Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

(If the slides don’t work, you can still use any direct links to recordings.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Dual Process Theories: the Process Dissociation Approach

Greene’s dual process theory

Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)

Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.

One process is faster than another.

recall the definition

The outputs of one process are more consequentialist than those of another.

Conway & Gawronsky 2013, figure 1

Note that if we just provide ‘incongruent’ dilemmas, we cannot distinguish all the different possibilities.

Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)

Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.

One process is faster than another.

The outputs of one process are more consequentialist than those of another.

Prediction 1: higher cognitive load will reduce the dominance of the more consequentialist process.

Conway & Gawronsky 2013, figure 3

Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)

Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.

One process is faster than another.

The outputs of one process are more consequentialist than those of another.

Prediction 1: higher cognitive load will reduce the dominance of the more consequentialist process.

Additional assumption: The faster process is an affective process.

Prediction 2: higher empathy will increase the dominance of the less consequentialist process.

Missing additional assumption needde!

Conway & Gawronsky 2013, figure 3

important consequence: if manipulating emotion can selectively influence one of two ethical processes, doesn’t this count as indirect evidence against the causal models on which emotion does not ‘influence’ judgement?
[The idea that manipulating emotion has a selective effect on one process supports the claim that emotion is not affecting (A) scenario analysis, (B) interpretation of question or (C) strength of pre-made judgement. After all, no such hypothesis predicts the selective effect.]
[Also: \citep{gawronski:2018_effects}: ‘(a) sensitivity to consequences, (b) sensitivity to moral norms, or (c) general preference for inaction versus action regardless of consequences and moral norms (or some combination of the three). Our results suggest that incidental happiness influences moral dilemma judgments by reducing sensitivity to moral norms’ (p. 1003).]
Two levels: (1) could do this in principle; (2) let’s see what disgust does to the different factors