Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment

By Piercarlo Valdesolo, David DeSteno. Psychology Science, 2006

619 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ec52b2c794acbf0dd4bf0208b195c54ee44aeb1

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

1. Joshua D. Greene
2. Celia Moore
3. Francesca Gino
4. J. Cohen
5. Leland F. Saunders
6. Fiery Cushman
7. Leigh E. Nystrom
8. Kristin Smith-Crowe

In Social Psychology

1. Joshua D. Greene
2. J. Cohen
3. Leland F. Saunders
4. Celia Moore
5. Francesca Gino
6. Fiery Cushman
7. Kristin Smith-Crowe
8. H. Cipolletti

Citations in the corpus

• Why bad feelings predict good behaviours: The role of positive and negative anticipated emotions on consumer ethical decision making (2019, background): “…judgements activate specific brain areas that process emo‐ tions (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Moll, de Oliveira‐Souza, Bramati, & Grafman, 2002); such that a change in emotional state is likely to alter ethical judgements (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006; Wheatley & Haidt, 2005).”
• The Moral Foreign-Language Effect (2016, positive): “The intuitionist can appeal to other studies that indicate that changing one’s occurrent affective state has an effect on moral judgment (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006).”
• The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. (2008, background): “Recent research in the psychology of morality has begun to converge on a dual-process model of moral judgment (Cushman, Young, & Hauser, 2006; Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004; Haidt, 2001; Pizarro & Bloom, 2003; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006).”
• The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment (2010, background): “Finally, Valdesolo & DeSteno (2006) found that normal participants were more likely to approve of the action in the footbridge dilemma following a positive emotion induction aimed at counteracting negative emotional responses.”
• 13 Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going (2008, background): “Valdesolo and DeSteno ( 2006 ) found, however, that when faced with a scenario reflecting a consequentialist dilemma, participants who had previously received a positive mood inducement were more supportive of a utilitarian resolution to the dilemma than those who previously received a neutral mood ”
• Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie (2009, background): “Along similar lines, Valdesolo and DeSteno (2006) found that inducing positive emotion elicits more utilitarian judgment.”
• Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. (2008, background): “Finally, Valdesolo and DeSteno (2006) found that normal participants were more likely to approve of the action in the footbridge dilemma following positive emotion induction, a manipulation aimed at counteracting negative emotional responses.”
• A reanalysis of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research (2009, background): “However, Mendez et al. (2005) and Valdesolo and DeSteno (2006) only utilised the trolley and footbridge dilemmas, which vary not only in emotional salience, but also in regards to the level of physical contact involved.”
• Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. (2009, background): “…2001, 2004), lesion (Ciaramelli et al., 2007; Koenigs et al., 2007; Mendez et al., 2005), and behavioral (Bartels, 2008; J. Greene et al., 2008; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006) studies indicate that people respond differently to these two cases because the action in the footbridge dilemma elicits a…”
• Approach, Ability, Aftermath: A Psychological Process Framework of Unethical Behavior at Work (2015, background): “They also increase among those primed with positive emotion, as being manipulated to feel happy interferes with the “aversion signal” we typically experience when confronted with this type of dilemma (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006).”
• What is moral reasoning? (2015, background): “…Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004; Greene et al., 2001; Haidt, 2001; Haidt et al., 1993; Hauser et al., 2007; Koenigs et al., 2007; Moll et al., 2001; Moll et al., 2002; Schnall et al., 2008; Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006; Wheatley & Haidt, 2005; Young, Camprodon, Hauser, Pascual-Leone, & Saxe, 2010).”
• How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation (2007, neutral): “In this view, online moral judgments and choices may be dictated primarily by automatic, intuitive reactions, much as Haidt suggests (see also Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006).”