Paper 1

FXG, Modesto A. Maidique Campus, Interlibrary Loan, Lending, Green Library, Room 290, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, Phone: (305) 348-4054, Fax: (305) 348-6055, Odyssey: 206.107.42.95, e-mail: [email protected].

Notice Warning Concerning Copyright Restriction

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research”. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use”, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. The FIU Libraries retain the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve a violation of copyright Law. No further reproduction and distribution of this copy is permitted by transmission or any other means.

Transaction Number 888550

Morality and Conformity: The Ach Paradigm Applied to Moral Decisions

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psif20

Social Influence

ISSN: 1553-4510 (Print) 1553-4529 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psif20

Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions

Payel Kundu & Denise Dellarosa Cummins

To cite this article: Payel Kundu & Denise Dellarosa Cummins (2013) Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions, Social Influence, 8:4, 268-279, DOI: 10.1080/15534510.2012.727767

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.727767

Published online: 05 Oct 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3269

View related articles

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm

applied to moral decisions

Payel Kundu and Denise Dellarosa Cummins University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Morality has long been considered an inherent quality, an internal moral compass that is unswayed by the actions of those around us. The Solomon Asch paradigm was employed to gauge whether moral decision making is subject to conformity under social pressure as other types of decision making have been shown to be. Participants made decisions about moral dilemmas either alone or in a group of confederates posing as peers. On a majority of trials confederates rendered decisions that were contrary to judgments typically elicited by the dilemmas. The results showed a pronounced effect of conformity: Compared to the control condition, permissible actions were deemed less permissible when confederates found them objectionable, and impermissible actions were judged more permissible if confederates judged them so.

Keywords: Moral judgment; Conformity; Asch; Decision making.

Traditional theories of moral psychology endorsed the Kantian view that moral judgments are the outcome of conscious deliberation based on moral rules, an internal ‘‘moral compass’’ (Kant, 1785, 1787; Kohlberg, 1969). However, recent studies have shown that moral judgment can be strongly swayed by seemingly irrelevant contextual factors. People judge actions as more morally wrong if they are primed to feel disgust before making a moral judgment (Schnall, Benton, & Harvey, 2008; Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008), while priming positive emotions makes moral transgressions sometimes appear more permissible (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006). Marked order effects have also been reported in which the judged moral permissibility of a dilemma varies as a function of the nature of the

Address correspondence to: E-mail: [email protected]

The authors thank Andrew Higgins, Joseph Spino, and John Clevenger for their assistance in

conducting the experiment. This work was supported by research funds provided by the

University of Illinois.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE, 2013 Vol. 8, No. 4, 268–279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.727767

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm

applied to moral decisions

Payel Kundu and Denise Dellarosa Cummins University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Morality has long been considered an inherent quality, an internal moral compass that is unswayed by the actions of those around us. The Solomon Asch paradigm was employed to gauge whether moral decision making is subject to conformity under social pressure as other types of decision making have been shown to be. Participants made decisions about moral dilemmas either alone or in a group of confederates posing as peers. On a majority of trials confederates rendered decisions that were contrary to judgments typically elicited by the dilemmas. The results showed a pronounced effect of conformity: Compared to the control condition, permissible actions were deemed less permissible when confederates found them objectionable, and impermissible actions were judged more permissible if confederates judged them so.

Keywords: Moral judgment; Conformity; Asch; Decision making.

Traditional theories of moral psychology endorsed the Kantian view that moral judgments are the outcome of conscious deliberation based on moral rules, an internal ‘‘moral compass’’ (Kant, 1785, 1787; Kohlberg, 1969). However, recent studies have shown that moral judgment can be strongly swayed by seemingly irrelevant contextual factors. People judge actions as more morally wrong if they are primed to feel disgust before making a moral judgment (Schnall, Benton, & Harvey, 2008; Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008), while priming positive emotions makes moral transgressions sometimes appear more permissible (Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006). Marked order effects have also been reported in which the judged moral permissibility of a dilemma varies as a function of the nature of the

Address correspondence to: E-mail: [email protected]

The authors thank Andrew Higgins, Joseph Spino, and John Clevenger for their assistance in

conducting the experiment. This work was supported by research funds provided by the

University of Illinois.

dilemmas that preceded it (Nichols & Mallon, 2006), an effect that was replicated among expert moral reasoners (Schwitzgebel & Cushman, 2012).

One contextual factor that has not been adequately investigated is that of social consensus on moral decision making. There has been a plethora of research on decision-making conformity and the situations in which it can be induced. Perhaps the most famous are the classic studies conducted by Solomon Asch (1956) using simple visual discrimination. Asch required participants to choose which of three lines of different lengths matched the length of a target line. Participants made decisions in a group context which included six to eight people, and all but one person was a confederate of the experimenter. Over the course of 18 trials the confederates gave correct answers on only 6 trials. Asch found that, while participants made errors on fewer than 1% of trials when deciding alone, they made errors on 37% of trials in the group condition.

