Link Search Menu Expand Document

Evidence for Dual Process Theories

What is the strongest evidence in favour of our stripped-down dual-process theory of moral psychology (see A Dual Process Theory of Ethical Judgement)? Greene (2014) cites many studies. In this section we evaluate three of them, including one involving process dissociation (Conway & Gawronski, 2013). (As a bonus, process dissociation also enables us to revisit the issue of whether emotion influences moral judgement.)

This recording is also available on stream (no ads; search enabled). Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).

If the video isn’t working you could also watch it on youtube. Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).

If the slides are not working, or you prefer them full screen, please try this link.

The recording is available on stream and youtube.



The first premise of our stripped-down dual process theory of moral psychology (see A Dual Process Theory of Ethical Judgement) is probably the most controversial:

  1. Ethical judgements are explained by a dual-process theory, which distinguishes faster from slower processes.

What is the strongest evidence in favour of this premise? Greene (2014) cites many studies. As always we should not take for granted that Greene’s description of the studies is correct: we need to evaluate them for ourselves (see the step-by-step guide in Moral Intuitions and Emotions: Evaluating the Evidence).

We are looking for evidence in favour of the stripped-down dual process theory together with our selected auxiliary hypothesis:

Auxiliary Assumption: Only the slow process ever flexibly and rapidly takes into account differences in the more distal outcomes of an action (see Appendix: Dual Process Theory and Auxiliary Hypotheses).

Three Studies and Their Predictions

Here we will consider three of the studies Greene cites. It is important to specify which prediction each study tests (which may not be obvious from the abstract).

What Did They Find and What Are Their Limits?

Suter & Hertwig (2011) is an example of a relatively simply study which provides evidence in favour of the dual process theory plus auxiliary hypothesis.

One limit of this study is that it does not involve any variation in the distal outcomes of actions. This is relevant because the auxiliary hypothesis is about how different processes are differently influenced by distal outcomes.

Although not designed with exactly this in mind, Trémolière & Bonnefon (2014) does observe responses to otherwise similar actions with different distal outcomes. However, the findings are not predicted by the dual process theory and auxiliary hypothesis.[2]

One limit of both Suter & Hertwig (2011) and Trémolière & Bonnefon (2014) is that they treat responses as either consequentialist or not. These studies are sometimes presented as comparing consequentialist with deontological responses; but this cannot be accurate because failing to respond as a consequentialist does not make you a deontologist (you may be neither).

Conway & Gawronski (2013) overcome this limit in addition to observing responses to otherwise similar actions with different distal outcomes. It is one of the strongest tests of the stripped-down dual process theory and its auxiliary hypothesis. These authors find, as predicted, that higher cognitive load reduces sensitivity to outcomes while not affecting sensitivity to moral prohibitions (such as on killing).

Conway & Gawronski (2013) are also important because they introduce process dissociation in moral psychology. Although difficult to understand (I attempt to explain the bare minimum you need in the lecture), this is a powerful method for testing theories.

Next Steps

Having evaluated some of the evidence in favour of the dual process theory, our next task is to consider evidence against it.

Ask a Question

Your question will normally be answered in the question session of the next lecture.

More information about asking questions.


automatic : As we use the term, a process is automatic just if whether or not it occurs is to a significant extent independent of your current task, motivations and intentions. To say that mindreading is automatic is to say that it involves only automatic processes. The term `automatic' has been used in a variety of ways by other authors: see Moors (2014, p. 22) for a one-page overview, Moors & De Houwer (2006) for a detailed theoretical review, or Bargh (1992) for a classic and very readable introduction
cognitively efficient : A process is cognitively efficient to the degree that it does not consume working memory and other scarce cognitive resources.
distal outcome : The outcomes of an action can be partially ordered by the cause-effect relation. For one outcome to be more distal than another is for it to be lower with respect to that partial ordering. To illustrate, if you kick a ball through a window, the window’s breaking is a more distal outcome than the kicking.
dual-process theory : Any theory concerning abilities in a particular domain on which those abilities involve two or more processes which are distinct in this sense: the conditions which influence whether one mindreading process occurs differ from the conditions which influence whether another occurs.
fast : A fast process is one that is to to some interesting degree cognitively efficient (and therefore likely also some interesting degree automatic). These processes are also sometimes characterised as able to yield rapid responses.
Since automaticity and cognitive efficiency are matters of degree, it is only strictly correct to identify some processes as faster than others.
The fast-slow distinction has been variously characterised in ways that do not entirely overlap (even individual author have offered differing characterisations at different times; e.g. Kahneman, 2013; Morewedge & Kahneman, 2010; Kahneman & Klein, 2009; Kahneman, 2002): as its advocates stress, it is a rough-and-ready tool rather than an element in a rigorous theory.
outcome : An outcome of an action is a possible or actual state of affairs.
slow : converse of fast.


Bargh, J. A. (1992). The Ecology of Automaticity: Toward Establishing the Conditions Needed to Produce Automatic Processing Effects. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 181–199.
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235.
Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241–265.
Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626–632.
Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2018). Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion, 18(7), 989–1008.
Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695–726.
Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 1–6.
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Le prix nobel, ed. T. Frangsmyr, 416–499. (Vol. 8, pp. 351–401). Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel Foundation.
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus; Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526.
Moors, A. (2014). Examining the mapping problem in dual process models. In Dual process theories of the social mind (pp. 20–34). Guilford.
Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297–326.
Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 435–440.
Suter, R. S., & Hertwig, R. (2011). Time and moral judgment. Cognition, 119(3), 454–458.
Trémolière, B., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2014). Efficient Kill the Cognitive Demands on Counterintuitive Moral Utilitarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 124(3), 379–384.


  1. As explained in the lecture recording, this study is associated with a second prediction, which the results appear to disconfirm: limiting the time available to make a decision will reduce sensitivity to outcomes. ↩︎

  2. Although the Trémolière & Bonnefon (2014)’s findings may be interpreted as disconfirming a prediction (as Gawronski & Beer, 2017, p. 669 propose), it would be incautious to rely on post hoc reinterpretations of findings. ↩︎