Cited by 696Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and EducationPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach

Conway, Paul, Gawronski, Bertram·2013·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031021

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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