Although numerous studies have been conducted since the publication of Asch’s classic paper, the majority have as their primary aim identifying the motivations underlying conforming behavior (see Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004, for a review). Three core motivations have been identified: a desire for accuracy, a desire for affiliation, and the maintenance of a positive self-concept. Recent work by Erb and colleagues (Erb, Bohner, Rank, & Einwiller, 2002; Erb, Bohner, Schmalzle, & Rank, 1998) found that the contribution of these factors varies as a function of the individuals’ prior beliefs toward the topic under consideration. When people’s prior beliefs are strongly opposed to the position held by the majority, conformity is driven by a desire to fit in. But when people hold moderately or no strong prior beliefs concerning the topic, conformity is driven by a belief that the majority view is more likely to constitute an objective consensus.

It is assumed that people violate a norm of rationality when they allow social consensus to override facts. Campbell (1990) argued that yielding to conformity allows error and confusion to spread throughout a group, while independent decision making and resistance to conformity is socially productive because it allows errors to be corrected. Resistance to conformity is therefore considered both moral and rational. It is moral because it reflects adherence to principle, and it is rational because it introduces fact- based judgment into the group decision-making process.

This raises the following question: Can conformity influence something we consider to be an integral part of our identities; namely, morality? Unlike visual decision making where correct answers are clear and unambiguous, moral dilemmas are dilemmas precisely because the correct course of action is unclear. Yet the laws and social institutions of virtually every culture are grounded in moral principles, such as avoiding harm to others and fairness in social transactions (Haidt, 2007). People are expected to rely on culturally

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 269

dictated moral principles as well as their own personal moral intuitions

when choosing when and whether to aid others in distress, how to judge the

culpability of parties involved in wrongdoing or disputes, and which

behaviors should be subject to social and legal censure. Our behavior is

frequently judged on the basis of whether we acted in accordance with our

moral principles, or whether we simply chose to ‘‘go along to get along’’, as

would be the case if we allowed social conformity to override moral

principles. Taking this course of action typically makes one the target of

criticism and social censure. An over-reliance on social conformity in

guiding one’s actions is also the hallmark of conventional (stage 3) moral

reasoning in Kohlberg’s six-stage theory of moral development; the highest

level of moral development (stage 6) is rooted in reliance on moral principles

to guide behavior (Kohlberg, 1969). Despite the ubiquity and gravity of moral judgment in our everyday lives,

scant research exists on the impact of conformity on moral judgment.

Crutchfield (1955) tested the impact of majority opinion on judgments in a

variety of different domains, including agreement with morally relevant

statements such as ‘‘Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is

proper for a society to suspend free speech whenever it itself is threatened.’’

He found that only 19% of participants agreed with such statements when

alone, but 58% agreed when confronted with a unanimous group who

endorsed the statements. This is surprising given that people have been

found to reject and distance themselves socially from morally dissimilar

others (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005), and should therefore have little

desire to conform to the group. Indeed, Hornsey and colleagues (Hornsey,

Majkut, Terry, & McKimmie, 2003; Hornsey, Smith, & Begg, 2007) found

that participants with strong moral convictions about a social issue

expressed stronger intentions to verbally oppose the issue when they

believed they held a minority view than when they believed they held the

majority view. Importantly, these intentions did not translate to actual

behavior. Aramovich, Lytle, and Skitka (2012) assessed participants’ prior

beliefs concerning the acceptability of torture, along with their prior moral

commitments, socio-political attitudes, and other factors. The participants

then took part in an allegedly group discussion concerning the use of torture

via computer-simulated chat room; the participants believed they were

discussing the topic with fellow students. During the simulated group

discussion, 80% of participants reported less opposition to torture than they

had reported at pretest, but strength of moral conviction about torture was

negatively associated with the degree of pro-torture attitude change.

Although these results addressed only a single moral topic (i.e., permissi-

bility of torture), they suggest that moral judgment may in fact be

susceptible to conformity pressure.

270 KUNDU AND CUMMINS

dictated moral principles as well as their own personal moral intuitions

when choosing when and whether to aid others in distress, how to judge the

culpability of parties involved in wrongdoing or disputes, and which

behaviors should be subject to social and legal censure. Our behavior is

frequently judged on the basis of whether we acted in accordance with our

moral principles, or whether we simply chose to ‘‘go along to get along’’, as

would be the case if we allowed social conformity to override moral

principles. Taking this course of action typically makes one the target of

criticism and social censure. An over-reliance on social conformity in

guiding one’s actions is also the hallmark of conventional (stage 3) moral

reasoning in Kohlberg’s six-stage theory of moral development; the highest

level of moral development (stage 6) is rooted in reliance on moral principles

to guide behavior (Kohlberg, 1969). Despite the ubiquity and gravity of moral judgment in our everyday lives,

scant research exists on the impact of conformity on moral judgment.

