly c r ipp l in g an x ie t y whe n t he se con s t ru c-t ions are t h re a t e n e d (Mosk owit z , S k u rn ik , & Galinsky, 1999).R e se arch on cog n i t iv e d isson an ce (F e s t in ge r , 1 957; W ick lu n d &B r e h m , 1 976 ) showe d ju s t how re adi ly pe op le chan ge t he i r t h in k -in g an d b e l ie fs t o av o id t he t h re a t o f in t e rn a l con t radic t ion s . Morere ce n t ly , Cha ik e n , G i ner-Sorol l a , an d Che n (1996) d e f i n e d defensemotivation as " the desire to ho ld a t t i t u de s a nd b e l ie fs t ha t a recon gru e n t wi t h e x is t in g se l f - de f in i t ion a l a t t i t u de s an d b e l ie fs" (p .557). S e l f - de f in it ion a l a t t i tu de s in c lu de v a lu e s an d mo ra l comm it -me n t s . Whe n de fe n se mot iv a t ion i s t r igge re d, b o t h he u r is t ic an dsys t e ma t ic t h in k in g work t o p re se rv e se l f - de f in i tion a l a t t i t u de s .

T he b ias in g e f fe c t s o f de fe n se mot iv a t ion can b e se e n in s t u die st ha t cha l le n ge par t ic ipan t s ' mora l an d po l i t ica l ide o logy . L ord e ta l . (1979) fou n d t ha t s t u de n t s wi t h s t ron g op in ion s ab o u t t he de a t hpe n a l t y , whe n e x pose d to r e se a rch e v ide n ce o n both sides of thei s su e , acce p t e d e v ide n ce su ppor t in g t he i r p r io r b e l ie f u n cr i t ica l lywhi le su b je c t in g oppos in g e v ide n ce t o mu ch g re a t e r sc ru t in y .Lerner's (1 96 5) " ju s t wor ld" hypo t he s is s t a t e d t ha t pe op le hav e an e e d t o b e l ie v e t ha t t he y l iv e in a wor ld whe re pe o p le ge n e ra l ly ge tw h a t t he y de se rve . P e op le w ho suf fe r fo r n o r e ason a re a t h re a t t ot h i s b e l ie f , so par t ic ipan t s adju s t e d t he i r mora l ju dgme n t s , de ro-gat ing or blaming innocent victims (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Tet-lock, Kris tel , Elson, Gre e n , a nd Lerner (2000) f ound t ha t people'swil l in gn e ss t o u se r e le v an t b ase ra t e in format ion , o r t o e n gage inc o u n t e r f a c t u a l t h in k in g , de pe n de d on w he t h e r o r n o t t he i r " sac re d

v a lu e s" we re t h re a t e n e d b y do in g so . In a l l o f t he se e x ample s ,r e ason in g i s u se d t o de fe n d pr io r mora l commit me n t s .

Mora l ju dgme n t s a re a l so affec ted b y t h e d e f e n s i v e m o t i v a t i o n so f t e r ro r man age me n t (S . S olomon , Gre e n b e rg , & P ysz cz yn sk i ,1991). Whe n pe op le are asked to think about their own deaths,t he y appe ar to su ppre ss a ge n e ra l iz e d fe a r o f mor t a l i t y b y c l i n g i n gmore t igh t ly t o t he i r cu l t u ra l wor ldv ie w. De a t h- pr ime d par t ic ipan t st h e n sh i f t t he i r mora l ju dgme n t s t o de fe n d t ha t wor ldv ie w. T he yme t e ou t ha r she r pu n ishme n t t o v io la t o r s o f cu l t u ra l v a lu e s , an dt he y g iv e b igge r r e wards to people w h o b e h a v e d m o r a l l y ( R o s e n -b la t t , Gre e n b e rg , S o lomon , P ysz cz yn sk i , & Lyon, 1989). Death-primed participants have more negative attitudes toward those whod o not ful ly share t he i r wor ldv ie w (e.g., J e ws; Gre e n b e rg e t al. ,1990). From a t e r ro r -man age m e n t pe r spe c t iv e , mora l ju dgm e n t isa spe c ia l k in d of ju dgme n t , b e cau se mora l ju dgme n t s a lwaysimpl ica t e t he c u l t u ra l wor ldv ie w. I t i s p lau s ib le t o say , " I don ' t l ik easparagu s , but I don' t care i f you ea t it." I t i s not plau s ib le to s a y ," I t h i n k h u m a n life is sacred, but I don' t care if you kill him."

