Everyday dilemmas: New directions on the judgment and resolution of benevolence–integrity dilemmas

Abstract

Many everyday dilemmas reflect a conflict between two moral motivations: the desire to adhere to universal principles (integrity) and the desire to improve the welfare of specific individuals in need (benevolence). In this article, we bridge research on moral judgment and trust to introduce a framework that establishes three central distinctions between benevolence and integrity: (1) the degree to which they rely on impartiality, (2) the degree to which they are tied to emotion versus reason, and (3) the degree to which they can be evaluated in isolation. We use this framework to explain existing findings and generate novel predictions about the resolution and judgment of benevolenceintegrity dilemmas. Though ethical dilemmas have long been a focus of moral psychology research, recent research has relied on dramatic dilemmas that involve conflicts of utilitarianism and deontology and has failed to represent the ordinary, yet psychologically taxing dilemmas that we frequently face in everyday life. The present article fills this gap, thereby deepening our understanding of moral judgment and decision making and providing practical insights on how decision makers resolve moral conflict.

The neuroscience of trust violation: Differential activation of the default mode network in ability, benevolence and integrity breaches

“…This would fit with threshold models of trust violation, where not every deviation from expectations triggers a violation perception (Jones & George, 1998). Recent theory also suggests that benevolence perceptions are likely to be more context dependent and relational than integrity (Moore et al, 2019), and so the relatively impersonal context of the experimenter–participant dyad is likely to influence their interpretation. Future research might consider obtaining self‐report ratings of the arousal and valence of different types of trust violation in order to check for differences across conditions.…”

The effects of trustworthiness manipulations on trustworthiness perceptions and risk-taking behaviors.

“…Although integrity and benevolence perceptions are associated with motivations, they differ. Integrity is concerned with cognition-based antecedents to trust such as perceptions of honesty and fairness (Moore et al, 2019), whereas benevolence is more closely associated with affect-based aspects of trustworthiness such as perceptions of loyalty, empathy, and concern for others (Greene et al, 2001;Moore et al, 2019). Integrity creates a lens through which trustors view the referent and guides subsequent decision-making actions (Tyler, 1989(Tyler, , 1994.…”

“…Although the focus of benevolence and integrity perceptions concerns motivations behind behaviors, benevolence requires the referent to individuate the trustor. In other words, the referent must recognize the trustor and determine their needs (Moore et al, 2019). A key difference between benevolence and integrity is whether the motivations are specific to the trustor or are respective standards that apply to all comparable scenarios (Moore et al, 2019), with the former indicating benevolence and the latter indicating integrity.…”

Difficult conversations: navigating the tension between honesty and benevolence

“…We define benevolence as the motivation to improve the welfare of a specific individual in need [30,32]. Therefore, a person who is truly benevolent towards a target should be willing to enact some amount of emotional harm if it meaningfully promotes the target's overall welfare.…”

“…Without benevolence, the motivation for honesty is likely to be questioned [21,22]. Within a single interaction, it is not clear if the professor's behavior is motivated by a rule of honesty or callous disregard for the student's feelings [32]. Therefore, the student is likely to distance himself from the communicator, and can easily misconstrue the feedback as petty criticism or a personal attack rather than an attempt to help.…”