Crutchfield (1955) tested the impact of majority opinion on judgments in a

variety of different domains, including agreement with morally relevant

statements such as ‘‘Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is

proper for a society to suspend free speech whenever it itself is threatened.’’

He found that only 19% of participants agreed with such statements when

alone, but 58% agreed when confronted with a unanimous group who

endorsed the statements. This is surprising given that people have been

found to reject and distance themselves socially from morally dissimilar

others (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005), and should therefore have little

desire to conform to the group. Indeed, Hornsey and colleagues (Hornsey,

Majkut, Terry, & McKimmie, 2003; Hornsey, Smith, & Begg, 2007) found

that participants with strong moral convictions about a social issue

expressed stronger intentions to verbally oppose the issue when they

believed they held a minority view than when they believed they held the

majority view. Importantly, these intentions did not translate to actual

behavior. Aramovich, Lytle, and Skitka (2012) assessed participants’ prior

beliefs concerning the acceptability of torture, along with their prior moral

commitments, socio-political attitudes, and other factors. The participants

then took part in an allegedly group discussion concerning the use of torture

via computer-simulated chat room; the participants believed they were

discussing the topic with fellow students. During the simulated group

discussion, 80% of participants reported less opposition to torture than they

had reported at pretest, but strength of moral conviction about torture was

negatively associated with the degree of pro-torture attitude change.

Although these results addressed only a single moral topic (i.e., permissi-

bility of torture), they suggest that moral judgment may in fact be

susceptible to conformity pressure.

Importantly, a growing number of studies have shown that judged moral permissibility varies systematically with the degree of conflict between morally relevant dilemma features (Greene et al., 2009). Dilemmas describing actions that maximize aggregate benefits (‘‘greater good’’) while violating no a priori moral rules yield high endorsement rates, and actions that fail to maximize such benefits while simultaneously violating one or more moral rule yield very low endorsement rates. When the two conflict, causing the decision maker to choose between violating moral principles or sacrificing the greater good, low decisional consensus obtains. In these circumstances people are less certain what the morally permissible course of action should be.

In the present study we used a modification of Asch’s methods to investigate the impact of social consensus on moral decision making. Participants were asked to render moral judgments for a series of dilemmas either alone or in a group that included three confederates. Unlike Asch’s participants, however, our participants rendered judgments by choosing a number from a Likert-type scale that described a range of permissibility ratings, including ‘‘uncertain’’. This allowed greater variability among confederate judgments while still creating confederate consensus. If moral judgment is influenced by social context, then participants’ ratings should be swayed in the direction of the confederates’ atypical judgments compared to ratings given in the absence of social pressure.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 33 participants were recruited from the University of Illinois Psychology paid-participant website. There were 17 participants (12 female) in the control condition, and 16 participants (9 female) in the experimental condition.

Materials

A total of 12 dilemmas were selected from materials used by Greene, Morelli, Lowenberg, Nystrom, and Cohen (2008). They differed along three dimensions: (a) percent ‘‘permissible’’ judgments, (b) use of personal force, and (c) whether the harm inflicted was intentional or a side effect of the action taken. The latter two constitute deontological criteria that have been shown to influence moral judgment (Greene et al., 2009). According to Greene et al. (2009), an agent applies personal force when the force that directly impacts the other is generated by the agent’s muscles and is not mediated by intervening mechanisms that are distinct from the agent’s muscular force, such as firing a gun. The vignette names, deontological values, percent ‘‘yes’’

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 271

(permissible) judgments from Green et al., (2008), and confederate judgments are displayed in Table 1.

Each vignette was printed on single sheet of paper with a 1–7 rating scale underneath. The labels for the rating scale were (from 1 to 7, respectively) Highly Impermissible, Impermissible, Somewhat Impermissible, Unsure, Somewhat Permissible, Permissible, and Highly Permissible.

