Moral Ambivalence: Modeling and Measuring Bivariate Evaluative Processes in Moral Judgment

Abstract

Moral judgments often appear to arise from quick affectively toned intuitions rather than from conscious application of moral principles. Sometimes people feel that an action they observe or contemplate could be judged as either right or wrong. Models of moral intuition need to specify mechanisms that could account for such moral ambivalence. The basic implication of moral ambivalence is that right and wrong are regions of a bivariate scale rather than a bipolar scale. The former allows for equally strong positive and negative evaluations of a stimulus, but the latter requires one evaluation to get weaker as the other one gets stronger (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994). Covariation of evaluative activations is supported by classic animal research on approach-avoidance conflict showing that when rats are both rewarded and punished in the goal region of a runway, their approach and avoidance tendencies both increase as they get closer to the goal. The relevance of this research to moral judgment is underscored by recent studies indicating that judgments of right and wrong are fundamentally expressions of approach and avoidance motivation. Experimental and historical analyses illustrate 2 potential effects of ambivalence on moral judgment, vacillation and suppression, and a proposed model shows how the bivariate scale can be applied to existing formulations, including Haidt's moral foundations theory. Studies of moral judgment that use rating scales, questionnaires, or interviews should give participants the option to express ambivalence (e.g., "can't decide," "don't know") instead of requiring definitive judgments, which is the current practice.

The Socio-Moral Image Database (SMID): A novel stimulus set for the study of social, moral and affective processes

“…People can simultaneously hold positive and negative evaluations of both moral [ 158 ] and non-moral [ 159 – 161 ] stimuli, which would result in greater variability in judgments (see [ 159 ]). Again, rather than reflecting an altogether undesirable feature of the image set, ambivalence-inducing images may prove useful for (among other applications) probing the integration of conflicting moral information [ 158 ]. Although the data presented here cannot speak to the presence of ambivalence, such can easily be measured by adapting measures such as the evaluative space grid [ 162 ].…”

Repression in Residential Youth Care: A Scoping Review

“…In this way, identification with a repressive leader increases the likelihood of repressive behavior of staff members; but, identification with a leader who empowers staff members and stimulates shared decision-making (transformational leadership) is related to less coercive behavior of staff (Delaney 2001;Van der Helm et al 2006). In general, being a subordinate may induce persons to abdicate responsibility for moral issues (Ashforth and Anand 2003;Larsen and Terkelsen 2013;Navarick 2013). When staff experience moral ambivalence (i.e.…”

“…When staff experience moral ambivalence (i.e. the sense that one could judge the same action as either right or wrong, and have a feeling of discomfort over the conflict), it is more likely that they allow their leader to direct their actions, shifting the responsibility to the person giving orders (Navarick 2013).…”

“…Argyris (1982) argued that people are often unaware of the theories that drive their actions (theory-in-use), and that their theory-in-use is often not the same as the world's views and values that people believe their behavior is based on (espoused theory). Researchers have also found that moral judgments are not solely the product of conscious reasoning or rationalization on the basis of explicitly understood moral principles (Hauser et al 2007;Navarick 2013). This suggests that to change behavior of staff in residential settings the staff should first be aware of factors that determine their behavior, reflect on this, and then change these factors as a result.…”

The Socio-Moral Image Database (SMID): A Novel Stimulus Set for the Study of Social, Moral and Affective Processes

“…People can simultaneously hold positive and negative evaluations of both moral [158] and non-moral [159][160][161] stimuli, which would result in greater variability in judgments (see [159]). Again, rather than reflecting an altogether undesirable feature of the image set, ambivalence-inducing images may prove useful for (among other applications) probing the integration of conflicting moral information [158]. Although the data presented here cannot speak to the presence of ambivalence, such can easily be measured by adapting measures such as the evaluative space grid [162].…”