Effects of anxious and avoidant attachment on moral judgment

14 Pages·2014·1.15 MB·English

JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp
Empathy for the group versus indifference toward the victim: Effects of
anxious and avoidant attachment on moral judgment
⁎
JeffreyS.Robinson ,SamanthaJoel,JasonE.Plaks
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofToronto,Canada
H I G H L I G H T S
•Attachmentanxietyandattachmentavoidancepredictutilitarianmoraljudgments.
•Anxiouslyattachedindividualsmakeutilitarianjudgmentsformore‘pro-group’reasonsandactoutofaneedtobelongandafocusonthewelfareofthegroupas
awhole.
•Avoidantlyattachedindividualsmakeutilitarianjudgmentsbecausetheylackempathyforthevictim,whichoriginatesinadiscomfortincaringforothers.
•Anxiouslyattachedindividualsmodifytheirmoraljudgmentstomatchthedesiresofthegroup.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Researchondeontologicalversusutilitarianmoralreasoninghasbeenlargelysilentonhowinterpersonal
Received29May2014 experiencesshapemoraljudgment.Wehypothesizedthatbothanxiousandavoidantattachmentwouldpredict
Revised29September2014 thepropensitytomakeutilitarianversusdeontologicaljudgments,butviadifferentpathways.InStudies1and2,
Availableonline6October2014
thelinkbetweenanxiousattachmentandutilitarianismwasmediatedbytheneedtobelongandempathy
towardthegroup.Incontrast,thelinkbetweenavoidantattachmentandutilitarianismwasmediatedby
Keywords:
discomfortwithcaringforothersanddecreasedempathytowardtheindividualvictim.InStudy3,themoral
Moraljudgment
judgmentsofanxiouslyattachedindividualschangedtomorecloselymatchthegroup'sdesiredoutcome:
Attachment
Utilitarianism utilitarianordeontological.Incontrast,thejudgmentsofavoidantlyattachedindividualsmovedinopposition
Deontology tothedesireofthegroup.Thedistinctpathstoutilitarianismdisplayedbyanxiousandavoidantindividuals
suggestthatutilitarianismmayresultfromadiversesetofpsychologicalprocesses.
©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Shouldmoraldecisionsbeguidedbyadherencetocertainuniversal Lowenberg,Nystrom,&Cohen,2008;Greeneetal.,2001),working
rulesorbytheaimtomaximizebenefitforthegreatestnumberof memorycapacity,(Moore,Clark,&Kane,2008),andrational(Bartels,
people?Thistensionbetweendeontological(Kant,1959/1785)and 2008; Paxton, Ungar, & Greene, 2011) and/or deliberate (Suter &
utilitarian (Mill, 1998/1861) moral philosophies is exemplified by Hertwig,2011)stylesofthinking.
dilemmasinwhichparticipantsmustindicatewhethertheyfindit Morerecentresearchhasbeguntorefinetheprevailingdual-process
morally acceptable to kill one person in order to save the lives of model.Forexample,ConwayandGawronski(2013)demonstratedthat
multipleothers(e.g.,Foot,1967;Thomson,1985). peoplemayarriveatutilitarianjudgmentsvia1)endorsementofthe
Muchoftherecentresearchondeontological/utilitarianreasoning utilitarian position or 2) rejection of the deontological position. A
has focused on the differential roles of emotional versus cognitive parallelmaybedrawnfordeontologicaljudgments.Thepresentstudies
processes.Neurophysiologicalstudieshavelinkeddeontologicaljudg- buildonthisideabyidentifyingawell-studied,individualdifference
mentwithhigheractivityinbrainregionsimplicatedinemotionality variablethatpredictsaprioriwhowillfollowoneoftworoutesto
(Greene,Sommerville,Nystrom,Darley,&Cohen,2001;Koenigsetal., utilitarianjudgment.
2007).Otherstudieshavelinkedutilitarianjudgmentswithincreased Inaddition,whereasmuchoftheearlyworkinthisliteraturewas
activationinbrainregionsimplicatedinreasoning(Greene,Morelli, largelysilentregardingtheinterpersonalorrelationaldimensionsof
moraljudgment,researchershaveincreasinglyarguedfortheneedto
placemoralperceiverswithintheirbroadersocialcontext.Forexample,
studieshavedemonstratedthatindividuals'moralbeliefsareheavily
⁎ Correspondingauthorat:DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofToronto,100St.
influencedbytheirsurroundingculture(Grahametal.,2013;Rai&
GeorgeSt.4thFloor,Toronto,ONM5S3G3,Canada.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](J.S.Robinson). Fiske,2011;Shweder,Mahapatra,&Miller,1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.017
0022-1031/©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
140 J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
Morerecently,Koleva,Selterman,Iyer,Ditto,andGraham(2014) followsthatattachmentstylemayalsohelptoexplainpeople'sdiffering
identifiedanimportantinterpersonalvariablethatmayalsoplayan perspectivesonutilitarianmoraldilemmas.
importantroleinmoraljudgment:attachmentstyle.Theyreported
thatanxiouslyattachedindividualsshowgreaterpreoccupationwithis-
Differentpathstoutilitarianism
suesofharm,fairness,andpurity,whileavoidantlyattachedindividuals
showalackofconcernforharmandfairnessviolations.Inaddition,the
Whenpresentedwithautilitariandilemma,thedecisionmakeris
authorsfoundthathigherattachmentavoidancepredictedagreater
askedtochoosebetweenkillingversusnotkillingonepersoninorder
tendencytomakeutilitarianjudgments,aneffectthatwasmediated
tosaveagroup.Weproposethattherearetwodistinctpathsthrough
bylowertraitempathy.Ofparticularinteresttothecurrentresearch,
whichonecouldreachtheutilitariandecisionofkillingthepersonto
Kolevaetal.(2014)alsoreported(inatable)thatattachmentanxiety
savethegroup.Onesuchpathisthroughlackofconcernfortheindivid-
predictedgreaterutilitarianjudgment.Theydidnot,however,discuss ualbeingsacrificed.Ifthedecisionmakerdoesnotfeelparticularly
thisassociationanyfurther. movedbytheplightofthewould-besacrificedindividual,thenheor
Thepresentresearchbringsthislinkbetweenanxiousattachment shemaybemorewillingtosacrificethatindividualinexchangefor
andutilitarianismtotheforefront.Wearguethatbyexaminingand
thegreatergood.However,asecondpathtotheutilitarianconclusion
comparinghowbothformsofinsecureattachmentinfluencemoral
isthroughaheightenedconcernforthegroup.Decisionmakerscould
judgment,onecanelucidate1)howinterpersonalexperiencesinflu- choosetosacrificeanindividualnotbecausetheylackempathyfor
encemoraljudgmentand2)begintoisolatedistinctvarietiesoflay
that individual, but because their concern for the wellbeing of the
utilitarianism.
groupoutweighstheirconcernforthesingleindividual.Wediscuss
Wesuspectedthatattachmentanxietywouldpredictutilitarian
nexthowattachmentstylemayrelatetoeachofthesepathways.
judgmentthroughadifferentroutethanthatofattachmentavoidance.
