Why People With High Alexithymia Make More Utilitarian Judgments
The Role of Empathic Concern and Deontological Inclinations
Abstract
Abstract. Although recent studies have investigated the effect of alexithymia on moral judgments, such an effect remains elusive. Furthermore, moral judgments have been conflated with the moral inclinations underlying those judgments in previous studies. Using a process dissociation approach to independently quantify the strength of utilitarian and deontological inclinations, the present study investigated the effect of alexithymia on moral judgments. We found that deontological inclinations were significantly lower in the high alexithymia group than in the low alexithymia group, whereas the difference in the utilitarian inclinations between the two groups was nonsignificant. Furthermore, empathic concern and deontological inclinations mediated the association between alexithymia and conventional relative judgments (i.e., more utilitarian judgments over deontological judgments), showing that people with high alexithymia have low empathic concern, which, in turn, decreases deontological inclinations and contributes to conventional relative judgments. These findings underscore the importance of empathy and deontological inclinations in moral judgments and indicate that individuals with high alexithymia make more utilitarian judgments over deontological judgments possibly due to a deficit in affective processing.
References
(2013). Emotion and moral judgement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 169–178. 10.1002/wcs.1216
(1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 33–40. 10.1016/0022-3999(94)90006-x
(2017). Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(2), 148–167. 2017-17480-006
(2015). The impact of autism spectrum disorder and alexithymia on judgments of moral acceptability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 589–595. 10.1037/abn0000076
(2019). Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103995. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007
(2018). Emotional reactions in moral decision-making are influenced by empathy and alexithymia. Social Neuroscience, 13(2), 226–240. 10.1080/17470919.2017.1288656
(2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. 10.1037/a0031021
(2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241–265. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146
(2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343–376. 10.1037/pspa0000086
(2015). The relationship between alexithymia, empathy and moral judgment in patients with multiple sclerosis. European Journal of Neurology, 22(9), 1295–1303. 10.1111/ene.12745
(2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS One, 8(4), e60418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
(2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322–323. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
(2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York, NY: Penguin.
(2017). Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1387–1397. 10.1177/0956797617720944
(2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446(7138), 908–911. 10.1038/nature05631
(2015). Poker-faced morality: Concealing emotions leads to utilitarian decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 49–64. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.006
(2012). Atypical moral judgements following traumatic brain injury. Judgement and Decision Making, 7(4), 478–487.
(2016). Theory of mind is not theory of emotion: A cautionary note on the reading the mind in the eyes test. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125, 818–823. 10.1037/abn0000182
(2014a). Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 501. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00501
(2014b). Alexithymia increases moral acceptability of accidental harms. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 597–614. 10.1080/20445911.2014.929137
(2016). Divergent roles of autistic and alexithymic traits in utilitarian moral judgments in adults with autism. Scientific Reports, 6, 23637. 10.1038/srep23637
(2018). Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas. Emotion, 18(7), 1009–1023. 10.1037/emo0000413
(2019). With or without empathy: Primary psychopathy and difficulty in identifying feelings predict utilitarian judgment in sacrificial dilemmas. Ethics and Behavior, 29(1), 71–85. 10.1080/10508422.2017.1367684
(1999). Disorders of affect regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2018). Structure of the alexithymic brain: A parametric coordinate-based meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 87, 50–55. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.004
