Moral psychology

The field of moral psychology is an area of study in which researchers in both philosophy and psychology examine the roots and causes of ethical decision making. Researchers of moral psychology study how and why people conduct themselves a certain way, analyzing character, personality, emotions, and behavior in moral decisions. Ultimately, the field of moral psychology seeks to answer philosophical questions using empirical—verifiable—research that is conducted in the fields of behavioral and neurosciences. Researchers primarily attempt to determine the causes of moral or immoral behavior—to identify what roles cultural upbringing, habit, reason, emotion, and circumstance play in each opportunity an individual has to make a moral decision.

Brief History

Moral psychology, as an independent, blended field of philosophical and psychological inquiry, is relatively new. Morals and ethics have been topics of study for thousands of years, with the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle forming the basis of study for philosophers throughout history. However, moral psychology began to develop as its own field in the twentieth century. One often-cited theory is the work of psychologist Jean Piaget, who in 1936 proposed two stages of moral development in childhood and adulthood, after conducting research into how children think, learn, and develop theories about the world. In addition, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in 2002 proposed another key theory, based largely on the work of eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume, which argues that moral reasoning is perception-based—i.e., that decisions are based on immediate intuition and emotions when a moral choice needs to be made, rather than analysis of outcome. Haidt called this the social-intuitionist theory.

This social-intuitionist theory—like Hume's theory, which Haidt's is based upon—is in direct opposition to what was the dominant philosophical theory of behavior—rationalism—which had grown from its roots in ancient Greek philosophy through eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant's work. Rationalism is based upon the theory that reason is the source of decision making and knowledge—in the context of morality, that moral or immoral actions are taken based on careful intellectual analysis, not sensory information (intuition and emotions). Although the field of moral psychology is quite complex, with many different areas of analysis, theories, and topics of study, these two competing schools of thought—reasoning vs. intuition in moral decision making—underlie much of contemporary research.

Topic Today

One key issue in researching moral psychology is that moral or immoral behavior is an often subjective and inconsistent determination. While most humans would agree that a certain behavior, such as stealing, is immoral, others would argue that in a particular context—such as a need to feed a starving family—the behavior may be moral. However, for the purposes of conducting research, an immoral behavior may be judged as one where the individual making the choice either caused harm or intended to. A common method of conducting research in moral psychology is a "thought experiment," where a subject is given an example and asked to determine how he or she would respond.

Contemporary researchers often define morality as falling into two categories—decisions based on concern for the welfare of others that may require a trade-off of our own interests, and decisions based on following existing rules or laws. Neuroscience research has shown that when humans witness another human experiencing pain—or, conversely, watching another human experience something positive—matching regions of our own brains are activated. It is widely accepted that emotions play a significant role in moral or immoral behavior, often in an attempt to avoid feelings of guilt, shame, or anger. In addition, research has shown that some moral decisions are based on values that have become habits and are largely automatic. Conversely, other researchers have argued that moral behavior is largely—if not predominantly—dependent on circumstance, rather than inherent character, personality, or even reason. For instance, an individual who is in a rush might not stop to help a person who stumbles on the street, while a person who is not hurrying may decide to pause and offer assistance.

Moral psychology is also studied through the lens of childhood development. Researchers have learned that young children (primarily ages four to ten) are often focused on the outcome of an event rather than the decision behind it. For instance, they may be more upset if they accidentally spill something and cause a big stain than if they deliberately make a small stain. However, others have shown that some children—even as young as infants to age three—respond negatively if they see someone else being harmed, or make choices with the deliberate intent not to cause harm. When moral development is studied across different cultures, psychologist Lene Arnett Jensen argues, morality appears to develop within three specific fields: autonomy, community, and divinity, based on the beliefs of the culture in which the child is raised. For instance, the ethic of autonomy is focused on the needs of individual people; the ethic of community is based upon social groups, customs, and responsibilities to others; and the ethic of divinity is focused on divine law or spiritual beliefs.

Because humans are often confronted with "gray areas" in life—areas where an ethical decision might not be abundantly clear—some researchers also examine a different type of potentially immoral behavior: benefitting from someone else's misfortune, even if the person who benefits did not cause or intend the other person to be harmed. For instance, an individual bet that homeowners will go into foreclosure, hoping to profit from it. Moral psychology researchers argue that this behavior is immoral because the person who hopes to benefit has the desire that the other person experiences misfortune, even if he or she has no direct role or ability to cause or prevent it.

Questions of morality are as old as civilization itself, and moral psychology is a young field of study. Ongoing research in this field will continue to provide insight into human behavior across ages, genders, and cultures as researchers seek to answer some of humanity's most fundamental questions of right and wrong.

Bibliography

Bucciarelli, Monica, et al. "The Psychology of Moral Reasoning." Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, no. 2, 2008, pp. 121–139, journal.sjdm.org/jdm8105.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

Cushman, Fiery. "From Moral Concern to Moral Constraint." Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 58–62, cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/docs/cushman‗2015.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

Cushman, Fiery, et al. "The Development of Intent-Based Moral Judgment." Cognition, vol. 127, 2013, pp. 6–21, cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/docs/cushman‗sheketoff‗wharton&carey‗2013.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

Doris, John M. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge UP, 2002.

Huebner, Bryce, et al. "The Role of Emotion in Moral Psychology." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 13, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–6, faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/EmAndMoPsy.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

Inbar, Yoel, et al. "Benefiting from Misfortune: When Harmless Actions Are Judged to Be Morally Blameworthy." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 1, 2012, pp. 52–62, cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/docs/inbar‗pizarro&cushman‗2012.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

Jensen, Lene Arnett. Moral Development in a Global World: Research from a Cultural-Developmental Perspective. Cambridge UP, 2015.

McLeod, Saul. "Jean Piaget." Simply Psychology, 2015, www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.

"Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 19 Apr. 2006, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych-emp/. Accessed 16 Dec. 2016.