In particular, we hypothesized that whereas avoidant participants
Avoidantattachment
wouldselecttheutilitarianoptionoutoflackofconcernforthesac-
rificed individual, anxious participants would select the utilitarian
Kolevaetal.(2014)foundthatavoidantattachmentwasassociated
optioninordertomaximizesocialapproval.Weturnnexttotheratio-
withhigherutilitarianjudgmentandthatthiseffectwasmediatedby
naleforthishypothesis.
lowertraitlevelsofempathicconcern.Onepurposeofthepresent
paper was to unpack this association by asking toward whom do
avoidantlyattachedindividualslackempathy?
Theinterpersonalrootsofmoraljudgment
Avoidantlyattachedpeoplearedeeplyuncomfortablewithhaving
othersrelyonthem:beingaskedtocareforanotherpersonthreatens
Whereasmuchofthemoraljudgmentliteraturehastreatedthe
avoidantlyattachedindividuals'strongneedforindependenceandau-
moral decision maker as an isolated entity, there is evidence from
tonomy (Shaver, Mikulincer, & Shemesh-Iron, 2010). As a result,
bothclassicandrecentsourcesthatindividuals'moraljudgmentsare
avoidantlyattachedindividualsarerelativelyunwillingtoprovidecom-
meaningfullyshapedbytheirhistoryofinterpersonalrelationships
fortandsupporttotheirromanticpartners,particularlywhentheir
(e.g., Kogut& Kogut, 2013; Koleva et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983). Why
partnersareinastateofdistress(Feeney&Collins,2001).Wesuggest
mightthisbethecase?Theoristshavelongnotedthatmoralvalues
thatthistendencyappliesbeyondromanticcontexts;encountering
are not only beliefs about how we ought to act toward others but
any individual in distress is a threatening situation for avoidant
alsoexpectationsabouthowotherswillacttowardus(Kohlberg,1969;
individuals.
Turiel, 1983). Given that a fundamental source of interpersonal
The‘victim’inautilitariandilemmarepresentsaparticularlyvivid
behavioralexpectationsiseachindividual'shistoryofsecureorinsecure
caseofanindividualindistress.Thus,wepredictthat,duetotheirdis-
interpersonalrelationships(Bowlby,1969),theremaybeastrongc-
comfortwithcaregiving,peoplewhoarehighinavoidancewilldisplay
onnectionbetweenattachmentstyleandmoralreasoning.
lessempathyforthevictimthanwillpeoplewhoarelowinavoidance.
Accordingtoattachmenttheory,earlyattachment-relatedexperi-
Similareffectshavebeendocumentedforparticipantswhowerehighin
enceswithcaregiversteachchildrenimportantlessonsabouthowtore-
Machiavellianismandpsychopathy(Bartels&Pizarro,2011;Koenigs,
latetocloseothers(e.g.,Bowlby,1969;Zayas,Mischel,Shoda,&Aber,
Kruepke,Zeier,&Newman,2012).However,becausegroupsaremore
2011).Thoselessonsare,inturn,appliedtoadultrelationshipslaterin
abstracttargetsthanindividuals(Lickeletal.,2000)andgroupsgener-
life(e.g.,Mikulincer&Shaver,2007).Caregiverswhoareconsistently
allyelicitlessempathythandoindividuals(Cameron&Payne,2011;
availableandattentiveteachthechildthatcloseotherscanberelied
Slovic,2007),thedifferencebetweenhighandlowavoidantpartici-
uponintimesofneed.Thisresultsinasecureattachmentstyleinadult-
pantswillbelessevidentforgrouptargetsthanforindividualtargets.
hood,characterizedbyatendencytotrustandrelyonothers(Hazan&
Takentogether,wepredictthatbecausehighavoidantsdisplaylessem-
Shaver,1987).Caregiverswhoprovidecareinconsistentlyorinsensi-
pathythanlowavoidantsforthevictim,butsimilarlevelsofempathy
tivelyteachthechildthatcloseothersarenotreliablyavailablefor
forthegroup,highavoidantswillshowagreaterpreferencethanlow
care.Theseuncertainmodelsofselfandothertranslateintoananxious
avoidantsfortheoptionthatfavorsthegroupoverthevictim.
attachmentstyleinadulthood,characterizedbyexcessivedependence
oncloseothers.Finally,caregiverswhoareabsentorpunishingofthe
child'sdemandsforreassuranceteachthechildthatrelyingonothers Anxiousattachment
isfutileatbest,anddangerousatworst.Thesenegativemodelsofself
andothertranslatetoanavoidantattachmentstyleinadulthood,char- Kolevaetal.(2014)furtherfoundapositiveassociationbetween
acterizedbyadiscomfortwithclosenesswithothers. attachmentanxietyandutilitarianism.Asecondpurposeofthepresent
Considerableevidencesuggeststhatadultattachmentrepresentsa researchwastounpackthisassociationtounderstandwhyanxiously
fundamentallensthathelpstoshapepeople'sconstrualoftheactions attachedindividualswouldbedrawntoutilitarianjudgments.Unlike
ofothers(Mikulincer&Shaver,2007).Assuch,attachmentstyleap- avoidantlyattachedindividuals,anxiouslyattachedindividualsarenot
pearstoplayanimportantroleinshapingpeople'smoralperspectives. threatened by the prospect of giving care to others (Shaver et al.,
Attachmentstylehasbeenfoundtopredictawiderangeofmorally- 2010).Therefore,itseemsunlikelythatanxiouslyattachedindividuals
relevantbehavior,includinglyingtoothers(e.g.,Ennis,Vrij,&Chance, preferutilitarianjudgmentsbecausetheylackempathyfortheperson
2008),volunteeringfornon-profitorganizations(e.g.,Gillathetal., beingsacrificed.Rather,wehypothesizedthatanxiouslyattachedindi-
2005),andsellingone'smaterialpossessions(Kogut&Kogut,2011).It vidualschoosetheutilitarianoptionbecause(relativetobothavoidant
J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152 141
peopleandsecurepeople)theyexperienceheightenedempathyforthe Materialsandprocedure
group.
Anxiouslyattachedindividualscraveapproval,connection,andre- Aspartofalargersurvey,participantscompletedasetofques-
assurance from others, but are uncertain that they will receive it tionnaires(AttachmentStyleQuestionnaire,BigFiveAspectsScale,
(e.g.,Feeney&Noller,1990;Rom&Mikulincer,2003).Thisuncertainty InterpersonalReactivityIndex,andtheConsequentialistScale)and
fostersastrongneedtobelongandmotivatescontinualeffortstogain evaluatedsixutilitariandilemmas.The orderof thequestionnaires
theapprovalofothers,includingagreaterwillingnesstocomplywith andmoraldilemmaswasrandomizedtocontrolforanyeffectsofitem
others'requests(e.g.,Impett&Peplau,2002).Inagroupcontext,the presentation.
bestwaytogainwidespreadacceptancewouldbetoconformtothe
desiresofthegroupasawhole,ratherthananyspecificindividual.For AttachmentStyleQuestionnaire
example,intheparadigmatic‘trolleyproblem’,individualsareasked
whetheritispermissibletokilloneindividualtosavefive.Killingone (Feeney,Noller,&Hanrahan,1994).Attachmentanxietywasmea-
persontosavefive(theutilitarianoption)dispensesthegoodoutcome suredwith13items(e.g.,“Ifindthatothersarereluctanttogetas
(survival)tomorepeople,therebypotentiallycreatingmoreopportuni- closeasIwouldlike”,α=.89),andavoidancewasmeasuredwith16
tiesforgratitudeandsocialapproval.Therefore,weproposethata items(e.g.,“Iprefertodependonmyselfratherthanotherpeople”,
strongneedtobelongleadsanxiouslyattachedindividualstobemore α=.85).