Four vignettes served as fillers; confederates always gave ratings that were consistent with the judgment typically elicited by these vignettes (i.e., 6 or 7 for Submarine and Modified Bomb, which people typically judge permissible; 1 or 2 for Smother for Dollars and Hard Times, which people typically judge impermissible). Six of the experimental vignettes fell into two categories. The first contained vignettes that are a majority of people typically judge to be permissible (Standard Trolley, Standard Fumes, and Vaccine Test), and for which the confederates gave atypical judgments (i.e., ratings of 1 or 2). The second contained vignettes that a majority of people typically judge to be impermissible (Sacrifice, Safari, and Vitamins), and for which the confederates gave atypical judgments (i.e., ratings of 6 or 7). Finally, two vignettes were included that typically elicit high disagreement concerning permissibility. Confederates rated one of these

TABLE 1 Vignette title, deontological features, percent acceptance rates, and judgments given

by confederates for the experiment materials

Vignette

Personal

force Harm

%

Yes a

%

Yes b

Confederate

judgment

Fillers

Submarine No Intentional 91 80 Permissible

Modified Bomb Yes Intentional 90 85 Permissible

Smother for Dollars Yes Intentional 7 8 Impermissible

Hard Times No Side Effect 9 3 Impermissible

Experimental

Standard Trolley No Side Effect 85 80 Impermissible

Standard Fumes No Side Effect 75 67 Impermissible

Vaccine Test No Side Effect 79 68 Impermissible

Sacrifice c

Yes Intentional 51 28 Permissible

Safari Yes Intentional 22 28 Permissible

Vitamins Yes Intentional 35 38 Permissible

Sophie’s Choice No Side Effect 62 41 Impermissible

Crying Baby Yes Intentional 60 40 Permissible

a Values reported by Greene et al. (2008).

b Values reported by Cummins and Cummins (2012, Exp 1) based on decisions made by UIUC

students. c We opted to use Cummins and Cummins (2012) data to classify this vignette because

participants in this study were also drawn from UIUC students.

272 KUNDU AND CUMMINS

(permissible) judgments from Green et al., (2008), and confederate judgments are displayed in Table 1.

Each vignette was printed on single sheet of paper with a 1–7 rating scale underneath. The labels for the rating scale were (from 1 to 7, respectively) Highly Impermissible, Impermissible, Somewhat Impermissible, Unsure, Somewhat Permissible, Permissible, and Highly Permissible.

Four vignettes served as fillers; confederates always gave ratings that were consistent with the judgment typically elicited by these vignettes (i.e., 6 or 7 for Submarine and Modified Bomb, which people typically judge permissible; 1 or 2 for Smother for Dollars and Hard Times, which people typically judge impermissible). Six of the experimental vignettes fell into two categories. The first contained vignettes that are a majority of people typically judge to be permissible (Standard Trolley, Standard Fumes, and Vaccine Test), and for which the confederates gave atypical judgments (i.e., ratings of 1 or 2). The second contained vignettes that a majority of people typically judge to be impermissible (Sacrifice, Safari, and Vitamins), and for which the confederates gave atypical judgments (i.e., ratings of 6 or 7). Finally, two vignettes were included that typically elicit high disagreement concerning permissibility. Confederates rated one of these

TABLE 1 Vignette title, deontological features, percent acceptance rates, and judgments given

by confederates for the experiment materials

Vignette

Personal

force Harm

%

Yes a

%

Yes b

Confederate

judgment

Fillers

Submarine No Intentional 91 80 Permissible

Modified Bomb Yes Intentional 90 85 Permissible

Smother for Dollars Yes Intentional 7 8 Impermissible

Hard Times No Side Effect 9 3 Impermissible

Experimental

Standard Trolley No Side Effect 85 80 Impermissible

Standard Fumes No Side Effect 75 67 Impermissible

Vaccine Test No Side Effect 79 68 Impermissible

Sacrifice c

Yes Intentional 51 28 Permissible

Safari Yes Intentional 22 28 Permissible

Vitamins Yes Intentional 35 38 Permissible

Sophie’s Choice No Side Effect 62 41 Impermissible

Crying Baby Yes Intentional 60 40 Permissible

a Values reported by Greene et al. (2008).

b Values reported by Cummins and Cummins (2012, Exp 1) based on decisions made by UIUC

students. c We opted to use Cummins and Cummins (2012) data to classify this vignette because

participants in this study were also drawn from UIUC students.

(Sophie’s Choice) as impermissible and the other (Crying Baby) as permissible. Examples of the vignettes are shown in Table 2. Texts for all vignettes can be found by clicking the supplementary materials link provided in Greene et al. (2008).

Procedure

In the control condition the experimenter and participant were seated at a conference table in a private room. In the experimental condition three confederates came into the room around the same time as the real participant and posed as real participants. The confederates were three male graduate students. The confederates took care to sit around the table so that the three of them were in consecutive seats and the real participant was at one end.

TABLE 2 Examples of vignettes used in the experiment

Filler: Submarine: You are the captain of a military submarine

traveling under a large iceberg. An explosion has damaged

your oxygen supply and injured one of your crew. The

injured crew member cannot survive his wounds. There is

not enough oxygen left for the entire crew to make it to the

surface. The only way to save the other crew members is to

shoot dead the injured crew member so that there will be just

enough oxygen for the rest of the crew to survive. Is it

morally permissible to kill the injured crew member under

the circumstances?

Weak Consensus Crying Baby: Enemy soldiers are approaching your village.

