Publicação
Moral judgement and social influence
| Resumo: | The study of the interaction between Moral Judgement and Social Influence is not common in the literature, despite some of the existing theories that help us understand this interaction (e.g. Kohlberg’s approach to the development of moral judgement; Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model) and the fact that our decisions are often made in a social and interpersonal context that may directly or indirectly influence one’s moral reasoning and judgement. (Haidt, 2001) emphasises the importance of studying moral judgement and social influence together by proposing the Social Intuitionist Model. Haidt, through this model, claims that moral judgement is a product of moral intuition, charged with emotion and of a Deontological nature. In a social context, this judgement may serve as a source of influence on the judgement of other individuals since after a judgement is produced, according to Haidt, individuals may, via social interaction, need to justify or explain why they made that judgement. Through this post hoc reflection and justification, this judgement may influence the judgement of other individuals who take this justification and take it into account when they are producing a moral judgement. In this thesis, the latter idea was studied using the Two-response paradigm (Thompson et al. 2011), which consists of asking participants to answer to a given scenario in two different moments, one where there are conditions such as time pressure that forces the participant to answer fast and intuitively, the first thing that comes to mind, and, a second moment, where the participant is allowed to deliberate and come to a conclusion without any time limit. This paradigm was previously applied to the moral judgement context (e.g Bago & Denyes, 2020) and was conceived to test the differences between answering intuitively and rationally to a given morally eliciting scenario, we were able to manipulate the moral orientation (Utilitarian or Deontological) of the answers of “other” participants, that were shown to the participants), and test the possible influence and change of the moral orientation of the participant’s judgement. The fact that the “other” gave two answers, in two different moments, being these a Utilitarian first and Deontological in the second moment, vice-versa or even the same response in the two moments, could influence the answer of the participant and the confidence he has on his response. Furthermore, this paradigm measures the feelings of rightness (FoR) (how much the participant is confident and satisfied with his answer) and confidence in the 6 final judgement (CFJ) (how much the participant is confident and satisfied with his final judgement after deliberation) evaluate if the answer of the “other” has had an impact on the trust of the participant’s answer. Additionally, the phenomena of social conformity are also investigated since individuals may be influenced by the answers of others and infer from that an idea of “the general opinion” and be influenced by it. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Oliveira, Ismael Santos de |
| Assunto: | Julgamento moral Interação social Influência social Dissertações de mestrado - 2023 |
| Ano: | 2023 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | The study of the interaction between Moral Judgement and Social Influence is not common in the literature, despite some of the existing theories that help us understand this interaction (e.g. Kohlberg’s approach to the development of moral judgement; Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model) and the fact that our decisions are often made in a social and interpersonal context that may directly or indirectly influence one’s moral reasoning and judgement. (Haidt, 2001) emphasises the importance of studying moral judgement and social influence together by proposing the Social Intuitionist Model. Haidt, through this model, claims that moral judgement is a product of moral intuition, charged with emotion and of a Deontological nature. In a social context, this judgement may serve as a source of influence on the judgement of other individuals since after a judgement is produced, according to Haidt, individuals may, via social interaction, need to justify or explain why they made that judgement. Through this post hoc reflection and justification, this judgement may influence the judgement of other individuals who take this justification and take it into account when they are producing a moral judgement. In this thesis, the latter idea was studied using the Two-response paradigm (Thompson et al. 2011), which consists of asking participants to answer to a given scenario in two different moments, one where there are conditions such as time pressure that forces the participant to answer fast and intuitively, the first thing that comes to mind, and, a second moment, where the participant is allowed to deliberate and come to a conclusion without any time limit. This paradigm was previously applied to the moral judgement context (e.g Bago & Denyes, 2020) and was conceived to test the differences between answering intuitively and rationally to a given morally eliciting scenario, we were able to manipulate the moral orientation (Utilitarian or Deontological) of the answers of “other” participants, that were shown to the participants), and test the possible influence and change of the moral orientation of the participant’s judgement. The fact that the “other” gave two answers, in two different moments, being these a Utilitarian first and Deontological in the second moment, vice-versa or even the same response in the two moments, could influence the answer of the participant and the confidence he has on his response. Furthermore, this paradigm measures the feelings of rightness (FoR) (how much the participant is confident and satisfied with his answer) and confidence in the 6 final judgement (CFJ) (how much the participant is confident and satisfied with his final judgement after deliberation) evaluate if the answer of the “other” has had an impact on the trust of the participant’s answer. Additionally, the phenomena of social conformity are also investigated since individuals may be influenced by the answers of others and infer from that an idea of “the general opinion” and be influenced by it. |
|---|