sensitivetotheneedsofthegroup,leadingthemtoprefertheutilitarian
option. Moraldilemmas
Tosummarize,numerousstudiesindicatethatanxiousandavoidant
attachmentareassociatedwithdifferentinterpersonalmotivations(i.e. Mostconsequentialistmoraldilemmasusedinpreviousmorality
connectionanddistancing,respectively).Wesuggestthatthesediffer- researchinvolvetheextremeactofkilling,whichthevastmajorityof
ent motivational concerns precipitate different levels of sensitivity participantsrateasseverelywrong.Therefore,inordertoreduceceiling
(e.g.,Gardner,Pickett,&Brewer,2000;Higgins,King,&Mavin,1982; effects,weselectedvignetteswithhighdisagreementoverwhetherthe
Ulhmann,Pizarro,Tannenbaum,&Ditto,2009)tospecificaspectsof killing was justified. Of the total number of vignettes reported by
thedilemmasituation.Whereashighavoidantindividuals'discomfort Greeneetal.(2008),weidentifiedsixinwhichparticipantsmadethe
withcaregivingleadsthemtofocusless(thanlowavoidantindividuals) utilitarianjudgment(i.e.itisappropriatetokillonetosavemany)an
onthesacrificedindividual,highanxiouslyattachedindividuals'need averageof57%ofthetime(SeeTable1).Participantsevaluatedeach
forbelongingnessleadsthemtofocusmore(thanlowanxiouslyindi- ofthesixdilemmas.Afterreadingeachvignette,participantswere
viduals)onthegroup.Insum,wehypothesizedthatbothtypesofat- asked,“Basedonwhatyoujustread,howwrongwoulditbeforyou
tachmentinsecuritywouldpromoteutilitarianmoraljudgments,but [toactinautilitarianfashion,usingthespecificsofthescenariothey
fordifferentreasons. hadjustread]?”Participantswereaskedtoindicatetheirresponses
using a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 = not wrong at all and 7 =
completelywrong).Lowerratingsindicatemoreutilitarianmoraljudg-
Pretesting
mentswhilehigherratingsindicateamoredeontologicaljudgment.
Wrongnessratingsacrossthesixdilemmaswerehighlyreliable,α=
First,becausethezero-ordercorrelationbetweenattachmentanxi-
.80.Therefore,wrongnessratingsacrossthesixdilemmaswereaggre-
etyandutilitarianismreportedbyKolevaetal.(2014)wassmall(r=
gatedintoasinglevariable.
.09,pb.05,n=7533),wedeemeditnecessarytotestwhetherthisas-
sociationwouldreplicate.Thisisbecauseanalternativehypothesis
Consequentialistscale
seemedplausibletous:anxiouslyattachedpeople'shighneedtobelong
mayleadthemtoadhereespeciallyferventlytosocietalrules,inthe
Participants'responsestoclassicutilitariandilemmasdonotdirectly
hopesofbeingidentifiedasanacceptedandvaluedmemberofthe
assesstheirendorsementofmoregeneralizeddeontologicalorutilitar-
group(e.g.,Hechter&Opp,2001;Posner,2000).Therefore,ourfirstpri-
ianbeliefs.Forinstance,peoplemaymakeadeontologicaljudgmentnot
oritywastotestwhetheranxiouslyattachedindividuals'strongneedto
because they endorse the deontological position but because they
belongwouldleadthemtomakemoreutilitarianjudgmentsormore
opposetheutilitarianoption(Conway&Gawronski,2013).Therefore,
deontologicaljudgments.
weincludedanadditionalmeasureofgeneraldeontologicalandutilitar-
Thesecondgoalofpretestingwastoaccountforthepotentialcon-
iantendenciesthatwasindependentofspecificdilemmas.Participants
foundoftraitneuroticism.Neuroticismreferstoageneralproneness
completedtheConsequentialistScale(Robinson,2012).Thismeasure
tonegativeaffect.Assuch,neuroticbehavioroverlapswithanxiousbe-
contains10items,fivethatassessendorsementofutilitarianbeliefs
havior.Itmaybethatneuroticismexplainstherelationshipbetween
(e.g.“Theonlymoralprinciplethatneedstobefollowedisthatone
anxiousattachmentandreactionstowardawrongdoer.Previousresults
mustmaximizehappiness”)andfivethatassessdeontologicalbeliefs
suggest,however,thatwhereasneuroticismisagoodpredictorofemo-
(e.g.“Somerulesshouldneverbebroken”).Participantswereaskedto
tionalresponsestonegativeeventsingeneral,anxiousattachmentisa
readeachstatementandindicate,usinga5-pointLikertscale(1=
betterpredictorofemotionalresponsestonegativeinterpersonalevents
CompletelyDisagree,5=CompletelyAgree),howmuchtheyagreed
inparticular(Joel,MacDonald,&Plaks,2012).Giventheinterpersonal
witheachstatement.Thedeontologicalbeliefssub-scaleshowedgood
natureofutilitarianversusdeontologicaldilemmas,wepredictedthat
internalreliability,α=.74.Theutilitarianbeliefssub-scalealsodemon-
theassociationbetweenattachmentanxietyandutilitarianjudgment
stratedgoodinternalreliability,α=.83.Inaddition,anEFAandCFA
wouldremainsignificantevenwhencontrollingforneuroticism.
wereconductedtovalidatethelatentvariablestructureandtoensure
thattheitemsincludedweretappingintotheintendedconstructs.For
Method afullerdescriptionofthevalidationofthismeasure,seeSupplementary
OnlineMaterial.
Participants
Neuroticism
Werecruited1205residents(464males,5providedanalternate
genderidentification)oftheUnitedStatesthroughAmazonMechanical Inaddition,wemeasuredthepotentialconfoundoftraitneuro-
Turk.Theaverageageoftheparticipantswas32.09(range=18–74). ticism.TraitneuroticismwasassessedbycombiningtheVolatilityand
142 J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
Table1
Dilemmasummary.
Originalname Dilemmasastheyappearedtoparticipants %Utilitarianjudgment
Vitamindeficiency Youaretheleaderofamountaineeringexpeditionthatisstrandedinthewilderness. 35%
Yourexpeditionincludesafamilyofsixthathasageneticallycausedvitamindeficiency.
Afewpeople'skidneyscontainlargeamountsofthisvitamin.
Thereisonesuchpersoninyourparty.Theonlywaytosavethelivesofthesixmembersof
thisfamilyistoremoveoneofthisman'skidneyssothatthenecessaryvitaminsmaybe
extractedfromit.Themanwillnotdieifyoudothis,buthishealthwillbecompromised.
Themanisopposedtothisplan,butyouhavethepowertodoasyouseefit.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutoforciblyremovetheman'skidneyinordertosavethe
livesofthesixvitamin-deficientpeople?
Lifeboat Youareonacruiseshipwhenthereisafireonboard,andtheshiphastobeabandoned. 71%
Thelifeboatsarecarryingmanymorepeoplethantheyweredesignedtocarry.
Thelifeboatyou'reinissittingdangerouslylowinthewater—afewinchesloweranditwillsink.
