Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal

A moral dilemma with a tail

Richard L Topolski, J. Nicole Weaver, Zachary Martin, Jason McCoy

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Neuroscientific studies indicate moral cognition involves a cognitive struggle between two systems in the brain: the emotional "hot" system and the rational "cold" system. Past research has shown that when presented with personal dilemmas, individuals showed greater brain activity in the hot system areas. However, when further probed about their decisions, moral dumbfounding often occurs. Family selection may help explain moral judgments. Oftentimes, people consider their pets as part of their family. Based on the past research on moral decision-making, the current study presented a novel approach to exploring moral decision-making by forcing participants to choose to save the life between biological family and psychological-kin. Participants (n = 573) were given moral dilemmas and forced to decide whether to save humans or pets from imminent death. The level of relationship between the human shifted six times (foreign tourist, hometown stranger, distant cousin, best friend, grandparent, and sibling), while relationship to the pet had two levels (your pet, someone else's pet). Willingness to save a pet over a human consistently decreased as level of relationship between the participant and the human in the scenario increased. Participants were also more likely to save their own pet over a human life than someone else's pet over a human life. The results suggest that pets are often viewed as psychological-kin. Females were found to be more likely to save their pets over non-immediate family members than males (all ps < 0.05), suggesting that males and females may differ in the structure of their moral reasoning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)253-263
Number of pages11
JournalAnthrozoos
Volume26
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2013

Fingerprint

Pets
pets
Tail
tail
Dogs
dogs
brain
decision making
moral judgement
family member
cognition
tourist
scenario
death
Decision Making
Psychology
grandparents
tourists
Brain
Research

Keywords

  • Evolutionary psychology
  • Gender differences
  • Kin selection
  • Moral reasoning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Anthropology
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • veterinary (miscalleneous)
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal : A moral dilemma with a tail. / Topolski, Richard L; Nicole Weaver, J.; Martin, Zachary; McCoy, Jason.

In: Anthrozoos, Vol. 26, No. 2, 01.06.2013, p. 253-263.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Topolski, Richard L ; Nicole Weaver, J. ; Martin, Zachary ; McCoy, Jason. / Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal : A moral dilemma with a tail. In: Anthrozoos. 2013 ; Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 253-263.
@article{7fba045a37714cac9b8e5d27fddbf785,
title = "Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal: A moral dilemma with a tail",
abstract = "Neuroscientific studies indicate moral cognition involves a cognitive struggle between two systems in the brain: the emotional {"}hot{"} system and the rational {"}cold{"} system. Past research has shown that when presented with personal dilemmas, individuals showed greater brain activity in the hot system areas. However, when further probed about their decisions, moral dumbfounding often occurs. Family selection may help explain moral judgments. Oftentimes, people consider their pets as part of their family. Based on the past research on moral decision-making, the current study presented a novel approach to exploring moral decision-making by forcing participants to choose to save the life between biological family and psychological-kin. Participants (n = 573) were given moral dilemmas and forced to decide whether to save humans or pets from imminent death. The level of relationship between the human shifted six times (foreign tourist, hometown stranger, distant cousin, best friend, grandparent, and sibling), while relationship to the pet had two levels (your pet, someone else's pet). Willingness to save a pet over a human consistently decreased as level of relationship between the participant and the human in the scenario increased. Participants were also more likely to save their own pet over a human life than someone else's pet over a human life. The results suggest that pets are often viewed as psychological-kin. Females were found to be more likely to save their pets over non-immediate family members than males (all ps < 0.05), suggesting that males and females may differ in the structure of their moral reasoning.",
keywords = "Evolutionary psychology, Gender differences, Kin selection, Moral reasoning",
author = "Topolski, {Richard L} and {Nicole Weaver}, J. and Zachary Martin and Jason McCoy",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2752/175303713X13636846944321",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "253--263",
journal = "Anthrozoos",
issn = "0892-7936",
publisher = "Berg Publishers",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal

T2 - A moral dilemma with a tail

AU - Topolski, Richard L

AU - Nicole Weaver, J.

AU - Martin, Zachary

AU - McCoy, Jason

PY - 2013/6/1

Y1 - 2013/6/1

N2 - Neuroscientific studies indicate moral cognition involves a cognitive struggle between two systems in the brain: the emotional "hot" system and the rational "cold" system. Past research has shown that when presented with personal dilemmas, individuals showed greater brain activity in the hot system areas. However, when further probed about their decisions, moral dumbfounding often occurs. Family selection may help explain moral judgments. Oftentimes, people consider their pets as part of their family. Based on the past research on moral decision-making, the current study presented a novel approach to exploring moral decision-making by forcing participants to choose to save the life between biological family and psychological-kin. Participants (n = 573) were given moral dilemmas and forced to decide whether to save humans or pets from imminent death. The level of relationship between the human shifted six times (foreign tourist, hometown stranger, distant cousin, best friend, grandparent, and sibling), while relationship to the pet had two levels (your pet, someone else's pet). Willingness to save a pet over a human consistently decreased as level of relationship between the participant and the human in the scenario increased. Participants were also more likely to save their own pet over a human life than someone else's pet over a human life. The results suggest that pets are often viewed as psychological-kin. Females were found to be more likely to save their pets over non-immediate family members than males (all ps < 0.05), suggesting that males and females may differ in the structure of their moral reasoning.

AB - Neuroscientific studies indicate moral cognition involves a cognitive struggle between two systems in the brain: the emotional "hot" system and the rational "cold" system. Past research has shown that when presented with personal dilemmas, individuals showed greater brain activity in the hot system areas. However, when further probed about their decisions, moral dumbfounding often occurs. Family selection may help explain moral judgments. Oftentimes, people consider their pets as part of their family. Based on the past research on moral decision-making, the current study presented a novel approach to exploring moral decision-making by forcing participants to choose to save the life between biological family and psychological-kin. Participants (n = 573) were given moral dilemmas and forced to decide whether to save humans or pets from imminent death. The level of relationship between the human shifted six times (foreign tourist, hometown stranger, distant cousin, best friend, grandparent, and sibling), while relationship to the pet had two levels (your pet, someone else's pet). Willingness to save a pet over a human consistently decreased as level of relationship between the participant and the human in the scenario increased. Participants were also more likely to save their own pet over a human life than someone else's pet over a human life. The results suggest that pets are often viewed as psychological-kin. Females were found to be more likely to save their pets over non-immediate family members than males (all ps < 0.05), suggesting that males and females may differ in the structure of their moral reasoning.

KW - Evolutionary psychology

KW - Gender differences

KW - Kin selection

KW - Moral reasoning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877351532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877351532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2752/175303713X13636846944321

DO - 10.2752/175303713X13636846944321

M3 - Review article

VL - 26

SP - 253

EP - 263

JO - Anthrozoos

JF - Anthrozoos

SN - 0892-7936

IS - 2

ER -