Complex Cognition (Subject) / Task 5 and 6 (Lesson)

This lesson was created by maxmenke.

Learn lesson

back  |  next 2 / 2

• Hierachy - Authority Ranking - Relational Models Theory - Fiske P  Rank/order people along a particular dimension to know relative positions P  Creates expectations that individuals at the top are entitled to more & better things than those at the bottom P  But their also morally responsible for the actions of their subordinates P  Coupled with unity: motivates to put in-group at top & out-group at bottom
• Equality - Equality Matching - Relational Models Theory - Fiske P  Attend to differences in order to achieve & maintain balance P  Moral motivation for reciprocity & revenge P  Only motive that allows for fairness
• Proportionality - Market - Relational Models Theory - Fiske P  Use ratios & rates to compare & ensure that rewards/punishments for each party are proportional to their costs/contributions/effort/guilt P  Primary violation: cheating (= attempt to gain benefits that aren’t proportional to what one deserves)
• Evolution and Development of Morality g  Capacities for moral evaluation are rooted in basic systems that evolved in the context of cooperation necessary for communal living g  Moral emotions (e.g. guilt/ shame) contribute to fitness by shaping decisions & actions when living in complex social groups g  Certain emotional responses may have led ancestors to adopt tit-for-tat strategy (reciprocal altruism)  
• Moral Identity Aquino and Reed ð  Network of moral trait associations that collectively define a person’s moral character ð  Refers to whether the moral self-schema is central to a person’s self-definition §  Schema is more readily accessible in WM to some than others ð  Two dimensions §  Internalisation = private aspect -> captures chronic accessibility of the self-schema thus indicates chronic subjective experience of having a moral identity §  Symbolisation = public aspect -> captures importance a person places on exhibiting a public moral self as a way of affirming one’s morality (partly driven by impression management, self-verification motives) ð  Reflecting about distant moral behaviour (resembles internalisation) increases prosocial motivations ð  Reflecting about recent moral behaviour (resembles symbolisation) decreases prosocial intentions
• Prescriptive Moral Regulation (doing good ways) Performance of moral acts (helping, sharing, giving…)    Immoral: not to enact good deeds when one has the possibility to do so Findings: g  Charitable giving, helping behaviours g  High internalisers feel a stronger sense of obligation to show moral concern about socially distant others §  Increases giving of time (preferred) & money to out-groups but not in-groups §  Susceptible to threats to their moral self-regard §  Sensitive to moral cues in environments where morality is peripheral (e.g. job search) §  More sceptical & critical when evaluating potential beneficiaries of their good deeds g  Internalisation primacy principle (IPP)
• Internalization primacy principle (IPP) a)      Internalization is more important than symbolization b) Symbolization is more important when internalization is low
• Proscriptive Moral Regulation (not doing bad things) Moral Identity Theory g  Cheating, interpersonal mistreatment, retaliatory behaviours g  High symbolisers are more resistant to influence of processing frames when evaluating unfair acts toward others but also magnify retaliatory & punitive reactions to mistreatment by others g  Moral primes have strongest effect on high internalisers? §  Cues that diminish the importance of moral concerns shifts their attention away from morality to alternative logics that can justify the engagement in unethical acts §  BUT also have greater resources to restrain their unethical/selfish desires g inhibition more automatic g  Internalisation-symbolisation equality principle (ISEP)  Moral licensing effect
• Internalisation-symbolisation equality principle (ISEP) Internalisation & symbolisation both shape how individuals react to cues in their environment
• Moral licensing effect initial moral prosocial behavior licenses subsequent engagement in immoral/antisocial behavior
• Advertisement
• Neural Mechanisms ð  Interconnected systems that aren’t domain specific but support more domain-general processing (extremely fast) ð  Medial prefrontal cortex – interprets & understand mental states of others and oneself ð  Anterior cingulate cortex – central station for top-down processing and bottom-up stimuli + assigns appropriate control to other areas ð  vmPFC – hub for caregiving behaviours through reward-based & affective associations g bridges conceptual & affective processes §  Empathic concern ð  Insula – foundation for representation of positive & negative subjective bodily feelings g substantiates emotional awareness ð  Posterior superior temporal sulcus – social perception through evaluation of socially relevant stimuli & intentions of others ð  Amygdala – prioritises affective relevance of sensory inputs for goals & motivations ð  As we mature increased communication (structural & functional) between these networks takes place
• Factors influencing Morality : Empathy P  Morality & empathy are two independent motives, each with its own unique goal P  Provides the emotional fire and a push toward seeing a victim’s suffering end (irrespective of group) P  Can interfere with moral decision making through group biases (g can become a source of immoral behaviour) P  Emotional component – capacity to share and become affectively aroused by others’ emotions §  Generates motivation to care & help others in distress (independent of mindreading/perspective taking) §  When highly empathic: more readily aroused by others distress & own arousal then motivates rather than overwhelms the desire to alleviate the other’s distress §  Automatic P  Motivational component – empathic concern -> urge of caring for another’s welfare §  Integral for maintaining social relationships (attachment) §  Lack of empathic concern diminishes aversion of harming others P  Cognitive component – perspective taking §  Strategy for reducing group biases §  Cognitively demanding g requires additional attentional resources & WM g PFC highly involved P  Trolley dilemma: two tracks, one with 6 people, one with 1 person, or push large man in front of trolley §  Compares impersonal & personal moral decision making §  Utilitarian judgement §  Lower levels of dispositional concern g higher utilitarian moral judgement (more rational & calculating)   Concern & prosocial behaviour are modulated by the degree of affiliation & are extended preferentially toward in-group members rather than unaffiliated others. Yet, humans often extend their concern to act pro-socially toward strangers. This is correlated to the fact that humans have created a meta-level symbolic social structure for upholding moral principles to all humanity.