Theseasstarttogetrough,andtheboatbeginstofillwithwater.Ifnothingisdoneitwillsink
beforetherescueboatsarriveandeveryoneonboardwilldie.However,thereisaninjured
personwhowillnotsurviveinanycase.Ifyouthrowthatpersonoverboardtheboatwillstay
afloatandtheremainingpassengerswillbesaved.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutothrowtheinjuredpersonoverboardinordertosavethelivesof
theremainingpassengersonthelifeboat?
Sacrifice You,yourspouse,andyourfourchildrenarecrossingamountainrangeonyourreturnjourneyto 51%
yourhomeland.Youhaveinadvertentlysetupcamponalocalclan'ssacredburialground.
Theleaderoftheclansaysthataccordingtothelocallaws,youandyourfamilymustbeputtodeath.
However,hewillletyourself,yourspouse,andyourthreeotherchildrenliveif
youyourselfwillkillyouroldestchild.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutokillyouroldestchildinordertosaveyourspouseandyourotherthreechildren?
Sophie'schoice Itiswartimeandyouandyourtwochildren,ageseightandfive,arelivingina 62%
territorythathasbeenoccupiedbytheenemy.Attheenemy'sheadquartersisadoctorwho
performspainfulexperimentsonhumansthatinevitablyleadtodeath.
Heintendstoperformexperimentsononeofyourchildren,buthewillallowyouto
choosewhichofyourchildrenwillbeexperimentedupon.Youhavetwenty-fourhoursto
bringoneofyourchildrentohislaboratory.
Ifyourefusetobringoneofyourchildrentohislaboratoryhewillfindthembothandexperimentonbothofthem.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutobringoneofyourchildrentothelaboratoryinorderto
avoidhavingbothofthemdie?
Euthanasia Youaretheleaderofasmallgroupofsoldiers.Youareonyourwaybackfromacompleted 63%
missiondeepinenemyterritorywhenoneofyourmenhassteppedinatrapthathasbeenset
bytheenemyandisbadlyinjured.Thetrapisconnectedtoaradiodevicethatbynowhas
alertedtheenemytoyourpresence.Theywillsoonbeontheirway.
Iftheenemyfindsyourinjuredmantheywilltorturehimandkillhim.Hebegsyounottoleave
himbehind,butifyoutrytotakehimwithyouyourentiregroupwillbecaptured.
Theonlywaytopreventthisinjuredsoldierfrombeingtorturedistoshoothimyourself.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutoshootthissoldierinordertopreventhimfrombeingtorturedbytheenemy?
Cryingbaby Enemysoldiershavetakenoveryourvillage.Theyhaveorderstokillallremainingcivilians. 60%
Youandsomeofyourtownspeoplehavesoughtrefugeinthecellarofalargehouse.
Outsideyouhearthevoicesofsoldierswhohavecometosearchthehouseforvaluables.
Yourbabybeginstocryloudly.Youcoverhismouthtoblockthesound.Ifyouremoveyour
handfromhismouthhiscryingwillsummontheattentionofthesoldierswhowillkillyou,
yourchild,andtheothershidingoutinthecellar.
Tosaveyourselfandtheothersyoumustsmotheryourchildtodeath.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutosmotheryourchildinordertosaveyourselfandtheothertownspeople?
Withdrawalsub-scalesoftheBigFiveAspectScale(BFAS)(DeYoung, betweenutilitarianismandanxiousattachment.InStep1,wrongness
Quilty,&Peterson,2007),α=.91(e.g.“Igetupseteasily”,“Iamfilled ratingswereregressedonneuroticismandrevealedasignificantrela-
withdoubtsaboutthings”). tionship,R2=.07,F(1,1197)=6.07,pb.02.InStep2,anxiousand
avoidantattachmentwereaddedtothemodel.Themodelthatincluded
Resultsanddiscussion anxious and avoidant attachment accounted for significantly more
Wrongnessratings
Table2
Pre-test:Correlationbetweenvariables.
Acorrelationmatrix(Table2)isprovidedforthevariablesofinter-
est.Bothanxiousattachment,r(1203)=−.16,pb.001,andavoidant Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
attachment, r(1203) = −.11, p b.001, were negatively correlated 1.Wrongnessratings –
withwrongnessratings,indicatingthatbothformsofattachmentinse- 2.Anxiousattachment −.16⁎⁎ –
curitypredictedratingtheutilitariancourseofactionaslesswrong. 3.Avoidantattachment −.11⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ –
4.Deontologicalbeliefs .43⁎⁎ .01 −.14⁎⁎ –
5.Utilitarianbeliefs −.19⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ –
Attachmentinsecurityversusneuroticism 6.Empathicconcern .29⁎⁎ −.06⁎ −.32⁎⁎ .3⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎ –
7.Neuroticism −.07⁎ .67⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ −.001 .12⁎⁎ −.06⁎ –
AsdepictedinTable2,bothanxiousandavoidantattachmentwere
Note:Increasedwrongnessratingsindicateastrongerdeontologicalmoraljudgment.
associatedwithneuroticism.Weconductedahierarchicalregression ⁎⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed).
analysistotestwhetherneuroticismwouldexplaintheassociation ⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2-tailed).
J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152 143
variancethanthemodelthatonlyincludedneuroticism,R2Δ=.02, avoidantattachment.Ahierarchicalregressionanalysiswithneuro-
F(2,1195)=14.04,pb.001.Inaddition,thesecondmodelrevealed ticismaddedfirstandattachmentanxietyaddedsecondshowedthat
asignificanteffectforattachmentanxiety,b=−.27,SE=.06,t(1195)= whileattachmentanxietysignificantlypredictedwrongnessratings,
−4.43,pb.001,d=.26,buttherewasnosignificanteffectofneuroti- b=−.29,SE=.06,t(1196)=−5.17,pb.001,d=.30,theunique
cism,b=.13,SE=.08,t(1195)=1.71,p=.09,d=.10,orattachment effectofneuroticismwasnotsignificant,b=.12,SE=.08,t(1196)=
avoidance,b=−.09,SE=.06,t(1195)=−1.47,p=.17,d=.08. 1.6,p=.12,d=.09.Asecondanalysisthatsubstitutedattachment
Given that anxious and avoidant attachment were significantly avoidanceforattachmentanxietyshowedthatwhileattachmentavoid-
correlated,r(1203)=.47,pb.001,avoidantattachmentmaynothave ancesignificantlypredictedwrongnessratings,b=−.17,SE=.06,
significantlycontributedtothepredictionofwrongnessratingsinthe t(1196) = −2.9, p b .01,d =.17, neuroticism did not,b = −.07,
fullmodelduetooverlappingvariance.Toaddressthispossibility,we SE=.06,t(1196)=−1.18,p=.24,d=.07.Thus,whenassessed
re-conducted theanalyses separately foranxious attachment, then separately, both anxious attachment and avoidant attachment
Table3
Dilemmasummary.
Originalname Dilemmasastheyappearedtoparticipants. %Utilitarianjudgment
Vitamindeficiency Youaretheleaderofamountaineeringexpeditionthatisstrandedinthewilderness. 35%
Yourexpeditionincludesafamilyofsixthathasageneticallycausedvitamindeficiency.
Afewpeople'skidneyscontainlargeamountsofthisvitamin.Thereisonesuchpersonin
yourparty.Theonlywaytosavethelivesofthesixmembersofthisfamilyistoremove
oneofthisman'skidneyssothatthenecessaryvitaminsmaybeextractedfromit.