You and your townspeople are hiding. Your baby begins to

cry loudly, which will surely alert the soldiers to your

location. If you cover your baby’s face to muffle the sound

until the soldiers leave, you will smother him. Is it morally

permissible to smother your baby under the circumstances?

Strong Consensus – ‘‘Yes’’ Standard Trolley: A runaway trolley is approaching a fork in

the tracks. On the left track are five people. On the right

track is one person. If you do nothing the trolley will go left,

causing the deaths of five people. The only way to avoid this

is to push a switch that will cause the trolley to go right,

causing the death of the single person. Is it morally

permissible to push the switch under the circumstances?

Strong Consensus – ‘‘No’’ Sacrifice: You, your spouse, and your four children are

crossing a mountain range on your return journey to your

homeland. You have inadvertently set up camp on a local

clan’s sacred burial ground. The leader of the clan says if

you kill your oldest son with the clan leader’s sword, he will

let the rest of you live. Is it morally permissible to kill your

oldest son under the circumstances?

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 273

Participants were instructed that they would be asked to make a series of

decisions about moral dilemmas for which there were no right or wrong answers. They were told we were interested in their responses to help us

choose materials for future research. Folders were distributed which

contained the vignettes. The folders given to the confederates had a small mark beside the rating they were supposed to give for each vignette.

Confederates were not blind to the experimental hypotheses, and so were

trained and instructed to respond according to script, without giving explanation or commentary on their choices. The answers confederates gave

were distributed across the extreme end of the appropriate range (i.e.,

‘‘permissible’’ could be 6 or 7, and ‘‘impermissible’’ could be 1 or 2). The first vignette was always Submarine, and the confederates gave a typical answer.

The remaining sheets were shuffled between sessions. Each vignette was read aloud once and participants were given about 4 seconds to consider the

situation. They were then asked to announce their answers aloud in turn as

the experimenter recorded their choices. The real participant was always prompted to answer last after all of the confederates had given their answers.

It was explained that answers were to be given aloud in order to save time and

so that the printed materials could be re-used. After the experiment concluded the purpose of the experiment was explained, including the use

of deception. Participants were not queried about their beliefs concerning the

true purpose of the experiment prior to debriefing, although the majority spontaneously expressed surprise when informed of the deception, particu-

larly that the graduate students were confederates and not true participants.

RESULTS

If participants’ moral judgments were swayed by social consensus, then we would expect that ratings of vignettes typically judged permissible should

receive lower permissibility ratings in the group condition than in the

control condition, while ratings of vignettes typically judged impermissible should receive higher permissibility ratings in the group condition than in

the control condition. To test this prediction, ratings for vignettes that

typically yield strong consensus were analyzed separately from those that typically yield weak consensus.

For the strong consensus vignettes, ratings were averaged across the three

‘‘impermissible’’ vignettes (Sacrifice, Safari, and Vitamins), and across the three ‘‘permissible’’ vignettes (Standard Trolley, Standard Fumes, and

Vaccine Test). These mean ratings were analyzed via mixed ANOVA using

condition (Control or Group) and sex (Female or Male) as between- participant variables, and moral category (Impermissible or Permissible)

as repeated measures. The analysis returned a single significant effect,

274 KUNDU AND CUMMINS

Participants were instructed that they would be asked to make a series of

decisions about moral dilemmas for which there were no right or wrong answers. They were told we were interested in their responses to help us

choose materials for future research. Folders were distributed which

contained the vignettes. The folders given to the confederates had a small mark beside the rating they were supposed to give for each vignette.

Confederates were not blind to the experimental hypotheses, and so were

trained and instructed to respond according to script, without giving explanation or commentary on their choices. The answers confederates gave

were distributed across the extreme end of the appropriate range (i.e.,

‘‘permissible’’ could be 6 or 7, and ‘‘impermissible’’ could be 1 or 2). The first vignette was always Submarine, and the confederates gave a typical answer.

The remaining sheets were shuffled between sessions. Each vignette was read aloud once and participants were given about 4 seconds to consider the

situation. They were then asked to announce their answers aloud in turn as

the experimenter recorded their choices. The real participant was always prompted to answer last after all of the confederates had given their answers.

It was explained that answers were to be given aloud in order to save time and

so that the printed materials could be re-used. After the experiment concluded the purpose of the experiment was explained, including the use

of deception. Participants were not queried about their beliefs concerning the

true purpose of the experiment prior to debriefing, although the majority spontaneously expressed surprise when informed of the deception, particu-

larly that the graduate students were confederates and not true participants.

RESULTS

If participants’ moral judgments were swayed by social consensus, then we would expect that ratings of vignettes typically judged permissible should

receive lower permissibility ratings in the group condition than in the

control condition, while ratings of vignettes typically judged impermissible should receive higher permissibility ratings in the group condition than in

the control condition. To test this prediction, ratings for vignettes that

typically yield strong consensus were analyzed separately from those that typically yield weak consensus.