• Factors influencing Moral Reasoning Stress P  Stress response appears to preferentially activate regions involved in emotional processing P  More stress = less utilitarian response P  Support for Greene’s dual process theory §  Stress gives preference to “automatic” emotional system at expense of the cognitive controlled system
• Moral Enhancement P  Intervention aimed at improving moral decision making and behaviour P  Strengthening of emotional, motivational & cognitive capacities necessary for moral decision making (it is important to target all of them!) P  Advantages more for society rather than individual in question P  Narrative identity – reflects characteristics that constitute a person’s identity §  Inevitably influenced by enhancement
• Moral Enhancement: Traditional/Indirect means P  Change thought patterns & behaviour and thus rewire the brain g target: mind P  For individuals with normal capacities P  Active intervention – require specific psychological/ behavioural efforts on behalf of the individual (e.g. moral education & social learning) P  Gradual manner – can be selectively endorsed or rejected Seen as morally more “right”
• Moral Enhancement: Biomedical/ Direct Means P  Change brain structure & function and thus an individual’s thought patterns & behaviours g target: brain P  For individuals with impairments in moral decision making & behaviour P  Passive intervention – don’t rely on active involvement of receiver to achieve their goal P  May compromise autonomy & identity §  Hijacks one’s ability to withdraw consent during treatment (= bypasses conscious reflection) §  Can cause drastic abrupt and/or concealed narrative identity changes (= no link to someone’s narrative life story g no continuity) §  Tough to adjust to psychological changes and adopt a new self-image Self-blindness – an individual’s explicit self-narrative may end up diverging from their implicit self-narrative
• Cultural Differences : General ð  Classic moral-conventional distinction – moral judgement is universally based: issues of harm, fairness & justice distinguish moral from non-moral issues ð  Pluralistic view – different cultural groups hold a variety of moral concerns ð  Variability in moral thought & action can be just as substantial within societies as across societies §  Higher social classes make more utilitarian decisions §  Low-income people in WEIRD cultures are more cooperative than wealthy people §  Religions within countries
• Cultural Differences: West Deontological ethics – moral obligations are understood to be inescapable, fact-like requirements for behaviour that can be generalised to other situations More likely to describe harmful behaviours as “immoral” Division between “immoral” & “otherwise wrong” more determined by behaviours harmfulness Prohibitions divided in “immoral” & “unconventional” View personal actions such as sexual behaviour as a matter of individual rights Trolley dilemma: most people see flipping the lever as morally right choice Justice & fairness viewed as matter of equity (= outcomes are proportional to effort)
• Cultural Differences: East Confucianism – “virtue ethics” in which the cultivation of good character is seen as the key source of moral behaviour (interpersonal duty-based rather than rights-based morality) More likely to describe uncivilised behaviours as “immoral” Division between “immoral” & “otherwise wrong” more determined by behaviours incivility Prohibitions divided in “immoral” & “criminal” View personal actions such as sexual behaviour as a matter of collective moral concern Trolley dilemma: consider additional context info when forming judgement (e.g. is it their place to act?) Justice & fairness viewed as matter of equality (= individuals deserve equal outcomes)
• Moral Reasoning/ Development Moral reasoning can be defined as being the process in which individuals try to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong by using logic ®     Moral reasoning is a part of morality that occurs both within and between individuals. ®     A moral choice can be a personal, economic or ethical one
• Moral foundations Moral theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundation. It emphasizes cultural differences. Moral reasoning is caused by quick moral intuitions. Differences in people’s moral concerns can be described in different dimensions: 1.      Care/Harm 2.      Fairness/Cheating 3.      Loyalty/Betrayal 4.      Authority/Subversion, 5.      Sanctity/Degradation. It now includes a sixth parameter 6.      Liberty/Oppression These dimensions are argued to group into two higher-order clusters: a)      The person-focused individualizing cluster (care & fairness) The group-focused binding cluster (Loyalty, Authority &Sanctity)
• Moral Reasoning/Development - Theory by Kohlberg moral development consists of the growth of less egocentric and more impartial modes of reasoning on more complicated matters. Preconventional level: 1.      Stage: obedience and punishment - children avoid certain behavior due to the fear of punishment 2.      Stage: Individualism and exchange - people make moral decisions based on what best serves their needs Conventional level: 3.      Stage: Interpersonal relationships - one tries to conform to what is considered moral by society 4.      Stage: maintaining social order – following rules and laws of society Postconventional level: 5.      Stage: social contract and individual rights – people begin to consider differing ideas about morality in other people 6.      Stage: universal principles – people have moral principles and will consider them the right thing to do regardless of what the laws of a society are
• Moral reasoning/development - Theory by Piaget – developed two phases of moral development 1.      Heteronomous phase - idea that rules come from authority figures in one’s life ®     Rules are permanent ®     Naughty behavior must always be punished 2.      Autonomous phase: people start to view intentions behind actions as more important than their consequences ®     People have different morals Rules may be broken under some circumstances
• Moral reasoning/development - Theory by Piaget – developed two phases of moral development 1.      Heteronomous phase - idea that rules come from authority figures in one’s life ®     Rules are permanent ®     Naughty behavior must always be punished 2.      Autonomous phase: people start to view intentions behind actions as more important than their consequences ®     People have different morals Rules may be broken under some circumstances
• Moral reasoning/development - Theory by Piaget – developed two phases of moral development 1.      Heteronomous phase - idea that rules come from authority figures in one’s life ®     Rules are permanent ®     Naughty behavior must always be punished 2.      Autonomous phase: people start to view intentions behind actions as more important than their consequences ®     People have different morals Rules may be broken under some circumstances

back  |  next 2 / 2