Why (and how) should we study the interplay between emotional arousal, Theory of Mind, and inhibitory control to understand moral cognition?

Abstract

Findings in the field of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience have shed new light on our understanding of the psychological and biological bases of morality. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to understanding the processes that underlie complex moral dilemmas, attempts to represent the way in which individuals generate moral judgments when processing basic harmful actions are rare. Here, we will outline a model of morality which proposes that the evaluation of basic harmful actions relies on complex interactions between emotional arousal, Theory of Mind (ToM) capacities, and inhibitory control resources. This model makes clear predictions regarding the cognitive processes underlying the development of and ability to generate moral judgments. We draw on data from developmental and cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychopathology research to evaluate the model and propose several conceptual and methodological improvements that are needed to further advance our understanding of moral cognition and its development.

Keywords: Causation; Dual processes model; Empathy; Inhibitory control; Intention; Morality; Theory of mind.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of Greene’s dual processes model of moral judgment. This figure describes the processes underlying individuals’ judgment about (a) the Trolley dilemma and (b) the Footbridge dillema

Fig. 2

The ETIC (E=emotional arousal, T=theory of mind, IC=inhibitory control) model of morality. Schematic representation of the processes involved in moral judgment about agents who committed intentional harm, accidental harm, and attempted harm. (a) An intentional harm. Mr Blue is on a swing, sees Mr Red arriving and strikes him. His intention is negative (to strike Mr. Red) and his causal role is negative too (he strikes Mr. Red). (b) An accidental harm. Mr Blue is on a swing with his back to Mr Red and hits him accidentally. His intention is neutral (to swing) but his causal role is negative (he swings back and hits Mr Red). (c) An attempted harm. Mr Blue is on a swing, sees Mr Red arriving and tries to hit him. Mr Blue intention is negative (to hit Mr Red) but his causal role is neutral (he fails to hit Mr Red)