For the strong consensus vignettes, ratings were averaged across the three

‘‘impermissible’’ vignettes (Sacrifice, Safari, and Vitamins), and across the three ‘‘permissible’’ vignettes (Standard Trolley, Standard Fumes, and

Vaccine Test). These mean ratings were analyzed via mixed ANOVA using

condition (Control or Group) and sex (Female or Male) as between- participant variables, and moral category (Impermissible or Permissible)

as repeated measures. The analysis returned a single significant effect,

the interaction of moral category and condition, F(1, 29) ¼ 23.57, MSe ¼ 1.29, p 5 .0001, w2¼ .45. Four planned comparisons were conducted.

Looking within groups, the control group did indeed find the vignettes in the permissible category more permissible (M ¼ 4.45) than vignettes in the impermissible category (M ¼ 3.23), t(16) ¼ 5.31, p 5 .0001, Cohen’s d ¼ .80, thereby replicating the findings of past research using these vignettes. The social context group, however, departed significantly from this oft-replicated consensual pattern: When confederates judged highly impermissible moral transgressions to be permissible, participants also rated them as permissible (M ¼ 4.37), and when confederates judged highly permissible vignettes to be impermissible, so did participants (M ¼ 2.67), t(15) ¼ 3.38, p 5 .004, Cohen’s d ¼ .66. Comparing vignette ratings across groups also yielded a strong conformity effect: As predicted, vignettes that are typically judged permissible were found to be significantly less so under dissenting social pressure (M ¼ 2.67) than when participants made decisions on their own (M ¼ 4.45), t(31) ¼ 4.18, p 5 .0001, Cohen’s d ¼ .62. Conversely, vignettes that are normally judged highly impermissible were rated as more permissible when confederates said so (M ¼ 4.38) than when participants made decisions by themselves (M ¼ 3.23), t(31) ¼ 2.74, p 5 .01, Cohen’s d ¼ .62. These results clearly show that our participants’ judgments were strongly swayed by social context, even for vignettes that typically elicit the opposite decision from an overwhelming majority of decision makers.

When reasoning under uncertainty, we would expect that decision makers would be more likely to conform to strong group consensus, and that is what we found when we analyzed the two vignettes that typically elicit low decision consensus. Ratings were analyzed via mixed ANOVA using condition (Control or Group) and sex (Female or Male) as between- participant factors and dilemma (Sophie’s Choice and Crying Baby) as repeated measures. The main effect of Dilemma was significant, F(1, 29) ¼ 6.19, MSe ¼ 2.20, p 5 .02, w2¼ .18. This effect was modified by an interaction with Condition, F(1, 29) ¼ 21.67, MSe ¼ 2.2, p 5 .0001, w2¼ .43. Four planned comparisons were conducted. Looking first within groups, the control group did indeed give statistically

equivalent ratings to Sophie’s Choice (M ¼ 3.53) and to Crying Baby (M ¼ 2.76), t(16) ¼ 1.54, p ¼ .14. In the social context group the confederates rated Sophie’s Choice as highly impermissible and Crying Baby as highly permissible, and participants followed their lead. When deciding among dissenting confederates, participants found Sophie’s Choice to be far less permissible (M ¼ 2.00) than Crying Baby (M ¼ 4.75), t(15) ¼ 5.46, p 5 .0001, Cohen’s d ¼ .82. Comparing group performance on each vignette, partici- pants were found to rate Crying Baby as significantly more permissible when confederates rated it so (M ¼ 4.75) than when they made decisions alone (M ¼ 2.76), t(31) ¼ 3.31, p 5 .002, Cohen’s d ¼ .51. Conversely, participants

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 275

found Sophie’s Choice far less permissible (M ¼ 2.00) when confederates rated it as impermissible than when they made decisions on their own (M ¼ 3.53), t(31) ¼ 2.66, p 5 .025, Cohen’s d ¼ .43. Clearly, our participants’ judgments regarding these ‘‘ambiguous’’ moral dilemmas were strongly swayed by social consensus.

DISCUSSION

Our results clearly show a strong conformity effect, indicating that moral decision making is strongly influenced by social context, thereby replicating Asch’s seminal finding in a new domain. Given that our participants’ moral judgments were so strongly influenced by social consensus, the next important questions are whether this behavior (a) is rational and (b) is itself morally acceptable.

