Thinking and Reasoning 20 (2):188-214 (2014)

Abstract
While individual differences in the willingness and ability to engage analytic processing have long informed research in reasoning and decision making, the implications of such differences have not yet had a strong influence in other domains of psychological research. We claim that analytic thinking is not limited to problems that have a normative basis and, as an extension of this, predict that individual differences in analytic thinking will be influential in determining beliefs and values. Along with assessments of cognitive ability and style, religious beliefs, and moral values, participants judged the wrongness of acts considered disgusting and conventionally immoral, but that do not violate care- or fairness-based moral principles. Differences in willingness to engage analytic thinking predicted reduced judgements of wrongness, independent of demographics, political ideology, religiosity, and moral values. Further, we show that those who were higher in cognitive ability were less likely to indicate that purity, patriotism, and respect for traditions and authority are important to their moral thinking. These findings are consistent with a “Reflectionist” view that assumes a role for analytic thought in determining substantive, deeply-held human beliefs and values
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13546783.2013.865000
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition Advancing the Debate.Jonathan Evans & Keith E. Stanovich - 2013 - Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3):223-241.
On the Psychology of Prediction.Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky - 1973 - Psychological Review 80 (4):237-251.
How Does Moral Judgment Work?Joshua Greene & Jonathan Haidt - 2002 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (12):517-523.

View all 48 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Intuitions, Moral Expertise and Moral Reasoning.Albert W. Musschenga - 2009 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (4):597-613.
Relativism, Standards and Aesthetic Judgements.James O. Young - 2009 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (2):221 – 231.
Kant on Truth-Aptness.Alberto Vanzo - 2012 - History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (2):109-126.
The Wisdom of the Pack.Neil Levy - 2006 - Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):99 – 103.
For Analytic Bioethics.Alex Broadbent - 2008 - Clinical Ethics 3 (4):185-188.
La dimensión perfeccionista en la crítica de la moralidad de Friedrich Nietzsche.Alessio Vaccari - 2010 - Telos: Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Utilitaristas 17 (2):171-187.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-12

Total views
40 ( #268,303 of 2,448,666 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #302,300 of 2,448,666 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes