11 found
Edward B. Royzman [6]Edward Royzman [5]
  1.  50
    Unsentimental ethics: Towards a content-specific account of the moral–conventional distinction.Edward B. Royzman, Robert F. Leeman & Jonathan Baron - 2009 - Cognition 112 (1):159-174.
  2.  33
    Are Thoughtful People More Utilitarian? CRT as a Unique Predictor of Moral Minimalism in the Dilemmatic Context.Edward B. Royzman, Justin F. Landy & Robert F. Leeman - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (2):325-352.
    Recent theorizing about the cognitive underpinnings of dilemmatic moral judgment has equated slow, deliberative thinking with the utilitarian disposition and fast, automatic thinking with the deontological disposition. However, evidence for the reflective utilitarian hypothesis—the hypothesized link between utilitarian judgment and individual differences in the capacity for rational reflection has been inconsistent and difficult to interpret in light of several design flaws. In two studies aimed at addressing some of the flaws, we found robust evidence for a reflective minimalist hypothesis—high CRT (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  3. Is consequential luck morally inconsequential? Empirical psychology and the reassessment of moral luck.Edward Royzman & Rahul Kumar - 2004 - Ratio 17 (3):329–344.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  4. Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability.John Monterosso, Edward B. Royzman & Barry Schwartz - 2005 - Ethics and Behavior 15 (2):139 – 158.
    College students and suburban residents completed questionnaires designed to examine the tendency of scientific explanations of undesirable behaviors to mitigate perceived culpability. In vignettes relating behaviors to an explanatory antecedent, we manipulated the uniformity of the behavior given the antecedent, the responsiveness of the behavior to deterrence, and the explanatory antecedent-type offered- physiological (e.g., a chemical imbalance) or experiential (e.g., abusive parents). Physiological explanations had a greater tendency to exonerate actors than did experiential explanations. The effects of uniformity and deterrence (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  5.  35
    Minding the Metaphor: The Elusive Character of Moral Disgust.Edward Royzman & Robert Kurzban - 2011 - Emotion Review 3 (3):269-271.
    Aiming to circumvent metaphor-prone properties of natural language, Chapman, Kim, Susskind, and Anderson (2009) recently reported evidence for morally induced activation of the levator labii region (manifest as an upper lip raise and a nose wrinkle), also implicated in responding to bad tastes and contaminants. Here we point out that the probative value of this type of evidence rests on a particular (and heavily contested) account of facial movements, one which holds them to be “expressions” or automatic read-outs of internal (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  6.  83
    Something it takes to be an emotion: The interesting case of disgust.Edward B. Royzman & John Sabini - 2001 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 31 (1):29–59.
  7.  33
    When sentimental rules collide: “Norms with feelings” in the dilemmatic context.Edward B. Royzman, Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Robert F. Leeman - 2011 - Cognition 121 (1):101-114.
  8.  48
    Biases in use of positive and negative words across twenty natural languages.Paul Rozin, Loren Berman & Edward Royzman - 2010 - Cognition and Emotion 24 (3):536-548.
  9.  11
    Comment: Strohminger–McGinn: Deconstructing the Moral Amplification Effect.Edward Royzman - 2014 - Emotion Review 6 (3):224-225.
    I use a number of McGinn’s ideas to identify likely confounds in the induction of incidental disgust as the basis of the moral amplification effect.
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10.  13
    Facial Movements Are Not Goosebumps: A Response to Chapman and Anderson.Edward Royzman & Robert Kurzban - 2011 - Emotion Review 3 (3):274-275.
    Aside from adducing little data that bear on our original concerns (pervasive “audience effects” in the encoding of identifiable “disgust expressions”/lack of morally induced disgust versus moral disgust differentiation), Chapman and Anderson (2011) fail to muster a convincing body of evidence for the founding premise of their empirical endeavor—disgust is a bona fide “basic emotion” whose theoretically predicted FM pattern is a goosebump-like, metaphor-resistant readout capable of being effectively analyzed within the “expression programs” canon, leading us to reaffirm that our (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  5
    The puzzle of wrongless harms: Some potential concerns for dyadic morality and related accounts.Edward B. Royzman & Samuel H. Borislow - 2022 - Cognition 220 (C):104980.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation