Nurturing our Better Nature: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Nurturing our Better Nature:

Parsing the Roles of Heredity,

Environment

, and Volitional Cognitive Processes in

Moral Character Development

Eugenia I.

Gorlin

,

Ph.D

. &

Reinier

Schuur, M.Sc.

May 11, 2017Slide2

Clinical Inspiration:

The “Catch-22” of Psychotherapy

Want less pain/struggle, more self-worthBut: psychotherapy often involves (temporarily) facing more pain/struggle + ego-threatWell-learned “quick fixes,” like motivated reasoning & self-deception/denial = (temporarily) more comfortableWeighing pro’s/con’s of temporary discomfort = itself uncomfortableMust make a moral choice

Bar

haim

et al., 2007; Mineka et al.,

2003; Ferrari et al., 2008.Slide3

Why a

Moral Choice?

Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics framework (Anscombe, Foot, etc)Freely & consciously chosen (vs impulse-driven)Congruent w/ self-endorsed conception of the good lifeAkin to Rogerian “self-congruence”Slide4

Proposing

cognitive integrity (CI) as the root of moral autonomy

Definition: a consciously chosen, values-based commitment to keeping one’s cognitive processes aligned with reality (i.e., “being honest with oneself”), to the best of one’s current ability, even when it hurts or requires great effort. Includes internal reality; i.e., one’s emotional states, motives, biases, etc.Both state & traitCore motivation: a love of authenticity / truth / self-congruence; living honestly as its own rewardSlide5

Proposing

cognitive integrity (CI) as the root of moral autonomy

Hypotheses about CI:Can be summoned by an act of will (when aware of an alternative between a thought process that is reality-oriented vs not)May be influenced, but is not determined, by: temperament, IQ, learning hx (e.g., parental modeling), self-efficacy, executive control, distress tolerance, etcHabitualized through repeated practice (& thus becomes “second-nature”)

Increases flexibility & autonomy in regulating other, less malleable tendencies (both innate & acquired)

Machinery for developing an

integrated, self-congruent

moral identity over

timeSlide6

What choice(s) do we have?

Roadmap:

Key perspectives on the locus of free will & moral behaviorKey evidence from behavior genetics and experimental psychologyA preliminary empirical test + next stepsSlide7

What choice(s) do we have?

Roadmap:

Key perspectives on the locus of free will & moral behaviorSetting aside compatibilist vs incompatibilist debateSlide8

Philosophical Traditions: Action vs Cognition vs Metacognition

Dominant view: Free will as action control

Stoics to Hume: Freedom = acting on own beliefs/desiresMore modern variants: Freedom = acting on one’s reasons or notLess mainstream view: Free will as cognitive (or metacognitive) controlAlexander of Aphrodisias: Free will = capacity to “deliberate or not”William James: Free will = capacity to exercise attention or notMore modern variants: Free will = capacity to regulate belief-formation or other cognitive processes

Frankfurt, 1982; Kane

, 1996, O’Connor,

2002; James, 1914;

Sharples,

2007;

Heil

, 1983; Audi, 2001;

Steup

, 2011;

Salmieri

& Bayer, 2014; Paul, 2015; Binswanger, 1991, 2015Slide9

Philosophical Traditions: Action vs Cognition vs Metacognition

In clinical arena: “Choice” versus “disease” models of addiction (& psychiatric disorders more broadly)

Room for metacognitive control?Monitoring & overriding confirmation / selective attn biases vs notIdentifying & limiting exposure to one’s triggers vs notBringing conscious awareness to consequences vs notMele, 1990; Levy, 2011; Elliott, 2002; Pickard, 2013, 2016 Slide10

What choice(s) do we have?

Roadmap:

Key perspectives on the locus of free will & moral behaviorKey evidence from behavior genetics and experimental psychologySlide11

Intellectual Inspiration: Eric

TurkheimerSlide12

Heritability of Cognitive & Metacognitive Control

Executive functions

 highly heritable (in 88-99% range!)General intelligence & self-control  moderately heritable (~40-60%)What about reflective thinking styles (e.g., Stanovich et al)? Tendency to think carefully & deliberatively before reaching conclusions / decisionsDistinct from raw cognitive abilities (e.g., WAIS IQ)Predicts morally relevant behavioral outcomes (e.g., antisocial behavior, financial decisions, secure

computing

)

Heritability: 34%; unique (non-shared environment) factors: 66%

Larsson, Chang,

D’Onofrio

, & Lichtenstein,

2014; Friedman et al., 2008;

Gottfredson

&

Hirschi

, 1990; Pratt & Cullen,

2000;

Stanovich

& West, 1998;

Toplak

, West, &

Stanovich

, 2016;

Sorge

, Skilling, &

Toplak

,

2015; Fletcher et al., 2014Slide13

Heritability of Cognitive & Metacognitive Control

Need for cognition

Tendency to engage in effortful cognitive activity & find such activity intrinsically rewardingDistinct from cognitive abilityHeritability: 36.7%; unique (NSE) factors: 60.1%Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984; Ksiazkiewicz et al., 2016Slide14

Heritability of Cognitive & Metacognitive Control

“Deliberation”

subscale of Conscientiousness facet in NEO “Tendency to think things through before acting or speaking”Uncorr w/ IQ, unlike other facets (Competence, Dutifulness), but corr w/ academic achievement Heritability: ~34%; unique factors: ~66-77%Jang et al., 1996, 2002;

Luciano et al.,

2006;

Costa & McCrae,

1992Slide15

Experimental psychology: Reflective thinking as a malleable factor in moral behavior

Critcher

, Dunning, & Armor, 2010; Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000; Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009; Gawrilow et al., 2013 Self-affirmation (i.e., reflecting on a personal value):Decreases defensiveness / increases willingness to consider ego-threatening health information

Counteracts

self-control deficits

Mental contrasting (i.e., reflecting on both desired future & current reality):

Improves goal success (when expectancies are high)

Improves school performance in kids w/ executive function deficitsSlide16

What choice(s) do we have?