Themanwillnotdieifyoudothis,buthishealthwillbecompromised.
Themanisopposedtothisplan,butyouhavethepowertodoasyouseefit.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutoforciblyremovetheman'skidneyinordertosavethe
livesofthesixvitamin-deficientpeople?
Nuclearreactor Youaretheinspectorofanuclearpowerplantthatyoususpecthasnotmetitssafetyrequirements. 50%
Theplantforemanandyouaretouringthefacilitywhenoneofthenuclearfuelrodsoverheats.
Theemergencycoolantsystemfailstoactivate,andachainreactionisabouttobeginwhich
willresultinanuclearmeltdown.
Thiswillreleaselethalradiationintothenearbytown,killingthousandsofpeople.
Yourealizethattheonlywaytostopthemeltdownistopushtheforemanintothefuelrodassembly.
Thiswillremovejustenoughheatenergyfromtherodassemblytopreventthenuclearchainreaction.
However,itwillalsoincineratetheforemaninstantly.
Howwrongwoulditbetopushtheforemanintothefuelrodassemblyinorderto
savethepeopleinthenearbytown?
Modifiedvaccine Aviralepidemichasspreadacrosstheglobekillingthousandsofpeople.Youareamedical 55.7%
researcherandhavedevelopedtwosubstancesinyourlaboratory.Youknowthatoneofthem
isavaccine,butyoudon'tknowwhichbecausebothofthevialshavebeenmislabeledasvaccine.
Youalsoknowthattheothersubstanceisdeadly.Onceyoufigureoutwhichsubstanceisthe
vaccineyoucancreatemoretosavethousandsoflives.Youhavetwolabassistantswhoworkwithyou,
andtheonlywaytoidentifythevaccinewithcertaintyistoinjectthetwosubstancesintothese
peopleagainsttheirwishes.
Onepersonwilllive,theotherwilldie,andyouwillbeabletostartsavingliveswithyourvaccine.
Howwrongwoulditbetoadministerthetwovaccinestothelabassistantsinordertofindthecurefor
thespreadingepidemic?
Sophie'schoice Itiswartimeandyouandyourtwochildren,ageseightandfive,arelivinginaterritorythathas 62%
beenoccupiedbytheenemy.Attheenemy'sheadquartersisadoctorwhoperformspainful
experimentsonhumansthatinevitablyleadtodeath.
Heintendstoperformexperimentsononeofyourchildren,buthewillallowyoutochoose
whichofyourchildrenwillbeexperimentedupon.Youhavetwenty-fourhourstobringoneof
yourchildrentohislaboratory.
Ifyourefusetobringoneofyourchildrentohislaboratoryhewillfindthembothand
experimentonbothofthem.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutobringoneofyourchildrentothelaboratoryinorderto
avoidhavingbothofthemdie?
NobelPrize Youandafellowresearcherhavediscoveredapowerfulnewenergysourcethatischeap,safe,andclean. 40%
Yourealizethatthiscouldleadtotheeliminationofpollutionandpovertyaroundtheworld.
However,yourcolleaguewantstosellthisdiscovery.
Youknowyourcolleaguewellenoughtoknowthathewillsellthediscoverytothehighest
bidderatthefirstopportunity.Youknowthatheplanstocontactthepotentialbuyerstoday,
someofwhomwillcertainlytrytousethisasahorribleweapon.
Theonlywaythatyoucanpreventhimfromdoingsoistopoisonhimwithanextremelydeadly
chemicalnormallyfoundinthelabworkingonthesetypesofprojects.
Everyonewillthinkthatitwasjustalabaccident,andthediscoverywillnotbesoldtothose
whomightcreateaweaponoutofit.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutopoisonyourcolleagueinordertopreventyourdiscoveryfrom
beingturnedintoahorribleweapon?
Cryingbaby Enemysoldiershavetakenoveryourvillage.Theyhaveorderstokillallremainingcivilians. 60%
Youandsomeofyourtownspeoplehavesoughtrefugeinthecellarofalargehouse.
Outsideyouhearthevoicesofsoldierswhohavecometosearchthehouseforvaluables.
Yourbabybeginstocryloudly.Youcoverhismouthtoblockthesound.Ifyouremoveyour
handfromhismouthhiscryingwillsummontheattentionofthesoldierswhowillkillyou,
yourchild,andtheothershidingoutinthecellar.
Tosaveyourselfandtheothersyoumustsmotheryourchildtodeath.
Howwrongwoulditbeforyoutosmotheryourchildinordertosaveyourselfandtheothertownspeople?
144 J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
continuedtopredictwrongnessratingsfortheutilitarianactionover Reactor,Vaccine,andNobelPrize)(Greeneetal.,2008;Mooreetal.,
andaboveneuroticism.1 2008).Wrongnessratingsacrossthesixdilemmaswerereliable,α=
.76.Therefore,weaggregatedtheratingsintoasinglevariable.
RelationshipofattachmentstyletoConsequentialistScale
AttachmentStyleQuestionnaire
RecallthattheConsequentialistScalemeasuresendorsementof
statementssupportingageneralizeddeontologicalorutilitarianposi- (Feeneyetal.,1994).Attachmentanxietywasmeasuredwith13
tion(independentofanyspecificscenario).Wefoundthatanxious items(e.g.,“IfindthatothersarereluctanttogetascloseasIwould
attachmentwaspositivelycorrelatedwiththeendorsementofgeneral- like”,α=.87),andavoidanceismeasuredwith16items(e.g.,“Iprefer
izedutilitarianstatements,r(1203)=.21,pb.001,butwasnotcorre- todependonmyselfratherthanotherpeople”,α=.85).
latedwiththeendorsementofgeneralizeddeontologicalstatements,
r(1203)=.01,p=.83.Avoidantattachmentwaspositivelycorrelated
Needtobelong
withendorsementofutilitarianbeliefs,r(1203)=.16,pb.001,and
negatively correlated with endorsement of deontological beliefs,
(Leary,Kelly,Cottrell,&Schreindorfer,2005).Tenitemsmeasured
r(1203)=−.14,pb.001.Thishighlightsaninterestingasymmetrybe- individuals'self-reportedneedtobelong(e.g.,“Iwantotherpeople
tween anxious and avoidant attachment. While both anxious and toacceptme”,α=.84),usingafive-pointscale,1=stronglydisagree,
avoidantattachmentwasassociatedwithgreaterendorsementofutili-
5=stronglyagree.
tarianbeliefs,onlyavoidantattachmentwasnegativelyassociatedwith
deontologicalbeliefs.Thisrelationshipsuggeststhat,comparedtoanx-
Discomfortwithcaregiving
iousindividuals,avoidantindividualsfeellessboundtoupholdmoral
principles.
(Shaveretal.,2010).TenitemsfromtheCaregivingSystemScale
Insummary,thepretestresultsdemonstratedthatbothanxiousand
measureddiscomfortwithcaregiving(e.g.,“Ifeeluncomfortablewhen
avoidantattachmentpredict(a)ratingtheutilitariancourseofactionas
I'mrequiredtohelpothers”,α=.91),usingaseven-pointscale,1=
lesswrongand(b)theendorsementofutilitarianconceptsmoregener-
stronglydisagree,7=stronglyagree.
ally.Theseassociations(whichweresmallinmagnitude)couldnotbe
explainedbytraitneuroticism.