Mechanisms of bias. Studies of e v e ryday r e ason in g r e v e a l th eme chan isms b y which r e la t e dn e ss an d cohe re n ce mot iv a t ion smak e pe op le ac t l ik e lawye rs . K u h n (1 991 ) fou n d tha t mos t pe op leh a v e diff icul ty u n de rs t an din g wha t e v ide n ce i s , an d whe n pre sse dto g iv e e v ide n ce in su ppor t o f t he i r t he or ie s t he y ge n e ra l ly g iv ean e cdo t e s o r i l lu s t ra t iv e e x ample s in s t e ad. F u r t he rmore , pe op leshow a s t ron g t e n de n cy t o se a rch fo r an e cdo t e s an d o t he r " e v i-dence" e x c lu s iv e ly o n t he i r p re fe r r e d s ide o f an i s su e , a pa t t e rn tha thas been called th e "my-side bias" (Baron, 1995; Perkins e t al.,1991). Once people find su ppor t in g e v ide n ce , e v e n a s in g le p ie ceo f b ad e v ide n ce , t he y o f t e n s t op t he se a rch , s in ce t he y hav e a"makes-sense epistemology" (P e rk in s , A l le n , & Hafn e r , 1 983) inwhich t he go a l o f t h in k in g i s n o t to r e ach t he mos t accu ra t econ c lu s ion b u t t o f in d t he f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h a n g s t o g e t h e r w e l la nd t ha t f i t s wi t h one's impor t an t p r io r b e l ie fs .

Research in social cognition also indicates that people oftenb e hav e l ik e " in t u i t iv e lawye rs" r a t he r t han " in t u i t iv e sc ie n t i s t s "( B a u m e i s t e r & Ne wman , 1 994 ) . K u n da ' s (1 990 ) r e v ie w o f "mo-t iv a t e d r e ason in g" con c lu de s t ha t "d i r e c t ion a l goals" (mot iv a t ion st o r e ach a p re orda in e d con c lu s io n ) work pr imar i ly b y cau s in g ab iase d se a rch in me m ory fo r su ppor t in g e v ide n ce on ly . How e v e r ,P ysz cz yn sk i a nd Gre e n b e rg (1987) proposed a m o r e c o m p r e h e n -sive "biased hypo t he s is t e s t in g" mode l , in which se lf-serving m o -t iv e s b ias e ach s t age of the hypo t he s is - t e s t in g se q u e n ce , in c lu din gt he se le c t ion o f in i t ia l hypo t he se s , t he ge n e ra t ion o f in fe re n ce s , t hese a rch fo r e v ide n ce , the e v a lu a t ion o f e v ide n ce , an d t he am ou n t o fe v ide n ce n e e de d b e fore on e i s wi l l in g to mak e an in fe re n ce .R e se arch on t he "con f i rmat ory bias" (S n yde r & S w a n , 1978)shows t ha t pe op le do n o t a lways se e k t o con f i rm t he i r i n i t i a lhypo t he s is ; some t ime s t he y ask t he r igh t q u e s t ion s t o ge t a t t het ruth (Higg in s & Bargh, 1987; Trope & Bassok , 1983). H o w e v e r ,su ch de mon s t ra t ion s o f t ru t h se e k in g a lways in v o lv e hypo t he se stha t th e par t ic ipan t has no n e e d to defend (e .g. , " the person you areab ou t t o me e t i s an e x t rov e r t " ) . Whe n hypo t he se s in v o lv e on e ' smora l commit me n t s ( e .g . , " t he de a t h pe n a l t y does no t de t e r mu r-de r" ) , t he e mpir ica l f ind ings ge n e ra l ly show b ias an d mot iv a t e dreasoning (Kuhn, 1989; Lord e t a l . , 1979).

This review is not intended to imply that people are stupid orirrat ional. I t i s in t e n de d t o de mon s t ra t e t ha t t he roo t s o f hu m anin t e l l ige n ce , r a t ion a l i t y , an d e t h ica l so ph is t ica t ion shou ld n o t b esou gh t in ou r abil i ty to se a rch for and e v a lu a t e e v ide n ce in an ope n


9/21

822 H A I D Ta nd u n b i a s e d w a y . R a t h e r t h an f o l l o w i n g th e a n c i e n t G r e e k s inw o r s h i p i n g r e a s o n , w e s h o u l d in s t e ad look f or the roo t s o f h u m a ni n t e l l ig e n c e , r a t i o n a l i t y , a nd v i r tu e i n w h a t t h e mi n d doe s b e s t :p e r c e p t i o n , i n t u i t i o n , a nd o t h e r m e n t a l o p e r a t io n s t h a t a r e q u i c k ,e f f o r t l e s s , a n d g e n e r a l l y q u i t e a c c u r a t e ( G i g e r e n z e r & G o l d s t e i n ,1996: M a r g o l i s , 1987).

