This study reminds me of a cooking competition. Imagine two chefs who are given the same recipe, but they have different amounts of time to cook and reflect on their decisions. In this experiment, Czech students were presented with a scenario involving incest between consenting adult siblings and an argument that supported its moral acceptability. The researchers wanted to see if the strength of the argument and the time participants had to reflect would influence their moral judgments. Surprisingly, neither factor had a significant impact on how participants rated the acceptability of the behavior. Even when the second replication involved a larger sample size, the only significant predictor was the strength of the argument, but with a very small effect. This suggests that the interaction between deliberation time and argument strength in moral judgment may not exist or may be influenced by other factors. It’s possible that intrinsic values and personal beliefs play a larger role in our moral judgments than we previously thought! To learn more about this fascinating research, check out the full article.
Abstract
This study consists of two preregistered systematic replications of an experiment on reflection and reasoning in moral judgment by Paxton, Ungar, and Greene (2012). Czech students read a scenario involving incest between consenting adult siblings and an argument supporting the moral acceptability of the behavior. We manipulated the factors of argument strength (strong vs. weak) and the time that participants had to reflect on the argument (no time vs. 2 min). In the first replication (n = 347), neither the manipulated factors nor their interaction influenced how participants rated the moral acceptability of the incestuous behavior. The only significant predictor in the second replication (n = 717) was argument strength but with a very small effect. The effect of argument strength did not differ across groups either with or without deliberation time. Therefore, neither of the studies replicated the effect that deliberation time moderates the influence of argument strength on moral judgment, even though the samples were considerably larger than in the original study. We thus conclude that the effect of the interaction between the strength of an argument and deliberation time on moral judgment either does not exist or is moderated by certain contextual or sample characteristics.
Dr. David Lowemann, M.Sc, Ph.D., is a co-founder of the Institute for the Future of Human Potential, where he leads the charge in pioneering Self-Enhancement Science for the Success of Society. With a keen interest in exploring the untapped potential of the human mind, Dr. Lowemann has dedicated his career to pushing the boundaries of human capabilities and understanding.
Armed with a Master of Science degree and a Ph.D. in his field, Dr. Lowemann has consistently been at the forefront of research and innovation, delving into ways to optimize human performance, cognition, and overall well-being. His work at the Institute revolves around a profound commitment to harnessing cutting-edge science and technology to help individuals lead more fulfilling and intelligent lives.
Dr. Lowemann’s influence extends to the educational platform BetterSmarter.me, where he shares his insights, findings, and personal development strategies with a broader audience. His ongoing mission is shaping the way we perceive and leverage the vast capacities of the human mind, offering invaluable contributions to society’s overall success and collective well-being.