Individualversusgroupfocusscale
Study1
Intypicaldeontological/utilitariandilemmas,oneindividualmustbe
InStudy1weturnedtoourmainpurpose:toidentifythemecha- sacrificedforthegoodofthegroup.Inthepresentstudy,wedevised
nismsfortheseassociations.As noted,weexpectedthatanxiously four questions to assess participants' subjective emphasis on the
attachedindividualswouldbemorelikelytoendorsetheutilitarianop- sacrificedindividual'soutcomesorthegroup'soutcomes.Toassess
tionbecausetheirstrongneedtobelongfostersafocusonthewelfareof focus on the victim, participants rated how much their judgments
thelargergroup.Incontrast,weexpectedthatavoidantindividuals wereaffectedby1)“Thewelfareofthepersonbeingsacrificed”and
wouldbemorelikelytoendorsetheutilitarianoptionbecausetheir 2)“Howthepersonbeingsacrificedwouldfeel”(1=Didn'taffectmy
discomfortincaringforothersfosterslessempathyfortheindividual judgmentsatall,7=Affectedmyjudgmentsstrongly),α=.83.Toassess
beingsacrificed. sensitivitytothegroup'swelfare,participantswereaskedtoratethede-
greetowhichtheyconsidered1)“Thewelfareofallthepeopleinvolved
Method asawhole”and2)“WhatIthoughtwouldbebestforthegroupasa
whole”,α=.88.Participantscompletedthesequestionsoncethey
Participants hadevaluatedallsixdilemmas.
Werecruited421residents(159males)oftheUnitedStatesthrough Resultsanddiscussion
Amazon'sMechanicalTurksurveyservice.Theaverageageofpartici-
pantswas30.29(range=18to74). Recallthathigherwrongnessratingsindicatedgreatercondemna-
tionfortheutilitariancourseofaction.Inthepresentdata,wrongness
Materialsandprocedure ratings were negatively correlated with both anxious attachment,
r(419)=−.14,p=.003,andavoidantattachment,r(419)=−.19,
Aspartofalargersurvey,participantscompletedtheAttachment pb.001.Thus,asinthepretest,bothformsofattachmentinsecurity
Style Questionnaire, the Need to Belong scale, and the Caregiving predictedratingtheutilitarianoptionlesswrong.PleaseseeTable4
Systemscale(describedindetailbelow).Participantswerealsoasked foracompletesummaryofthecorrelationsbetweenthevariablesof
toevaluatethesixmoraldilemmas.Aftertheparticipantshadevaluated interest.
thedilemmas,theywereaskedtocompletetheindividualversusgroup
focusscale(seebelow)tohelpprovideinsightintowhatmotivated Table4
theirmoraljudgments.Theindividualdifferencesquestionnairesand Study1:Correlationbetweenvariablesinthepathmodel.
themoraldilemmaquestionswerecounterbalanced. Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Wrongnessrating –
Dilemmas 2.Anxiousattachment −.14⁎⁎ –
3.Avoidantattachment −.19⁎⁎ .4⁎⁎ –
ParticipantsevaluatedsixdilemmasasinStudy1(seeTable3). 4.Needtobelong −.01 .59⁎⁎ −.18⁎ –
TChhroeiceeo,fanthdeCdryilienmgmBaabsyw)aenreduthseredeinwtehreeupsreedtefsotrintghe(Vfiirtsatmtiminse,(SNoupchlieea'sr 567...DEEmmiscppoaamtthhfyyorfftoorrwttihhtheevecanicrtteiirgmeiving −−.43..24⁎⁎1⁎⁎⁎⁎ .−.2111.0⁎⁎5⁎ .−.3065.1⁎7⁎⁎⁎ −..0172.0⁎5 –−−..3047⁎⁎ –.02 –
group
1 Wealsoassessedtraitempathy(Davis,1983).Resultsshowedthatbothattachment Note:Increasedwrongnessratingsindicateastrongerdeontologicalmoraljudgment.
anxietyandattachmentavoidancepredictedwrongnessratingoverandaboveempathic ⁎⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed).
concern.SeeSupplementaryOnlineMaterialforafulldescriptionoftheanalysis. ⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2-tailed).
J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152 145
Fig.1.Study1pathmodelpredictingwrongnessratings.
Weusedpathanalysistotestformediatorsoftherespectivelinks ofthedecisiontosacrificeanindividualtosaveagroupbecausetheyare
betweenattachmentinsecurityandutilitarianism.Thefinalmodelis morefocusedonthegroup'swelfare.
depictedinFig.1.Thismodelhadgoodfit,RMSEA=0.02,90%CI[0, Adifferentstoryemergedforavoidantlyattachedindividuals.Repli-
0.19];CFI=.99,andallpathsinthemodelweresignificant.Consistent catingpastresearch(Shaveretal.,2010),avoidantlyattachedindivid-
withpastresearch,anxiouslyattachedparticipantsreportedahigher uals expressed greater discomfort with caring for others, β = .36,
needtobelong,β=.77,Z=20.46,pb.001.Higherneedtobelongpre- Z =7.86, p b.001.This discomfortwith caregiving was associated
dictedhigherfocusonthegroup,β=.12,Z=2.42,p=.02.Greater withlowerempathyfortheindividualwhowassacrificed,β=−.34,
focusonthegroupwasassociatedwithlowerwrongnessratingsfor Z=−7.35,pb.001.Empathyfortheindividualsacrificed,inturn,pre-
theutilitarianoption,β=−.41,Z=−10.41,pb.001.Althoughthe dictedwrongnessratings,β=.42,Z=10.59,pb.001.Again,although
correlationalnatureofthesedatapreventfirmcausalinferences,this thecorrelationalnatureofthesedatadoesnotpermitfirmcausalinfer-
patternsuggeststhatanxiouslyattachedindividualsaremoreaccepting ences,thefollowinginterpretationisplausible:avoidantlyattached
Fig.2.Study1unconstrainedpathmodelpredictingwrongnessratings.
146 J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
Table5 peoplethistendencywasassociatedwithdiscomfortwithcaringfor
Study2:Correlationbetweenvariablesinthepathmodel. othersandlowerempathyfortheindividualtobesacrificed.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Study2
1.Wrongnessrating –
2.Anxiousattachment −.18⁎⁎ –
3.Avoidantattachment −.15⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ – Becausethemultiplepathslinkingattachmentinsecurityandutili-
4.Needtobelong −.08 .61⁎⁎ −.16⁎ – tarianismhavenot,toourknowledge,beendemonstratedbefore,we
5.Discomfortwith −.19⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ −.08 – considered it importanttoreplicate theeffects with anewsample
caregiving
6.Empathyforthevictim .51⁎⁎ −.08 −.16⁎⁎ .08 −.3⁎⁎ – (Schimmack,2012;Simmons,Nelson,&Simonsohn,2011).
7.Empathyfortheentire −.31⁎⁎ .1⁎ .03 .14⁎ −.12⁎ .13⁎⁎ –
group Method
Note:Increasedwrongnessratingsindicateastrongerdeontologicalmoraljudgment.
⁎⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed). Participants
⁎ Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2-tailed).
Werecruited488residents(181males)oftheUnitedStatesthrough
individualsweremoreacceptingofthedecisiontosacrificeanindivid- MechanicalTurk.Theaverageageofparticipantswas29.99(range=18
ualtosaveagroupbecausetheyempathizedlesswiththevictim.This to70).Participantsreportedanaverageof15.02(SD=2.696)yearsof
tendencywaspredictedbytheirgeneraldiscomfortwithcaringfor formaleducation(beginningatgradeone).
others.
We also createdan unconstrained model in which we included Materialsandprocedure
pathsbetweenanxiousattachmentanddiscomfortwithcaregiving,
anxious attachment and victim empathy, avoidantattachmentand ThematerialsandprocedurewereidenticaltoStudy1.
groupempathy,andadirectpathbetweenanxiousattachmentand
wrongnessratings(seeFig.2).Thismodelwouldsuggestthatanxiously Resultsanddiscussion
andavoidantlyattachedindividualsreactedsimilarlytothedilemmas.
Asdepictedinthefigure,theseaddedpathswerenotsignificant,sug- Replicatingthepreviousfindings,wrongnessratingswerenegative-
gestingthatanxiouslyandavoidantlyattachedindividualsreachedutil- lycorrelatedwithbothanxiousattachment,r(417)=−.18,pb.001,
itarianjudgmentsfordifferentreasons.Althoughtheunconstrained andavoidantattachment,r(417)=−.15,p=.003,Bothformsofat-
modelfitthedatawell,RMSEA=0.02,90%CI[0.0,0.06];CFI=.996, tachmentinsecuritypredictedratingtheutilitariancourseofactionas
aLikelihoodRatiotestofthetwomodelssuggestedthatthefitoftheun- lesswrong.PleaseseeTable5foracompletesummaryofthecorrela-
constrainedmodelwasnotsuperiortothatoftheconstrainedmodel, tionsbetweenthevariablesofinterest.
χ2(4)=5.08,p=0.28.Thus,theconstrainedmodel(withtheaddi- Again,weusedpathanalysistotestforourhypothesizedpathways
tional,non-significantpathsremoved)ispreferredforitsparsimony. between attachment insecurity and utilitarian judgment. The final
Tosummarize,Study1providedsupportforthehypothesisthat modelispresentedinFig.3.Thismodelwashighlysimilartothatof
anxiouslyattachedandavoidantlyattachedindividualsarelesslikely Study1(Fig.1).Themodelhadgoodfit,RMSEA=0.05,90%CI[0,
tocondemntheutilitariancourseofactionbutdosofordifferentrea- 0.22];CFI=.98,andallpathspresentedinthemodelweresignificant.
sons.Althoughbothfavorthegroupoverthesacrificedindividual,for AsinStudy1,greateranxiousattachmentwasassociatedwithagreater
anxiouspeoplethistendencywasassociatedwithastrongerneedtobe- needtobelong,β=.79,Z=21.87,pb.001.Needtobelongpredicteda
longandgreaterfocusonthewelfareofthegroup,whereasforavoidant greaterfocusonthegroup'swelfare(asopposedtothatofthesacrificed
Fig.3.Study2pathmodelpredictingwrongnessratings.
J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152 147
Fig.4.Study2unconstrainedpathmodelpredictingwrongnessratings.
individual),β=.13,Z=2.72,p=.007.Thisgreateremphasisonthe whenthegroupprefersthedeontologicaloption,theywillendorse
group'swelfare,wasassociatedwiththeratingtheutilitariancourse theutilitarianoptionlessstrongly.Ifanxiouslyattachedpeople'sjudg-
ofactionaslesswrong,β=−.36,Z=−9.67,pb.001. mentsshiftedaccordingtothegroup'sdesires,thiswouldsuggestthat
Incontrast,increasedavoidantattachmentpredictedgreaterdis- thedesiretofulfillthegroup'swishesisasignificantcontributorto
comfortwithcaringforothers,β=.41,Z=9.20,pb.001.Discomfort theirmoraljudgment.Study3'sapproachofmanipulatingaproposed
withcaringforotherswasassociatedwithlowerempathyfortheindi- mediator follows Spencer, Zanna, and Fong's (2005) claim that
vidualbeingsacrificed,β=−.31,Z=−6.53,pb.001.Lowerempathy suchanapproachcanhelpfullysupplementtraditionalmeditational
fortheindividualbeingsacrificed,inturn,predictedlowerwrongness analyses.
ratings for the utilitarian course of action., β = .53, Z =14.28,
pb.001.Thus,asinStudy1,anxiouslyandavoidantlyattachedindivid-
Method
ualsbothfavoredtheutilitarianoption,butfordistinctreasons.
AsinStudy1,wealsocomparedourmodelinStudy2toaless
Participants
constrainedmodel.Theunconstrainedmodelfitthedataadequately,
RMSEA=0.06,90%CI[0.03,0.09];CFI=.98.However,aLikelihood
ParticipantswereAmericanresidentswhowererecruitedthrough
Ratiotestofthetwomodelssuggestedthatthemodelsfitthedata
MechanicalTurk.Thefinalsampleconsistedof218individuals(109
equally well, χ2(4) =3.98, p =0.41. Thus, as in Study 1, the
males,108females,andoneparticipantdidnotindicatetheirgender).
constrainedmodelispreferredforitsparsimony.SeeFig.4.
The average age of participants was 36.68years (range =19–72).
To summarize, Study 2 replicated Study 1: both anxious and
Fifty-sevenparticipantsbeganthesurveybutdidnotcompletethe
avoidantattachmentpredictedutilitarianjudgment,butviadifferent
critical measures and thus could not be included in the analyses.
associations. Anxiously attached individuals reached the utilitarian
Furthermore,becausewehaveobservedanincreasingnumberofrote
optionbybeingmorefocusedonthegroup'swelfare,whereasavoidant
participants(e.g.,thosewhomarkedthesameresponseforallques-
individualsreachedtheirjudgmentviareducedempathytowardthe
tionnaire items), we included three questions designed to identify
victim.
uninterestedparticipants.Whenthesurveyhadbeencompleted,partic-
ipantswereaskedtorate,usinga5-pointLikertScale(1=StronglyDis-
Study3
agree, 5 = Strongly Agree), how strongly they agreed with three
statements (1. “I was completely distracted while completing this
Theevidencesofarsuggeststhatanxiouslyattachedindividuals,due
task”2.“Iansweredeachquestionhonestlyandtothebestofmyabili-
totheirstrongneedtobelong,makeutilitarianmoraldecisionsnotbe-
ty”and3.“Ididnottakethistaskseriouslyatall”).Thesethreeitems
causetheycarelessaboutthevictim'swelfare,butbecausetheycare
(item#2reversedscored)showedreasonablereliability,α=.67,and
moreaboutthegroup'swelfare.Byaidingthegroup(attheexpense
wereaggregatedtofromanattentioncheckvariable.Wedecideda
ofoneindividual),anxiouslyattachedindividualsmaximizeopportuni-
priorithatparticipantswhoscored2orhigheronthisvariablefailed
tiesforapproval,gratitude,andacceptance,therebyincreasingthelike-
theattentioncheck.Basedonthiscriterion,atotalof37participants
lihood of meeting theirbelongingnessneeds. Whatwouldhappen,
failedtheattentioncheckandwereremovedpriortoconductingthe
however,ifanxiouslyattachedpeoplewereinformedthatthegroup
analyses.
wanted them to choose the sacrificed individual over themselves?
Wouldtheycontinuetofollowthewishesofthegroup?