Th e social intuitionist solution. Th e re ason in g proce ss inm o r a l j u d g m e n t m a y b e c a p a b l e o f w o r k i n g o b j e c t i v e l y u n d e r v e r yl i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a nc e s : w h e n th e pe rson h a s a d e q u a t e t i m e a n dp r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t y , a m o t i v a t i o n t o b e a c c u r a t e , no a pr io r ij u d g m e n t to de f e n d o r j u s t i f y , an d whe n n o r e la t e dn e ss o r cohe r -e n c e m o t i v a t i o n s are t r igge re d (F orgas , 1 995; We gn e r & Bargh ,1 998 ) . S u ch c i rcu m s tan ce s m a y b e f o u n d in m o r a l j u d g m e n t s t u d -i e s u s i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l a nd u n e m o t i o n a l d i l e m m a s . R a t i o n a l i s t re -s ea r c h m e t h o d s m a y t h e r e f o r e create a n u n u s u a l a nd n o n r e p r e s e n -t a t iv e kind of mora l ju dgme n t . Howe v e r , in r e a l ju dgme n ts i t u a t i o n s , s u ch a s w h e n p e o p l e a re g o s s i p i n g o r a r g u i n g , r e l a te d -n e s s m o t i v e s a r e a l w a y s a t work . I f more shock in g o r t h re a t e n in gi s s u e s a re b e i n g j u d g e d , s u c h a s a b o r t i o n , e u t h a n a s i a , o r c o n s e n -s u a l i n ce s t , t h e n c o h e r e n c e m o t i v e s a lso w i l l b e a t w o r k . U n d e rt h e s e m o r e r ea l i s t i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s , m o r a l r e a s o n i n g i s no t lef t freeto se a rch fo r t r u t h but is l i ke l y to be h i r e d o ut l ike a l a w y e r byv a r i o u s m o t i v e s , e m p l o y e d o n l y to s e e k c o n f i r m a t i o n o f pre or -d a ined c o n c l u s i o n s .3. The Post Hoc Problem: The Reasoning ProcessReadily Constructs Justifications of Intuitive Judgments,Causing th e Illusion of Objective Reasoning

W h e n p e o p l e a r e a s k e d t o e x p l a i n t h e c a u s e s o f t h e i r j u d g m e n t sa nd a c t ions , t h e y f re q u e n t l y c i t e fac t o r s t ha t cou ld n o t hav e mat -t e r e d a nd fai l to r e c o g n i z e f a c t o r s t h a t di d m a t t e r . N i s b e t t a ndS c h a c h t e r (1 96 6 ) , fo r e x am ple , a sk e d par t ic ipa n t s t o t ak e e le c t r ics h o c k s , e i t h e r w i th o r w i t h o u t a p l a c e b o pi l l t h a t w a s said toprodu ce t he s a m e s y m p t o m s a s e le c t r ic shock . P ar t ic ipan t s in thep i l l c o n d i t i o n a p p a r e n t l y a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r h e a r t p a l p i t a t i o n s a ndb u t t e r f l i e s in the s t o m a c h t o t h e pil l a nd we re ab le to t ak e f o u rt i m e s a s m u c h s h o c k a s t h o s e who had n o s u c h m i s a t t r i b u ti o na v a i l a b l e fo r t h e i r s y m p t o m s . H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e p l a c e b o c o n d i -t i o n p a r t i c i p a n t s we re ask e d i f they ha d m a d e s u c h a n a t t r i b u t i o n ,o n l y 2 5 % o f t h e m s a i d t h a t t h e y h a d . Th e r e m a i n i n g p a r t i c i p a n tsd e n i e d t h a t t h e y h a d t h o u g h t a b o u t th e pil l a nd in s t e ad made u p av a r i e t y o f e x p l a n a t i o n s fo r t h e i r gre a t e r shock t o le ran ce , su ch a s ," W e l l , I u s e d to b u i l d radios an d stuff w h e n I was 13 or 14, andm a y b e 1 g o t u s e d to e l e c t r i c s h o c k " ( N i s b e t t & Wilson , 1 977, p .2 37) .