Conformity is considered irrational only if one believes that social consensus should be awarded less weight in decision making than one’s own information or beliefs. But according to rational-actor models, people are not necessarily behaving irrationally when they conform if they believe that conformity maximizes the expected value of the decision. Consider the Asch situation from a game-theoretic perspective (Krueger & Massey, 2009; Luce & Raiffa, 1957). Participants are assumed to prefer to speak the truth, but the strength of this preference is modulated by what others do. This yields four possible outcomes that can be ordered in terms of payoffs to the participant. If the participant is purely self-regarding, then the payoff matrix yields the following: Everyone tells the truth 4 Participant tells the truth but others lie (Positive Resistance) 4 Everyone lies 4 Participant lies while others tell the truth (Negative Resistance). Under these circumstances, the dominant choice (the best choice regardless of what other parties do) is to tell the truth. If others tell the truth, the payoff is greater for the participant if he or she tells the truth as well. If others lie instead, the payoff is still greater for telling the truth.

But if we assume that people are a mixture of selfish and other-regarding (benevolent) preferences, the payoff matrix can be modeled as the sum of one’s own payoffs and others’ payoffs weighted by 1/N, where N is the number of other people in the group (van Lange, 1999). This yields the following: Everyone tells the truth 4 Participant tells the truth but others lie (Positive Resistance) ¼ Participant lies while others tell the truth (Negative Resistance) ¼ Everyone lies. Now there is no dominant choice. If others tell the truth, the payoff is greater for telling the truth as well. But if others lie, then the payoffs for being truthful and for going along with the lie are the same.

Why would people choose to go along with the lie rather than tell the truth? One explanation is that pronounced social consensus in a

276 KUNDU AND CUMMINS

found Sophie’s Choice far less permissible (M ¼ 2.00) when confederates rated it as impermissible than when they made decisions on their own (M ¼ 3.53), t(31) ¼ 2.66, p 5 .025, Cohen’s d ¼ .43. Clearly, our participants’ judgments regarding these ‘‘ambiguous’’ moral dilemmas were strongly swayed by social consensus.

DISCUSSION

Our results clearly show a strong conformity effect, indicating that moral decision making is strongly influenced by social context, thereby replicating Asch’s seminal finding in a new domain. Given that our participants’ moral judgments were so strongly influenced by social consensus, the next important questions are whether this behavior (a) is rational and (b) is itself morally acceptable.

Conformity is considered irrational only if one believes that social consensus should be awarded less weight in decision making than one’s own information or beliefs. But according to rational-actor models, people are not necessarily behaving irrationally when they conform if they believe that conformity maximizes the expected value of the decision. Consider the Asch situation from a game-theoretic perspective (Krueger & Massey, 2009; Luce & Raiffa, 1957). Participants are assumed to prefer to speak the truth, but the strength of this preference is modulated by what others do. This yields four possible outcomes that can be ordered in terms of payoffs to the participant. If the participant is purely self-regarding, then the payoff matrix yields the following: Everyone tells the truth 4 Participant tells the truth but others lie (Positive Resistance) 4 Everyone lies 4 Participant lies while others tell the truth (Negative Resistance). Under these circumstances, the dominant choice (the best choice regardless of what other parties do) is to tell the truth. If others tell the truth, the payoff is greater for the participant if he or she tells the truth as well. If others lie instead, the payoff is still greater for telling the truth.

But if we assume that people are a mixture of selfish and other-regarding (benevolent) preferences, the payoff matrix can be modeled as the sum of one’s own payoffs and others’ payoffs weighted by 1/N, where N is the number of other people in the group (van Lange, 1999). This yields the following: Everyone tells the truth 4 Participant tells the truth but others lie (Positive Resistance) ¼ Participant lies while others tell the truth (Negative Resistance) ¼ Everyone lies. Now there is no dominant choice. If others tell the truth, the payoff is greater for telling the truth as well. But if others lie, then the payoffs for being truthful and for going along with the lie are the same.

Why would people choose to go along with the lie rather than tell the truth? One explanation is that pronounced social consensus in a

decision-making context signals the creation of a social norm; that is, an explicit or implicit rule concerning what one is permitted, obligated, or forbidden to do in the current context (Cummins, 1998, 2000, 2005). Deviations from expectation in nonsocial contexts (such as ‘‘oddball’’ detection in visual and semantic tasks) typically elicit activation in neural reinforcement learning circuitry. The same network has been shown to be active when there is conflict with a social norm (Klucharev Hytonen, Rijpkema, Smidts, & Fernandez, 2009). When conforming to a norm, brain regions associated with anxiety or disgust (such as the insula) are active, indicating that conforming comes at an emotional cost (Berns, Capra, Moore, & Noussair, 2010). These error-related neural signals alert the reasoner when a decision that deviates from a particular social norm or a broader social norm that one should both trust others and reciprocate trust that has been placed in oneself.

