Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment

By Joseph M. Paxton, Leo Ungar, Joshua D. Greene. Cognitive Sciences, 2012

402 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/778555038ee761ad64018fde335186f4aeceb432

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers (2013, neutral): “The cognitive reflection task (CRT; Frederick, 2005) is likely to be one such task and also happens to be commonly used on MTurk (e.g., Goodman et al., 2012; Mata, Fiedler, Ferreira, & Almeida, 2013; Paxton, Ungar, & Greene, 2012; Shenhav, Rand, & Greene, 2012; West, Meserve, & Stanovich, 2012).”
What is moral reasoning? (2015, background): “[7] This also appears to be the definition that Greene and colleagues are using in Paxton, Ungar, and Greene (2011), though they do not explicitly define it.”
“Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments (2013, background): “These scenarios therefore have the same basic structure as utilitarian dilemmas used extensively in other research (e.g., Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Paxton et al., 2012).”
Moral competence in social robots (2014, background): “Human moral decision making has received a fair amount of attention in the research literature, with a focus on how humans handle moral dilemmas [2], [46], [47].”
Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement (2014, background): “Haidt’s influential critique of rationalist moral psychology—pointing out the influence of automatic, emotional, effortless, and unconscious cognitive work [92], raised substantive questions about the role of reasoning in moral judgment, but more recent work has reopened the debate [93–95].”
It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on “Tricky” Tasks (2015, background): “As the CRT is an individual difference measure with links to IQ (Frederick, 2005) and which is rarely affected by task order (Paxton et al., 2014; Paxton et al., 2012; Pinillos et al., 2011), IMCs appear to be powerful manipulations of attention and systematic thinking, highlighting that they…”
Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test (2016, background): “As it has been demonstrated previously that numerical ability is related to rational thinking measures (Peters et al., 2006; Peters et al., 2009; see Reyna, Nelason, Han & Dieckman, 2009; Peters, 2012, for reviews), Sinayev and Peters (2015) further investigated whether it is the numerical ability o”
Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good (2019, background): “Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test (26) is correlated with utilitarian judgment (15, 17, 27), and exposure to this test can boost utilitarian judgment (15, 17), but this appears to simply shift the balance between intuitive responding and utilitarian reasoning, rather than eliciting a more”
The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values (2014, methodology): “This framework is more consistent with Greene et al.’s (2001, 2004, 2008; Paxton et al., 2012) dual-process model of moral judgement.”