N i s b e t t a nd W i l s o n ( 19 7 7 ) i n t e r p re t e d s u c h c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n sas pos t hoc con s t ru c t ion s . Whe n ask e d t o e x p la in t he i r b e hav iors ,p e o p l e e n g a g e in an effor t ful se a rch t ha t m a y f e e l l ike a kind o fin t rospe c t ion . Howe v e r , wha t pe op le a re se a rch in g fo r i s n o t am e m o r y of t he ac t u a l cogn i t iv e p roce sse s t ha t cau se d t he i r b e hav -io r s , b e cau se t he se p roce sse s are not acce ss ib le to con sc iou sn e ss .R a t h e r , pe op le a re se a rch in g fo r p lau s ib le t he or ie s ab ou t wh y the ym i g h t h a v e d o n e w h a t t h e y did. P e op le t u rn first to a "pool o fc u l t u r a l l y s u p p l i e d e x p l a n a t i o n s fo r b e h a v i o r , " w h i c h N i s b e t t a ndW i l s o n ( 19 7 7 ) r e f e r t o a s "a p r io r i cau sa l theories" (p. 248). Whenask e d why he e n joye d a par t y , a pe r son t u rn s first t o h is cu l t u ra lk n o w l e d g e ab ou t why pe op le e n joy par t ie s , choose s a r e ason , an dt h e n se a rche s fo r e v i d e n c e t h a t th e r e ason w a s a p p l i c a b l e . Th e

se a rch i s l i k e l y t o b e a on e - s ide d search of me mory fo r su ppor t in ge v ide n ce on ly (K u n da , 1 990 ; P ysz cz yn sk i & Gre e n b e rg , 1987).

A d d i t i o n a l i l lu s t ra t ion s o f pos t h o c cau sa l r e ason in g can bef o u n d i n s t ud i e s i n w h i c h h y p n o s i s (Zi m bard o, L aBe rge , & Bu t le r ,1993) and su b l imin a l p re se n t a t ion (K u n s t - Wilson & Zajonc, 1980)we re u se d to mak e pe op le pe r fo rm ac t ion s . Whe n ask e d to e x p l a i nt he i r ac t ion s o r cho ice s , pe op le r e adi ly made up r e a s o n s t h a tsou n de d p lau s ib le b u t we re fa lse . S p l i t - b ra in pa t ie n t s show t h ise f f e c t in i t s mos t dramat ic f or m. W h e n t h e l e f t han d, gu ide d b y t her i g h t b ra in , pe r fo rms a n act ion, th e v e rb a l ce n t e r s in t he lef t b ra inr ea d i ly mak e u p s t o r ie s t o e x p la in i t (Gaz z an iga , Boge n , & Sperry ,1962). Th e lan gu age ce n t e r s are s o skilled a t m a k i n g up pos t h o cc a u s a l e x p lan a t ion s t ha t Gaz z an iga (1 985) spe ak s o f an " in t e rpre t -e r" m o d u l e . H e a r g u e s t h a t b e h a v i o r is u s u a l l y p r o d uc e d b y me n t a lm o d u l e s to which con sc iou sn e ss has no access b ut t h a t th e in t e r -p r e t e r m o d u l e p r o v i de s a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y a n y w a y , c o n s t a n t l yge n e ra t in g h y p o t h e s e s to e x p l a i n w h y t h e se l f migh t hav e pe r -fo rme d an y par t icu la r b e hav ior .

