Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach
Abstract
Dual-process theories of moral judgment suggest that responses to moral dilemmas are guided by two moral principles: the principle of deontology states that the morality of an action depends on the intrinsic nature of the action (e.g., harming others is wrong regardless of its consequences); the principle of utilitarianism implies that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences (e.g., harming others is acceptable if it increases the well-being of a greater number of people). Despite the proposed independence of the moral inclinations reflecting these principles, previous work has relied on operationalizations in which stronger inclinations of one kind imply weaker inclinations of the other kind. The current research applied Jacoby's (1991) process dissociation procedure to independently quantify the strength of deontological and utilitarian inclinations within individuals. Study 1 confirmed the usefulness of process dissociation for capturing individual differences in deontological and utilitarian inclinations, revealing positive correlations of both inclinations to moral identity. Moreover, deontological inclinations were uniquely related to empathic concern, perspective-taking, and religiosity, whereas utilitarian inclinations were uniquely related to need for cognition. Study 2 demonstrated that cognitive load selectively reduced utilitarian inclinations, with deontological inclinations being unaffected. In Study 3, a manipulation designed to enhance empathy increased deontological inclinations, with utilitarian inclinations being unaffected. These findings provide evidence for the independent contributions of deontological and utilitarian inclinations to moral judgments, resolving many theoretical ambiguities implied by previous research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Religious disbelief is associated with a more consequentialist view of morality.
“Multiple studies suggest that religious disbelief is associated with a more consequentialist view of morality. Specifically, disbelievers are more inclined to judge the appropriateness of actions based on their consequences relative to the consequences of inaction [57–59].”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [57]
A reliance on more analytic (System 2) cognitive processes is associated with a tendency to make consequentialist moral judgments.
“There are reasons to suspect that this relationship may be attributable to differences in ACS, because a reliance on more analytic (System 2) cognitive processes is associated with a tendency to make consequentialist moral judgments [57, 60–63].”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [57]
The moral psychology literature suggests that disbelievers are more inclined than believers to form moral judgments on the basis of the consequences of specific actions compared to inaction.
“The moral psychology literature also suggests that disbelievers are more inclined than believers to form moral judgments on the basis of the consequences of specific actions compared to inaction [57–59].”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [57]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 59 · Cited by 696
- Authors
- Conway, P., & Gawronski, B.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 216-235
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2020398501
- Cited by
- 696
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 9
- FWCI
- 8.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Canada Research Chairs Program
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- moral judgment, ethical dilemmas, process dissociation, moral identity, empathic concern, perspective taking, religiosity, need for cognition, cognitive load, empathy, individual differences
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Decision Making, Empathy, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Religion and Psychology, Students, Ethical Theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review