The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

Watkins, Hanne M

doi:10.1177/1745691619885872

Cited by 13 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, MJAC predicts understanding these diverse context effects depends on (a) accounting for the learning history (e.g., in the cases of emotional influences and the foreign-language effect) and (b) viewing moral categorization as occurring as part of goal-directed activity (e.g., categorization of actor vs. action discussed above). Incorporating both of these considerations into a program of research inevitably leads to attempts to make the study of moral judgment reflective of real-world moral decision-making ( Bauman et al, 2014 ; Bostyn et al, 2018 ; Gilligan, 1977 , 1993 ; Hester & Gray, 2020 ; Hofmann et al, 2014 ; Schein, 2020 ; Watkins, 2020 ).…”

Section: Examining the Explanatory Power Of Mjacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that this sensitivity to context highlights the importance of understanding moral judgments in more real-life contexts rather than through the study of abstract, decontextualized dilemmas (see also Bauman et al, 2014 ; Bostyn et al, 2018 ; Gilligan, 1977 , 1993 ; Hester & Gray, 2020 ; Hofmann et al, 2014 ; Schein, 2020 ; Watkins, 2020 ). By focusing specifically on context-sensitive categorizations occurring as part of goal-directed activity, MJAC offers a framework for attempting to make the study of moral judgments more reflective of the making of moral judgments in everyday life.…”

Section: Examining the Explanatory Power Of Mjacmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC)

McHugh

McGann²,

Igou

et al. 2021

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observed variability and complexity of judgments of “right” and “wrong” cannot be readily accounted for within extant approaches to understanding moral judgment. In response to this challenge, we present a novel perspective on categorization in moral judgment. Moral judgment as categorization (MJAC) incorporates principles of category formation research while addressing key challenges of existing approaches to moral judgment. People develop skills in making context-relevant categorizations. They learn that various objects (events, behaviors, people, etc.) can be categorized as morally right or wrong. Repetition and rehearsal result in reliable, habitualized categorizations. According to this skill-formation account of moral categorization, the learning and the habitualization of the forming of moral categories occur within goal-directed activity that is sensitive to various contextual influences. By allowing for the complexity of moral judgments, MJAC offers greater explanatory power than existing approaches while also providing opportunities for a diverse range of new research questions.

show abstract

Section: Examining the Explanatory Power Of Mjacmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examining the Explanatory Power Of Mjacmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC)

McHugh

McGann²,

Igou

et al. 2021

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tragic decisions made in a military context may be different from those made in the face of an apparently similar dilemma in a context based on firefighting. While the present findings underscore the important role context plays in decision-making, more research is needed to empirically uncover continuities and discontinuities between different contexts in which moral decisions occur [53].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Furthermore, as was evidenced in the Military scenario, Civilians viewed sacrifice as the soldier's duty, an idea echoed in recent surveys [52]. Thus, Civilians may feel more emotional engagement with dilemmas involving firefighters over military personnel [52,53]. This personalization shift may be a byproduct of a post 9-11 United States.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trolley dilemma in the sky: Context matters when civilians and cadets make remotely piloted aircraft decisions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crews operating remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs) in military operations may be among the few that truly experience tragic dilemmas similar to the famous Trolley Problem. In order to analyze decision-making and emotional conflict of RPA operators within Trolley-Problem-like dilemma situations, we created an RPA simulation that varied mission contexts (firefighter, military and surveillance as a control condition) and the social “value” of a potential victim. We found that participants (Air Force cadets and civilian students) were less likely to make the common utilitarian choice (sacrificing one to save five), when the value of the one increased, especially in the military context. However, in the firefighter context, this decision pattern was much less pronounced. The results demonstrate behavioral and justification differences when people are more invested in a particular context despite ostensibly similar dilemmas.

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lesser of two evils: The effects of masculine honor beliefs, beliefs in pure good, evil, and the dark triad on moral decision making.

Schiffer

Hohn

Saucier

2021

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral decision making is complex and depends on individuals and their environment (Kimhi & Kasher, 2015), and what is morally permissible in warfare differs from what is morally permissible in everyday life (Watkins, 2020). Across 2 studies (N ϭ 511), we assessed how masculine honor beliefs (MHBs), beliefs in pure good (BPGs) and evil (BPEs), and the dark triad (DT) relate to decision making in military and nonmilitary moral dilemmas. We hypothesized MHBs, BPEs, and DT would predict more confidence, wanting to be the hero, and less guilt with BPEs and DT also predicting more distrust of others and BPGs predicting more guilt. Our findings were largely consistent with these hypotheses. Our findings suggest nonmilitary dilemmas were easier to resolve than military dilemmas, given higher reported confidence and more utilitarian decisions. Overall, individual differences in MHBs, BPGs, BPEs, and DT relate to different motivations in decision making (e.g., to be the hero). Public Significance StatementMoral decision making is difficult, and even more so when lives are stake. Because moral decision making is multifaceted, the current research assessed how certain individual differences (i.e., masculine honor beliefs, beliefs in pure good and evil, and the dark triad of personality) influence decisions made in hypothetical life-or-death moral dilemmas that took place in both military and nonmilitary settings. Additionally, we inquired about the intrapersonal factors related to one's decisions (e.g., confidence, guilt). These findings provide insight as to how lay persons resolve dilemmas differently in military versus nonmilitary settings and how the emotional toll varies as a result. In other words, this research helps further distinguish the nuances in military moral decision making versus nonmilitary moral decision making.Keywords: masculine honor beliefs, beliefs in pure good, beliefs in pure evil, moral decision making, utilitarianism Moral decision making is complex because both individual factors (e.g., authoritarian personality) and environmental factors (e.g., type of threat posed) influence decisions made in moral dilemmas (Kimhi & Kasher, 2015). Specifically, the norms guid-ing behavior in "large-scale, violent, and intergroup conflict" differ from those guiding daily behavior (Watkins, 2020, p. 1). Accordingly, the military has specific guidelines for fair and just conduct in combat (Hurka, 2005;Orend, 2008;Watkins, 2020). Editor's Note. Continue the conversation by submitting your comments and questions about this article/book review to PeacePsychology.org/peaceconflict. (The Editor of PeacePsychology.org reserves the right to exclude material that fails to contribute to constructive discussion.) ASHLEY A. SCHIFFER received her BA in psychology. She is a graduate student in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Kansas State University studying Social-Personalty Psychology. Her research interests include morality, masculine honor beliefs, and antisocial behavior. ELIZABETH A. HOHN was a research student...

show abstract

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

Cited by 13 publications

References 121 publications

Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC)

Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC)

Trolley dilemma in the sky: Context matters when civilians and cadets make remotely piloted aircraft decisions

Lesser of two evils: The effects of masculine honor beliefs, beliefs in pure good, evil, and the dark triad on moral decision making.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About