Conflict in moral and nonmoral decision making: an empirical study coupled with a computational model.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Cognitive Processing Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1007/s10339-024-01178-0
Flora Gautheron, Jean-Charles Quinton, Annique Smeding
{"title":"Conflict in moral and nonmoral decision making: an empirical study coupled with a computational model.","authors":"Flora Gautheron, Jean-Charles Quinton, Annique Smeding","doi":"10.1007/s10339-024-01178-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While moral psychology research has extensively studied decision making using moral dilemmas, such high-conflict situations may not fully represent all moral decisions. Moreover, most studies on the effect of conflict have focused on nonmoral decisions, and it is unclear how it applies to the moral realm. The present mixed-method research investigates how conflict impacts moral compared to nonmoral decision making. In a preregistered empirical study ( <math><mrow><mi>N</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>42</mn></mrow> </math> ), participants made moral and nonmoral decisions with varying levels of conflict while their mouse trajectories were recorded. Results indicate that moral decisions were more stable in the presence of conflict, while still seeking compromise. In addition, decisions were more affected when conflict got higher. Mouse-tracking data further indicate that some factors are impacting the decision process earlier than others, supporting the relevance of tracing methods to dig into finer-grained decision dynamics. We also present a computational model that aims to capture decision mechanisms and how conflict and morality influence decision making. The model uses dynamic neural fields coupled with sensorimotor control to map a continuous decision space. Two model versions were compared: one with greater perceptual weight for moral information, and another with earlier processing of moral versus nonmoral information. The simulated data more successfully reproduced empirical patterns for the second version, thus providing insights into the underlying decision processes for both moral and nonmoral decisions, in the presence of conflict or not.</p>","PeriodicalId":47638,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Processing","volume":" ","pages":"281-303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Processing","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-024-01178-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While moral psychology research has extensively studied decision making using moral dilemmas, such high-conflict situations may not fully represent all moral decisions. Moreover, most studies on the effect of conflict have focused on nonmoral decisions, and it is unclear how it applies to the moral realm. The present mixed-method research investigates how conflict impacts moral compared to nonmoral decision making. In a preregistered empirical study ( N = 42 ), participants made moral and nonmoral decisions with varying levels of conflict while their mouse trajectories were recorded. Results indicate that moral decisions were more stable in the presence of conflict, while still seeking compromise. In addition, decisions were more affected when conflict got higher. Mouse-tracking data further indicate that some factors are impacting the decision process earlier than others, supporting the relevance of tracing methods to dig into finer-grained decision dynamics. We also present a computational model that aims to capture decision mechanisms and how conflict and morality influence decision making. The model uses dynamic neural fields coupled with sensorimotor control to map a continuous decision space. Two model versions were compared: one with greater perceptual weight for moral information, and another with earlier processing of moral versus nonmoral information. The simulated data more successfully reproduced empirical patterns for the second version, thus providing insights into the underlying decision processes for both moral and nonmoral decisions, in the presence of conflict or not.

道德与非道德决策中的冲突:结合计算模型的实证研究。
虽然道德心理学研究已经广泛研究了利用道德困境做出决策的问题,但这种高冲突的情况可能并不能完全代表所有的道德决策。此外,大多数关于冲突影响的研究都集中在非道德决策上,尚不清楚它如何适用于道德领域。本研究采用混合方法调查了冲突对道德决策与非道德决策的影响。在一项预先登记的实证研究中(N = 42),参与者在不同程度的冲突中做出道德和非道德决策,同时记录他们的鼠标轨迹。结果表明,道德决策在冲突中更加稳定,同时仍在寻求妥协。此外,当冲突程度越高时,决策受到的影响就越大。小鼠追踪数据进一步表明,某些因素比其他因素更早影响决策过程,这支持了追踪方法对更细粒度的决策动态进行挖掘的相关性。我们还提出了一个计算模型,旨在捕捉决策机制以及冲突和道德如何影响决策。该模型使用动态神经场与传感器运动控制相结合来映射一个连续的决策空间。我们比较了两个模型版本:一个是道德信息的感知权重更大,另一个是道德信息相对于非道德信息的处理更早。模拟数据更成功地再现了第二个版本的经验模式,从而为道德和非道德决策(无论是否存在冲突)的基本决策过程提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Processing
Cognitive Processing PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes innovative contributions in the multidisciplinary field of cognitive science.  Its main purpose is to stimulate research and scientific interaction through communication between specialists in different fields on topics of common interest and to promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary cognitive science. Cognitive Processing is articulated in the following sections:Cognitive DevelopmentCognitive Models of Risk and Decision MakingCognitive NeuroscienceCognitive PsychologyComputational Cognitive SciencesPhilosophy of MindNeuroimaging and Electrophysiological MethodsPsycholinguistics and Computational linguisticsQuantitative Psychology and Formal Theories in Cognitive ScienceSocial Cognition and Cognitive Science of Culture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信