Post hoc moral reasoning. Th e idea t ha t pe op le ge n e ra t ecau sa l e x p lan a t ion s ou t o f a p r io r i cau sa l t he or ie s i s e as i ly e x -t e n de d in t o t he mora l domain . In a mora l ju dgme n t in t e rv ie w, apar t ic ipan t i s a sk e d t o de c ide whe t he r an ac t ion i s r igh t o r wron gan d is t he n asked t o e x p la in why she t h in k s so . Howe v e r , i f pe op leh a v e no acce ss t o the processes b e h in d t he i r au t omat ic in i t ia le v a l u a t i o n s t h e n h o w d o t h e y g o ab ou t p ro v idin g ju s t i f ica t io n s?T he y d o s o by con su l t in g t he i r a pr io r i mora l t he or ie s . A priorimoral theories can b e de f in e d as a poo l o f cu l t u ra l ly su pp lie dn orms fo r e v a lu a t in g an d c r i t ic iz in g t he b e hav ior o f o t he r s . Apr io r i mora l t he or ie s p rov ide acce p t ab le r e ason s fo r pra ise a ndb lame (e .g . , "u n prov ok e d harm is b ad" ; "people shou ld s t r iv e tol ive up to God's comman dme n t s" ) . Be cau se t h e j u s t i f ic a t i o n s t h a tpe op le g iv e a re c lose ly r e la t e d t o t he mora l ju dgme n t s t ha t t h e ymak e , p r io r r e se a rche rs hav e assu me d t ha t th e ju s t i f ica t o ry r e ason scau se d th e j u d g m e n t s . But i f pe op le lack acce ss to t he i r au t omat icj u d g m e n t p r o c e s s e s t h e n th e r e v e r se cau sa l pa t h b e come s morep l a u s i b l e .

If t h is re v e r se p a t h i s comm on , t he n t he e n ormou s l i t e ra t u re onmora l r e ason in g can b e r e in t e rpre t e d as a k in d of e t hn ography ofth e a pr io r i mora l t he or ie s he ld by v ar iou s c o m m u n i t i e s 3 and ageg r o u p s . K o h l b e r g ' s (1969) s t u die s de mo n s t ra te t ha t you n g ch i ldre nin ma n y cu l t u re s ho ld t he a p rio r i mora l t he ory t ha t "acts t h a t g e tp u n i s h e d a re wron g; ac t s t ha t g e t r e warde d are good" (Stages 1 and2), but t he y soon adv an ce t o the t he ory t ha t "acts t ha t o t he r sa p p r o v e of are good; ac t s t ha t o t he r s con de mn a re bad" (Stage 3) .If su ch s t a t e me n t s we re t he ru le s t ha t ch i ldre n r e a l ly u se d t oe v a lu a t e a c t ion s , t he n ch i ldre n a t S t age s 1 an d 2 wou ld con c lu det ha t ac t ion s t ha t are not p u n i s h e d m u s t not be bad, y e t T u r ie l(1 983) ha s show n t ha t you n g ch i ldre n do n o t b e l ie v e t h is . T he y sayt h a t ha r mf ul acts, such as h i t t i n g a nd pu l l in g ha i r , a re w r o n gw h e t h e r t h e y a re pu n ishe d o r n o t . T he y e v e n sa y t ha t su ch ac t s

3 An i ronic example of an a pr ior i mora l theory used in a post hoc wayis fo und in Mille r ' s (1999) recent review of the n o r m o f s e l f - i n t e r e s t .A m e r i c a n s s t rongly embrace the theory tha t people ac t , and ought to ac t ,pr imar i ly out of se l f- in te res t . Americans the re fore frequent ly make upse l f- interes t e x p l a n a t i o n s fo r the i r a t t i tudes, vote s , a n d char i table ac t ions,e v e n in cases w here they appear to be ac t ing aga ins t the i r se l f- in te res t (seeal so Baron, 1997).


10/21

INTUITION AND MORAL JUDGMENT 823w o u l d be w rong i f ad ult s ordered them to be d one (Da m on, 197 7;L a u p a & Turiel, 1986). Thus , w hen a chi ld offers th e Stage 1s ta t em ent tha t " i t' s w rong becaus e she'll get punished," the chi l di s not i n t ros pec t i ng on the reas oni ng tha t l ed to h i s cond em nat i on;he i s j us t g i v i ng a reas on tha t s ound s p l aus ib l e , perhaps a reason h ehi m s e l f has heard from ad ul t s ( " if yo u d o tha t , I w i l l puni s h you") .

Th e illusions of moral judgment . If m oral reas oni ng is gener-ally a pos t hoc cons t ruc t i on i n t end ed to jus t i f y autom at i c m oralin t u i t ion s , then our moral l i fe is plagued by two i l lus ions. The f i rs ti l lu s ion can be ca l l ed the wag-the-dog illusion: We be l i eve tha t ouro w n m oral j ud gm ent ( the d og) i s d r i ven by our ow n m oral rea-son in g ( the tai l ) . The second i l lus ion can be cal led the wag-the-other-dog's-tail illusion: In a m o r a l a r g u m e n t , w e expect th es uc c es s f u l rebut t a l of an opponent's argum ents to change theoppo nent ' s m i nd . Such a be li e f i s l ike th i nking tha t f orc i ng a dog'stai l t o w a g b y m o v i n g it w i th yo ur hand w i l l m ake t he dog h a p p y .