InStudy3,wemanipulatedthedesiresofthegroup.Wehypo- Materialsandprocedure
thesizedthatifgainingsocialapprovalistrulyimportanttoanxiously
attachedpeople,thenwhentheyareinformedthatthegroupprefers ParticipantscompleteddemographicsinformationandtheAdult
the utilitarian option, they will endorse it especially strongly, but Attachment Scale. Participants then worked on a filler task (word
148 J.S.Robinsonetal./JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology56(2015)139–152
Table6
DilemmasusedinStudy3.
Deontologicalconsensus Youaretheleaderofamountaineeringexpeditionthatisstrandedinthewilderness.Yourexpeditionincludesafamilyofsixthathasa
condition geneticallycausedvitamindeficiency.
Afewpeople'skidneyscontainlargeamountsofthisvitamin.
Thereisonesuchpersoninyourparty.Theonlywaytosavethelivesofthesixmembersofthisfamilyistoremoveoneofthisman'skidneysso
thatthenecessaryvitaminsmaybeextractedfromit.Themanwillnotdieifyoudothis,buthishealthwillbecompromised.
Youdiscussthesituationwiththesixvitamin-deficientfamilymembers.Thefamilymembersallagreethatremovingtheman'skidneyisthe
wrongthingtodo.Theytellyouthattheywouldfeelveryupsetifyouweretocommitthisactinordertosavetheirlives.
Themanisopposedtohavinghiskidneyremoved,butyouhavethepowertodoasyouseefit.
Utilitarianconsensus Youaretheleaderofamountaineeringexpeditionthatisstrandedinthewilderness.Yourexpeditionincludesafamilyofsixthathasa
condition geneticallycausedvitamindeficiency.
Afewpeople'skidneyscontainlargeamountsofthisvitamin.
Thereisonesuchpersoninyourparty.Theonlywaytosavethelivesofthesixmembersofthisfamilyistoremoveoneofthisman'skidneysso
thatthenecessaryvitaminsmaybeextractedfromit.Themanwillnotdieifyoudothis,buthishealthwillbecompromised.
Youdiscussthesituationwiththesixvitamin-deficientfamilymembers.Thefamilymembersallagreethatremovingtheman'skidneyisthe
rightthingtodo.Theytellyouthattheywouldfeelverygratefulifyouweretocommitthisactinordertosavetheirlives.
Themanisopposedtohavinghiskidneyremoved,butyouhavethepowertodoasyouseefit.
Controlcondition Youaretheleaderofamountaineeringexpeditionthatisstrandedinthewilderness.Yourexpeditionincludesafamilyofsixthathasa
geneticallycausedvitamindeficiency.
Afewpeople'skidneyscontainlargeamountsofthisvitamin.
Thereisonesuchpersoninyourparty.Theonlywaytosavethelivesofthesixmembersofthisfamilyistoremoveoneofthisman'skidneysso
thatthenecessaryvitaminsmaybeextractedfromit.Themanwillnotdieifyoudothis,buthishealthwillbecompromised.
Themanisopposedtothisplan,butyouhavethepowertodoasyouseefit.
unscramble—seebelow)beforefinallycompletingtheexperimental Afterreadingthedilemma,participantswereaskedtorespondto
manipulation. twoquestions:(1)“Howwrongwoulditbetoremovetheman'skidney
resultinginthelivesofthevitamindeficientfamilybeingsaved?”(util-
itarianchoice)and(2)“HowwrongwoulditbeNOTtoremovethe
AttachmentStyleQuestionnaire
man'skidneyresultinginthedeathsofthevitamindeficientfamily?”
(deontologicalchoice).Theorderofthesequestionswasrandomized
(Feeneyetal.,1994).Thesamescaleusedinthepreviousstudies
betweenparticipantstominimizeanypresentationeffects.Participants
wasusedtoassessattachmentstyle.Theitemsmeasuringanxiousat-
tachmentshowedgoodinternalreliability,α=.91.Theitemsmeasur- indicatedtheirresponseson6-pointscales(1=Notwrongatall,6=
ingavoidantattachmentalsoshowedgoodinternalreliability,α=.87. Extremely Wrong). Responses to these two questions were highly
reverse-correlated,r=−.66.Thus,wecalculatedasingleaggregate
term(withQuestion#1reverse-scored),suchthathigherscoresindi-
Fillertask
catedgreaterendorsementoftheutilitariancourseofaction.
Participantsthencompletedafillertaskbetweenthequestionnaires Results
andthemoraldilemma.Thepurposeofthistaskwastoclearworking
memory,therebyreducingpotentialcontaminationbetweentheAdult Wefoundthatoveralltheconsensusmanipulationdidnotinfluence
Attachment Scale and participants' moral judgments. On this task, participants'judgments(R2b.01,F(2,215)=.41,p=.66,M
Deontological
participants unscrambled 10 incoherent letter strings into actual
2.57,sd=1.32;M =2.75,sd=1.60;M =2.75,sd=
words.Participantsweregivenfive minutestocompletethistask. Utilitarian Control
1.28;).
Whetherornottheparticipanthadcompletedalltenwordpuzzles,
How,ifatall,didparticipants'responsestotheconsensusmanipula-
theexperimentcontinuedoncethefive minuteshadelapsed.Next,
tionvaryaccordingtotheirattachmentstyle?Toconductaregression
participantswererandomlyassignedtooneofthreeexperimentalcon-
analysis,wecreateddummyvariablesforthedifferentexperimental
ditionsinwhichthecontentofthemoraldilemmawasaltered.
conditions.Thecontrolgroupwascodedasthereferencegroup.Next,
attachmentanxietyandattachmentavoidancescoresweremeancen-
Experimentalmanipulation teredandallinteractiontermswerecreated(West,Aiken,&Krull,
1996).Inthefirststepofahierarchicalregressionanalysis,weregressed
Recallthatthepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminewhetherknowl-
edgeofthecharacters'wisheswouldinfluenceparticipants'moraljudg- n 4
m(Gernetesn.eWeetathl.e,r2e0f0o8re).cIrneathteed“utwtiloitvaerirasniocnosnosfetnhseus“”Vcitoanmdiintiso”nd,ipleamrtimcia- Actio
pantsreadthatthegroupwhocouldbesavedwantedtheactorto n
a
forceanotherindividualtomakeasacrificeinvolvingextremebodily ari 3
hmaermmb.(e“rYs.oTuhdeisfacmusislythmeesmitubaetrisonallwaigthretehtehsaitxrveimtaomviinn-gdtehfiecimenatnf'samkiidly- Utilit Util
neyistherightthingtodo.Theytellyouthattheywouldfeelverygrate- of Control
fulifyouweretocommitthisactinordertosavetheirlives.”)Inthe ent 2 Deo
“deontologicalconsensus”condition,participantsreadthatthegroup m
e
whocouldbesaveddidnotwanttheactortoforceanotherindividual rs
o
to sacrifice his kidney. (“You discuss the situation with the six d
n
vitamin-deficientfamilymembers.Thefamilymembersallagreethat E 1
removingtheman'skidneyisthewrongthingtodo.Theytellyou Low High
thattheywouldfeelveryupsetifyouweretocommitthisactinorder Attachment Anxiety
tosavetheirlives.”)Thecontrolconditionincludednoinformation
aboutcharacters'desires(SeeTable6forthefulltextofthedilemmas). Fig.5.Consensusconditionbyanxiousattachmentinteraction.