Roadmap:

Key perspectives on the locus of free will & moral behaviorKey evidence from behavior genetics and experimental psychologyA preliminary empirical test + next stepsSlide17

Preliminary evidence from Add Health longitudinal twin study

534

same-sex twin pairs from nationally representative sample of teens (ages 12-19)Wave 1 collected in 1994-95; Wave 3 in 2001-02; Wave 4 in 2008-09

Udry

, 2003;

Armour &

Haynie

,

2007Slide18

Indirect indices of reflective thinking style:

W1 ”

planful problem-solving” scale (4 items; e.g., “When making decisions, you generally use a systematic method for judging and comparing alternatives”)W1 problem avoidance item: “You usually go out of your way to avoid having to deal with problems in your life.”Indices of morally relevant behavior:Delinquency @ W1 & W3 (15 items; e.g., “In the past 12 months, how often did you paint graffiti or signs on someone else’s property or in a public place?”)Alcohol use @ W1 and W4 (# days drinking, # drinks per sitting, # binge drinking ep’s, & # times drunk)Alcohol-related problems @ W1 (9 items; problems at school/work, w/ friends, etc)

Alcohol-related legal problems @ W4 (1 item)

Preliminary evidence from Add Health longitudinal twin studySlide19

Multiple regression results: reflective thinking indices as predictors of morally relevant behavior

Predicting W3 delinquency (controlling for W1 delinquency):

W1 planful problem-solving: standardized Β=.09, p=.010W1 problem avoidance: Β=-.05, p=.129Predicting W4 alcohol use (controlling for W1 alcohol use): W1 planful problem-solving: standardized Β=.08,

p

=.185

W1 problem avoidance:

Β

=

-.11, p=.086

Predicting W4 alcohol-related legal problems (controlling for W1 alcohol-related problems):

W1

planful

problem-solving: standardized

Β

=

.

02,

p

=.801

W1 problem avoidance:

Β

=

-.06,

p

=.436Slide20

Estimating A-C-E variance components in

MPlusSlide21

A-C-E variance components for each observed variable

A^2

C^2E^2W1 Planful Problem-Solving

0%

15.2%

84.6%

W1 Problem

Avoidance

19.4%

6.8%

74.0%

W1 Delinquency

0%

42.3%

57.3%

W1 Alcohol Use

38.4%

0%

62.4%

W1 Alcohol-Related

Problems

35.9%

11.6%

53.3%

W3

Delinquency

11.6%

23.0%

65.6%

W4 Alcohol Use

24.0%

23.0%

53.3%

W4 Alcohol-Related Legal Problems

54.8%

0%

44.9%Slide22

A-C-E variance components: Next steps

Combine the 2 approaches: examine how

planful/reflective thinking indices moderate heritability of morally relevant behaviorsJohnson, 2007Slide23

Conclusions so far:

Reflective, deliberative thinking style (partly indicative of CI?) may be more malleable than other cognitive and behavioral traits tied to moral decision-making.

This thinking style, in turn, may help predict the development of morally relevant behaviors over time.Slide24

P

romoting Cognitive Integrity: Ideas for Novel Interventions

Normalize motivated reasoning / self-deception / denial + explore their long-term consequencesHonesty-focused values exploration (e.g., identifying role models / heroes; distinguishing “clean” vs ”dirty” pain; etc.)Honesty-focused guided imagery; trigger & make salient the pride / courage felt in response to “moments of truth” (e.g., via autobiographical recall, debriefing of in vivo emotional exposure, etc)Others?Slide25

Questions for discussion / future research

How does CI contend w/ literature on psychological benefits of self-deception / positive illusions / self-serving biases, and w/ epistemological issues re: introspection and self-knowledge?

Does concept of CI risk moralizing/stigmatizing mental health problems? Is “bad” vs “mad” distinction a false dichotomy?How best to measure CI? (Currently in early stages of measure/task development)How does CI interact w/ intelligence to predict morally relevant outcomes, esp in presence of ego-threat? Developmental factors? (E.g., does secure attachment or Montessori-type learning environment predict greater reflective thinking / CI?)How does low vs high CI manifest in the context of different psychiatric disorders? E.g., worry in Generalized Anxiety Disorder? Defensive rumination in Major Depressive Disorder? Denial in alcohol / substance use? Increased mind-wandering / impulsive decision-making in ADHD? etc.Implications for treatment?

Other ideas/questions?Slide26

Special thanks to:

Dr. Eric

Turkheimer, University of VirginiaDr. Benjamin Bayer, Loyola University New OrleansDr. Gregory Salmieri, Rutgers UniversityThis research was supported by the Templeton Foundation via a Genetics and the Human Agency (GHA) Junior Investigator Grant Award.Slide27
Slide28

Moral consequences of Believing in Free Will vs Determinism

Less cheating & dishonesty

Less racial & ethnic prejudiceLess conformityLess impulsive & antisocial behaviorLess likely to get or stay addicted to alcoholLess stress, better work performance, greater life satisfactionVohs & Schooler, 2008; Zhao et al., 2014; Alquist, Ainsworth, & Baumeister

,

2013;

Rigoni

et al., 2012;

Vonasch

et al.,

2017;

Baumeister

& Brewer,

2012