The w ag- the-d og i l lus i on f o l l ow s d i rec t l y from t he m echani cs ofthe reas oni ng proces s described above . Pys zczyns ki and G reen-berg (19 87 ) poi n t ou t t ha t by goi ng through a l l t he s t eps ofh y p o t h e s i s t e s t i ng, even though every s t ep can be b i as ed by s e l f -serving motivations, people ca n maintain an "illusion o f obj ec t i v-i ty" abo ut the w ay the y th i nk. The w ag - the-dog i l lus i on m ayt he re fo re be one of the m ec hani s m s und er l y i ng nai ve rea l i s m(Griff in & Ross, 1991; Robinson, Kel tner, Ward, & Ross , 1995),th e f inding that people t h i nk tha t t hey s ee the w or l d as i t i s w hereasthe i r opponent s i n a m oral d i s pute are b i as ed by i d eol ogy andse l f - in t e re s t .Th e bi t t e rnes s , fut i l i ty , and s e l f - r i gh t eous nes s o f m os t m oralargum ents can now be expl i ca t ed . I n a d ebat e about abor t i on ,pol i t i cs , cons ens ual i nces t , o r w h a t m y fr iend did to y o u r fr iend,b o t h sides believe t ha t t he i r pos i t i ons are bas ed on reas oni ng aboutthe facts and issues involved (the wag-the-dog illusion). Both sidespres en t w hat t hey t ake to be exce l l en t argum ents i n s upport of t he i rposi t ions. Both s ides expect th e other s ide to be res pons i ve to s uchreas ons ( the w ag- the-o ther-d og ' s - t a i l i l l us i on) . When the o therside fa i ls t o be a f f ec ted by s uch good reas ons , each side concl ud est h a t t he o ther s i d e m us t be closed minded or ins incere. In this wayth e cul ture w ars over i s s ues s uch as hom os exual i ty and abor t i onca n genera t e m oral l y m ot i va t ed pl ayers on both s i d es w ho be l i evet ha t t he i r opponent s are not m oral l y m ot i va t ed (H ai d t & H ers h,2001; Robi ns on e t al. , 1995).

Th e social intuitionist solution. Peopl e have qui ck and a u t o -matic moral intuitions, and w hen called on to jus t i fy these intui-t ion s t h e y g e n e r a t e p o s t h o c ju s t i f ica t ion s out of a pr i or i m oraltheor i es . They d o not rea l i ze tha t t hey are d oi ng th i s , s o they fallprey t o tw o i l l us i ons . Moral argum e nts are the re f ore l i ke s had ow -b ox in g m atches : Each contes t an t l and s heavy b l ow s to the oppo-nent ' s s had ow , then w ond ers w hy s he doesn't fa l l d ow n. Thus ,m oral reas oni ng m a y have l i t t l e pers uas i ve pow er in conf l i c ts i t u a t ion s , but the s oci a l i n tu i t i on i s t m od el s ays tha t m o ral reas on-in g can b e ef f ec t ive in in f luenc ing peopl e bef ore a c onf l i c t arises.Word s and ideas do affect fr iends, al l ies , and even s t rangers b ym eans of the reas oned -pers uas i on l i nk . I f one can ge t t he o therperson to see the issue in a new w a y , perhaps by reframing aprobl em to t r i gger new i n tu i t i ons , t hen one can i nf l uence o thersw i t h one's w ord s . Mar t i n Luther Ki ng J r . ' s "I H a v e a Dream"s peech w as r e m a r k a b l y ef f ec t ive in t h i s t as k , us ing m e t a p h o r s an dvis ua l i m ages m ore than prepos i t i onal l ogi c to ge t Whi t e Am er i -c a n s t o se e an d t hus f ee l t ha t rac i a l s egrega t i on w a s u n j u s t an d

u n - A m e r i c a n (see La kof f , 1996, on the role of metaphor in pol i t -ical persuasion).4. The Action Problem: Moral Action Covarles WithMoral Emotion More Than With Moral Reasoning

Th e anal ys i s t hus fa r has f ocus ed o n m oral j ud gm ent , no t m o r a lbehav i or , bu t the d ebat e be tw een ra t i onal i s m and i n tu i t i on i s m canalso be carried o ut using moral act ion as the d epend ent

emotional dog rational tail

Documents