Abstract:
Considerable research examines the processes underpinning moral dilemma judgments where causing harm maximizes outcomes, such as the famous trolley dilemma. Conventional research focuses on basic psychological processes such as affective reactions to harm, cognitive evaluations of outcomes, or adherence to moral rules. However, it may be that higher-order processing, such as concern over how others may react to your dilemma judgments, also causally contributes to moral decision-making. To speak to this possibility, I will present studies demonstrating that a) people infer the roles of affective and cognitive processing underlying other peoples’ moral dilemma judgments, b) people use this information to select others for social roles, c) people exhibit meta-cognitive accuracy regarding how their judgments make them appear to others, d) people strategically alter judgments to cultivate favorable impressions, and e) such inferences emerge in realistic dilemmas regarding business and COVID decisions. Together, these findings suggest that dilemma judgments reflect higher-order social cognitive considerations, clarify the advantages and disadvantages of making each judgment, and demonstrate that dilemma decisions have important real-world implications.