Another reason why people may conform is that consensus that departs from our own beliefs introduces uncertainty, particularly the suspicion that the consensus ‘‘reflect[s] information that they have and we do not’’ (Banerjee, 1992, p. 798). Conformity can then be viewed as a rational decision under conditions of uncertainty. This is particularly relevant when conformity is modeled as informational cascades (Bikhchandani, Hirschleifer, & Welch, 1992). In cascade models the first person is assumed to have private information while each subsequent person is assumed to have private information plus information about others’ decisions. If the first two people agree, then the third concludes that they share the same private information. If that information concurs with their own, the cascade continues on to the next person, and so on. If two consecutive people disagree, however, then this signals that they have different private information. Each person can be thought of as equally weighting their own and other people’s judgments. Group consensus that departs from one’s own judgment therefore holds sway.

These analyses indicate that conformity can indeed be the outcome of a rational process. But they also just as clearly indicate that rationality and morality are separate, incommensurate criteria. One cannot be reduced to or explained in terms of the other.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

This research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Manuscript received 14 June 2012

Manuscript accepted 3 September 2012

First published online 4 October 2012

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 277

REFERENCES

Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2011). Opposing torture: Moral

conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7, 21–34, doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.640199.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity; I. A minority of one

against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monograph, 70, (9, whole number 416).

Banerjee, V (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 797–817.

Berns, S., Capra, C. M., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the

influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. Neuroimage, 49, 2687–2696, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.070.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirschleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 992–1026.

Campbell, D. T. (1990). Asch’s moral epistemology for socially shared knowledge. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social

psychology (pp. 39–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and

conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621, doi: 10.1146/

annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10,

191–198. Cummins, D. D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of

higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind

(pp. 30–50). New York: Oxford University Press. Cummins, D. D. (2000). How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind.

Synthese, 122, 3–28. Cummins, D. D. (2005). Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In D. Buss (Ed.),

The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 676–697). New York: Wiley.

Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (2012). Emotion and deliberative reasoning in moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology: Emotion Science, 3, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/

fpsyg.2012.00328. Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Rank, S., & Einwiller, S. (2002). Processing minority and

majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1172–1182, doi: 10.1177/01461672022812003. Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Schmalzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and

discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620–633.

Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Loweberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., &

Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111, 364–371, doi: 10.1016/

j.cognition.2009.02.001. Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008).

Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition,

107, 1144–1154, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004.

278 KUNDU AND CUMMINS

REFERENCES

Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2011). Opposing torture: Moral

conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7, 21–34, doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.640199.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity; I. A minority of one

against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monograph, 70, (9, whole number 416).

Banerjee, V (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 797–817.

Berns, S., Capra, C. M., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the

influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. Neuroimage, 49, 2687–2696, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.070.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirschleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 992–1026.

Campbell, D. T. (1990). Asch’s moral epistemology for socially shared knowledge. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social

psychology (pp. 39–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and

conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621, doi: 10.1146/

annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10,

191–198. Cummins, D. D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of

higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind

(pp. 30–50). New York: Oxford University Press. Cummins, D. D. (2000). How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind.

Synthese, 122, 3–28. Cummins, D. D. (2005). Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In D. Buss (Ed.),

The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 676–697). New York: Wiley.

Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (2012). Emotion and deliberative reasoning in moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology: Emotion Science, 3, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/

fpsyg.2012.00328. Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Rank, S., & Einwiller, S. (2002). Processing minority and

majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1172–1182, doi: 10.1177/01461672022812003. Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Schmalzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and

discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620–633.

Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Loweberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., &

Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111, 364–371, doi: 10.1016/

j.cognition.2009.02.001. Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008).

Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition,

107, 1144–1154, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002, doi: 10.1126/science.1137651.

Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319–335, doi: 10.1348/014466603322438189. Hornsey, M. J., Smith, J. R., & Begg, D. (2007). Effects of norms among those with

moral conviction: Counter-conformity emerges on intentions but not behaviors.

Social Influence, 2, 244–268, doi: 10.1080/15534510701476500. Kant, I. (1785/1989). The foundations of the metaphysics of morals. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kant, I. (1787/1997). The critique of practical reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

Klucharev, V., Hytonen, K., Rijpkema, M., Smidts, A., & Fernandez, G. (2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts social conformity. Neuron, 61, 140–51,

doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.027. Krueger, J., & Massey, A. L. (2009). A rational reconstruction of misbehavior. Social

Cognition, 27, 786–812, doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.786.

Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley. Nichols, S., & Mallon, R. (2006). Moral dilemmas and moral rules. Cognition, 100,

530–542, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.005.

Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219–1222, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x.

Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G., & Jordan, A. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109, doi: 10.1177/0146167208317771.

Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2012). Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects

on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind & Language, 27, 135–153.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another

contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.

Valdesolo, P., & Desteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape

moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477, doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2006.01731.x.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 77, 337–349.

MORALITY AND CONFORMITY 279