1. Background
Dual Process Theory (Evans, 2010; Evans & Stanovich, 2013)
Type 1 processing relates to intuition while Type 2 processing relates to analytic thinking.
Intuition is understood to be automatic feelings people have in their guts or their initial reactions to a situation given the options they are presented (Pretz et al., 2014).
There are three types of intuition: holistic, inferential, and affective (Pretz & Totz, 2007).
There are five moral foundations: harm/care, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation (Haidt, 2012).
Individualizing and binding moral values (Pennycook et al., 2015).
Morality can affect intuition through priming and cues (Leavitt, Zhu, & Aquino, 2016; Schnall & Cannon, 2012).
Intuition is used first to make a decision or judgement and moral beliefs are used second to rationalize that decision or judgement (Haidt, 2012).
The Cognitive Reflection Task is negatively related to the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation moral foundations (Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2014).
Some researchers have noted that cognitive load and time restraint influence response time and reasoning for moral judgements (Björklund, 2003; Greene, et al., 2008).
Other researchers noted that an intuitive thinking style did not influence responses on moral judgement scenarios (Tinghög et al., 2016).
Results
Study 1
H1: The sanctity/degradation moral foundation was negatively related to holistic and inferential intuition but was not related to affective intuition.
Study 2
H2: Affective intuition was not significantly correlated with the harm/care moral foundation.
H3: Cognitive Reflection Task scores were not significantly correlated with the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation moral foundations.
H4: There was not a significant difference in moral scenario scores between participants in the control condition (M=9.177, SD=.951) and participants under cognitive load (M=9.765, SD=1.393; t(32)=1.438, p=.160).
H5: There were no significant interaction effects between time of test and condition for any of the moral foundations.
There was a significant main effect of time of test on the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation moral foundations such that pretest scores were higher than posttest scores.
Examining Moral Foundations and Thinking Styles Megan E. Kuczma, Elizabethtown College,
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Study 1: How are the moral foundations and types of intuition related?
H1: The sanctity/degradation moral foundation will be related to the three types of intuition and these relationships will be positive.
Study 2: How do intuitive and analytic thinking styles affect the moral foundations that people rely on when making decisions?
H2: Affective intuition will be positively related to the harm/care moral foundation.
H3: Cognitive Reflection Task scores will be negatively related to the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation moral foundations.
H4: People using an intuitive thinking style will rely more on individualizing moral values.
H5: People using an analytic thinking style will not differ in their pre- and posttest moral foundations scores, but people who are induced with an intuitive thinking style will have scores that shift more towards individualizing moral values in their posttest moral foundations scores as compared to their pretest moral foundations scores.
Discussion
Study 1
Overall, there were few significant correlations between the moral foundations and types of intuition.
H1 was partially supported.
The sanctity/degradation moral foundation was not related to affective intuition.
The sanctity/degradation moral foundation was related to holistic and inferential intuition, but both of these relationships were negative.
These negative relationships can be explained by the fact that holistic and inferential intuition rely on cognitive processes whereas the sanctity/degradation moral foundation relies heavily on emotions.
Study 2
H2 not supported: Affective intuition was not correlated with the harm/care moral foundation.
H3 not supported: Scores on the Cognitive Reflection Task were not correlated with the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation moral foundations.
H4 not supported: Participants under cognitive load did not rely more on individualizing moral values.
H5 not supported: The moral foundations and participants relied on did not change when they were under cognitive load.
Implications
People will make the same moral decisions regardless of the style of thinking they are using and the cognitive load they are facing.
Reliance on binding moral values may decrease over time.
The types of intuition people rely on most may not influence the moral beliefs they use to justify their decisions.
Methods
Participants
Study 1: 91 Elizabethtown College students; years old (M=19.81, SD=1.18, 70.9% female)
Study 2: 34 Elizabethtown College students; years old (M=19.09, SD=.996, 85.3% female)
Materials
Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2008)
Types of Intuition Scale (Pretz et al., 2014)
Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, 2005)
Moral Scenarios
Study 1 Procedure
Participants first completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire and then the Types of Intuition Scale.
Study 2 Procedure
Participants first completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, Types of Intuition Scale, and Cognitive Reflection Task.
Participants in the experimental group listened to a recording of random numbers and tallied up how many prime numbers were spoken while completing the rest of the study.
All participants completed the moral scenarios and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire for a second time.
For additional information, please contact:
[Name]
[Department]
[Institution or organization]
[ address]