JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015,pp.296 - PDF document

JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015,pp.296–313ThecurioustaleofJulieandMark:UnravelingthemoraldumbfoundingeffectEdwardB.RoyzmanKwanwooKimRobertF.LeemanAbstractThepapercriticallyreexaminesthewell-known“JulieandMark”vignette,astylizedaccountoftwocollege-agesiblingsoptingtoengageinprotectedsexwhilevacationingabroad(e.g.,Haidt,2001).Sinceitsinception,thestoryhasbeenviewedasarhetoricallypowerfulvalidationofHume's“sentimentalist”dictumthatmoraljudgmentsarenotrationallydeducedbutarisedirectlyfromfeelingsofpleasureordispleasure(e.g.,disgust).People'stypicalreactionstothevignetteareallegedtosupportthisviewbydemonstratingthatindividualsarepronetobecomemorallydumbfounded(Haidt,2001;Haidt,Bjorklund,&Murphy,2000),i.e.,theytendto“stubbornly”maintaintheirdisapprovaloftheactwithoutsupportingreasons.Inwhatfollows,wecriticallyreassessthetraditionalaccount,predicatedonthenotionthat,amongotherthings,mostsubjectssimplyfailtobeconvincedthatthesiblings'actionsaretrulyharm-free,thushavingexcellentreasonstodisapproveoftheseacts.Inlinewiththiscritique,3studiesfoundthatsubjects1)tendednottobelievethatthesiblings'actionswereinfactharmless;2)notwithstandingthat,andinspiteofholdinganumberof“counterargument-immune”reasons,subjectscouldbeeffectivelymaneuveredintoexhibitingallthetrademarksignsofamorallydumbfoundedstate(whichtheysubsequentlyrecanted),and3)withsubjects'beliefsaboutharmandstandardsofnormativeevaluationproperlyfactoredin,amorerigorousassessmentprocedureyieldedadumbfoundingestimateofabout0.Basedontheseandrelatedresults,wecontendthatsubjects'reactionsarewhollyinlinewiththerationalistmodelofmoraljudgmentandthattheiruseinsupportofclaimsofmoralarationalismshouldbereevaluated.Keywords:incest,moraldumbfounding,moraljudgment,disgust,rational,emotion,reason.1IntroductionCassieandBernieareofcemates.Oneday,inhonoroftheirsecondweekanniversaryworkingtogether,BerniepresentsCassiewithacanofimportedwild-caughttunainlightlysweetenedPonzusauce.Whiledulyappreciativeofthegesture,Cassiepolitelydeclinestheoffer,remindingBerniethatsheiscommittedtoconsumingonlysustainablyharvesteddolphin-freetunaandthatBernie'scan,splendidasitmaybe,islackingthediscerniblymarkeddolphin-freelabel.Bernieretortsthat,havinganticipatedCassie'scon-cerns,hehadthoroughlyresearchedthebrandandcanavowthatthetunahousedwithinthiscanissustainablyharvestedSkipjack.SincedolphinsdonotassociatewithSkipjack, AnearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedattheMarch2015EPAsymposiumonmoraljudgmentandemotionandbenetedgreatlyfrotheparticipants'comments.WeareespeciallygratefultoJonathanBaron,PhilipDunwoody,JohannesC.Eichstaedt,GeoffreyGoodwin,YoelInbar,JustinLandy,ChazLively,andPaulRozin,withadditionalthankstoXuanGao,DanielJacobson,MattRuby,andSydneyScottfortheircounselandsupportalongtheway.Copyright:©2015.TheauthorslicensethisarticleunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution3.0License.DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofPennsylvania,3720WalnutStreet,SolomonLabBuilding,Philadelphia,PA19104.Email:royz-man@psych.upenn.edu.yUniversityofPennsylvaniazYaleUniversitySchoolofMedicinethistunaisdolphin-freebydefault.Cassieseemstocompre-hendBernie'sreasons,butremainssteadfastinherrefusaltowelcomethegift.Isshebeingunreasonable?Thehallmarkofreason,af-terall,issensitivitytoreasons.Ontheotherhand,notanyoldreasonwillsufce.Forinstance,thematterofas-sessingCassie'sreasonablenesswouldbegreatlymuddledifitturnedoutthatshehadanunstatedruleagainstac-ceptinggiftsfromofcematesorsomedeep-seateddoubtaboutthequalityofBernie'son-lineresearchskills.Sup-pose,however,itcouldbeascertainedthatCassie'sethicalreservationsaresolelyafunctionofherworriesovertuna'sdolphin-freepedigree;supposewecouldfurtherestablishthatCassiesharesthefullrangeofBernie'sempiricalbeliefsand,generallyspeaking,trustshisjudgmentcompletelyandunequivocally.Underthesecircumstances,Cassie'scontin-uedrefusaltotakethecan(“becauseitjustdoesn'tfeelright”)couldberightfullyconstruedasacaseofethicalfetishismatitsnest,areliableindicatorthatwearedealingwithsomeonewhoseethicalthoughtprocesshasgenuinelystrayedfromthepathofrationaldiscourse.Inthetheoreti-calidiomofthemoment,Cassiewouldappeartobemorallydumbfoundedtothehilt.AccordingtoHaidt,BjorklundandMurphy(2000),moraldumbfounding(MD)refersto“thestubbornandpuzzledmaintenanceofamoraljudgmentwithoutsupportingrea-296 JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark297sons”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.1,emphasisadded)(Haidt,2001;seealsoHaidt,Koller&Dias[1993]).Originallyre-portedbyHaidtetal.(2000),MDhasbeenfeaturedpromi-nentlyinHaidt's(2001)inuential“EmotionalDoganditsRationalTail”(seePizarro&Bloom,2003,foranearlyanalysisandcritique),whereitisiconicallyillustratedviathe“JulieandMark”vignette(a.k.a.,Incest),aslyandepi-grammatictaleofsiblingloveandfamilyvacationgoneawry(Haidt,2001,p.814):JulieandMarkarebrotherandsister.TheyaretravelingtogetherinFranceonsummervacationfromcollege.Onenighttheyarestayingaloneinacabinnearthebeach.Theydecidethatitwouldbeinterestingandfuniftheytriedmakinglove.Attheveryleastitwouldbeanewexperienceforeachofthem.Juliewasalreadytakingbirthcon-trolpills,butMarkusesacondomtoo,justtobesafe.Theybothenjoymakinglove,buttheyde-cidenottodoitagain.Theykeepthatnightasaspecialsecret,whichmakesthemfeelevenclosertoeachother.Whatdoyouthinkaboutthat?WasitOKforthemtomakelove?Thoughonlyadecadeandahalfold,Incesthasrisentobecomeaxtureinpsycho-philosophicaldebatesontheroleofreasonandpassioninmoralcognition(Hueb-ner,2011;Jacobson,2013;Pinker,2002;Singer,2005),commandinglevelsofattentionpreviouslyreservedforthelikesofKohlberg's“Heinz”(Colby&Kohlberg,1987)andThomson's“Footbridge”(Thomson,1986)(seealsoGreene,2013).Likethelatterithasbeenviewedasarhetor-icallypowerfulvalidationofHume'ssentimentalistdictumthat,akintojudgmentsoftaste,moralassessmentsarenotlogicallydeducedfromhigher-orderbeliefs(e.g.,“Causinginterpersonalharmiswrong”,“Thisisinterpersonalham”,“Thisiswrong”),butarisedirectlyfromafeelingofplea-sureordispleasureattheobjectinhand:1“Sothatwhenyoupronounceanyactionorcharactertobevicious,youmeannothing,butthatfromtheconstitutionofyournatureyouhaveafeelingorsentiment...fromthecontemplationofit”(Hume,1739–1740/1978,p.469;seealsoHume,1739–1740/1978,p.471).Theaimofthepaperistocriticallyreexaminewhat“JulieandMark”(andothersofitsilk)hastotellusaboutmoralcognitioningeneralanditstiestoreasoninparticular.Webeginbyreviewingsomekeyaspectsofthestoryandthendingsthatsealeditsrepute.Wethenproceedtoreportaseriesofstudiesthatpitourdeationaryalternativeagainstitswell-establishedcounterpart—themoraldumbfoundingnarrative. 1Throughoutthispaper,weacceptaviewofHume'moralphilosophythatisextremelycommoninempiricalmoralpsychology,butthatalmostcertainlyfailstocapturethefullcomplexityofHume'smoral-philosophicalideas(Hume,1739–1740/1978)andtheirevolutioninlaterworks(e.g.,Hume,1751/1983)1.1ThemoraldumbfoundingnarrativePerhaps,themostcelebratedaspectofthe“JulieandMark”vignetteisitsallegedfreedomfromharm.AsHaidtandcolleagues(2000)contend,thestory“wascarefullywrit-tentobeharmless...[sothat]theparticipantwouldbepre-ventedfromndingtheusual`reasoning-why'aboutharmthatparticipantsinWesternculturescommonlyusetojus-tifymoralcondemnation”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.8,emphasisadded).TheparticipantsrenderinganegativeevaluationofJulieandMark'sactivitieswerethereuponquestionedbya“devil'sadvocate”instructedtopushbackagainsttheinitialdisapprovaloftheactbycallingattentiontovariousharm-negatingprovisosembeddedwithinthenarrative:“Forex-ample...iftheparticipantrespondedthatwhatthepersonorpersonsinthestorydidwaswrong,themaincounterar-gumentwasthatnoharmwasdone,andthatthefactthatanactisdisgustingdoesnotmakeitwrong”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.9).WhatHaidtandcolleagues(2000)seemedtohavefoundwasnothingshortofremarkable:Mostpeoplewhoheartheabovestoryimmedi-atelysaythatitwaswrongforthesiblingstomakelove,andtheythenbeginsearchingforreasons(Haidt,Bjorklund&Murphy,2000).Theypointoutthedangersofinbreeding,onlytoremem-berthatJulieandMarkusedtwoformsofbirthcontrol.TheyarguethatJulieandMarkwillbehurt,perhapsemotionally,eventhoughthestorymakesitclearthatnoharmbefellthem.Even-tually,manypeoplesaysomethinglike,“Idon'tknow,Ican'texplainit,Ijustknowit'swrong”(Haidt,2001,p.814).Elsewhere,Haidtusestheimageofrummagingforanob-jectinone'spocketsandcomingupempty-handedasametaphorformoraldumbfoundingasastatedenedbylackofallandanydiscernablereasonstosupportthemoraleval-uationthatonesupports:Themostcommonreasonsinvolvegeneticabnor-malitiesorthatitwillsomehowdamagetheirre-lationship.Butwesayinthestorythattheyusetwoformsofbirthcontrol,andwesayinthestorythattheykeepthatnightasaspecialsecretandthatitmakesthemevencloser...Andit'sonlywhentheyreachdeepintotheirpocketsforan-otherreason,andcomeupempty-handed,thattheyenterthestatewecall“moraldumbfound-ing.”...They'resurprisedwhentheydon'tndreasons[tosupporttheiron-goingdisapproval]...Soit'sacognitivestatewhereyou“know”thatsomethingismorallywrong,but...can'tndrea-sonstojustifyyourbelief...[So]youjustsay: JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark298“Idon'tknow,Ican'texplainit,Ijustknowit'swrong”(Sommers,2009,pp.155–156).AsidefromsomecommonlyreferencedindicantsofMD—boutsofconfusion/disorientation,“unsupporteddec-larations”(allegingthattheactwas“just”or“plain”wrong,e.g.,“It'sjustwrongtodothat!”[Haidtetal.,2000,p.12]),atendencytodroparguments,and,ultimately,thedeclarationofdumbfoundingitself—oneprominentfeatureofHaidtetal.'s(2000)resultsisthesheerprevalenceofsubjects'reluctancetoreversethemselvesinlightofcoun-tervailingreasons.AccordingtoTable1(Haidtetal.,2000),only20%ofthesubjectsinitiallystatedthatJulieandMark'sactionswereOk.Bytheendofthesessionthisnumberincreasedto32%,suggestingamoraldumbfound-ingestimateof68%.Whereisalltheperseverancecomingfrom?Haidtetal(2000)andHaidt(2001)offeratypicallyHumeanre-ply:whenencounteringIncest“onefeelsaquickashofrevulsion...andoneknowsintuitivelythatsomethingiswrong”(Haidt,2001,p.814).Thus,ultimately,Haidt'smoraldumbfoundingnarrativeappearstobecomprisedoftwomutuallysupportivecounterparts:thesentimentalistclaimthatsubjects'judgmentagainstJulieandMark'sdal-lianceisadirectresultofsubjects'physicalrevulsionattheactandthekindredclaimthatsubjects'inabilitytoof-feranysubjectivelywarrantablereason(i.e.,areasonthatwouldbewarrantedinlightofexistingnormativetraditionsandthatmakessenseinthemindofthepersonadvancingit)insupportoftheirdisapprovaloftheactisunlikelytohaveanydiscernableimpactontheirreadinesstogiveupthedisapprovalassuch,amountingtoaconspicuousbreachoftherationalistcredothatone“shouldnotholdajudgmentintheabsenceofreasons”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.6).The-oreticallyspeaking,thesetwocomponentstremarkablywell,forclearandreasonableasthedevil'sadvocate'sap-pealsmighthavebeen,theycouldhardlybeenexpectedtoundo,ameliorate,orevennessetheprimordialrevolting-nessoftheact(Royzman,Leeman&Sabini,2008;Royz-man,Atanasov,Landy,Parks&Gepty,2014).1.2Critiqueofthemoraldumbfoundingnar-rativeThoughthemoraldumbfoundingnarrativeseemstoofferareasonablyattractiveandinternallycoherentaccountofMD,oneofitskeycomponentshasbeenrecentlycalledintodoubt(Royzman,Leeman&Baron,2009;Royzman,Goodwin&Leeman,2011).UsingHaidt's(2001)origi-nalvignetteandatraitmeasureofdisgustsensitivity(DS;Haidt,McCauley&Rozin,1994),Royzmanetal.(2009)foundnosignicantassociationbetweenindividualdiffer-encesintraitdisgustandindividualtendenciestomoralizeJulieandMark'sbehavior.Atthesametime,incestmoral-izationwassignicantlypredictedbyperceivedharm(seealsoGray,Schein&Ward,2014;Turiel,2002)aftertakingintoaccountdisgustsensitivity,sex,andage,andsubjects'siblingstatus,withanumberofsubjectsdirectlycomment-ingonthedifcultyimagininghowthesiblings'relationshipwouldremainunaffectedintheaftermathoftheact(seeHuebner,2011,p.58forcomparableanecdotalreportsofdisbelieffromsomeofhisstudentsandhisconclusionthatthe“credulity”ofHaidt'ssubjectsmusthavebeenseriouslystrained).Haidt's(2001)ownreportindicatesthatasubstantialnumberofsubjectsinitiallygroundedtheircondemnationofIncestinappealstorelationalharm.Haidt'sstandardcon-strualoftheseappeals(Haidt,2001;Haidt,2012;Haidtetal.,2000;Sommers,2009,pp.155–156)asmeresignsofconfusionorjusticatorydespairslightsthefactthatpeopleroutinelyanchorctionalcontentinreal-worldknowledge,ndingitdifculttocomprehendinformationaboutac-tionaluniversethatcontradictstheirreal-worldassumptions(Ferguson&Sanford,2008;Ferguson,Scheepers&San-ford,2010)(thisappearstobethecaseevenifthekeyfan-tasticalevent[e.g.,catseatingcarrots]hasbeensetagainstthebackdropofattinglyfantasticaluniverse[e.g.,catsarevegetarians][Ferguson&Sanford,2008]).Inthespe-cialcaseofIncest,thefailuretoacceptthe“livedhappilyeverafter”provisoisnotparticularlysurprisinggiventheuniversallydimviewofincestascarrying“signicantnon-biologicalcosts”(Shor&Simchai,2009,p.1834)andjeop-ardizing“boththeintegrityofthefamilyasawholeand[subjects']ownabilitytomaintainregularfamilyrelation-ships”(Shor&Simchai,2009,p.1834).Itistrue,ofcourse,thatboththeexperimenter'sappealsandtheharm-negatingprovisoswithinthevignettewereex-presslyframedtocoaxallnegativereal-worldpreconcep-tionstotheside.However,asdiscussedelsewhere(Royz-man,Cassidy&Baron,2003),thereisnowalargeandmethodologicallydiversebodyofevidencetosuggestthatindividualsareonlymarginallyeffectiveatdiscountingtheirpriorideasorbeliefs.Asarguedelsewhere,thisepistemticegocentism(Royzmanetal.,2003)orcurseofknowledge(Camerer,Loewenstein&Weber,1989)isarobustfeatureofhumancognitionandhasbeenfoundbothinchildrenandadults.Forexample,BaronandHershey(1988)reportedaseriesoftightlycontrolledexperimentsdemonstratingthatthe“privileged”outcomeinformation(theinformationthatsubjectswerenormativelyrequiredtosettotheside)signif-icantlyaffectedtheirratingsofaperson'sdecisionquality,thendinganalogoustothe“knewitallalong”corollaryofthehindsightbias(Fischhoff,1975)(seealsoBaron,2008).Inananotherimportantstudy,Anderson,LepperandRoss(1980)presentedsubjectswithasetofhypotheticalcasessuggestingeitherapositiveornegativerelationshipbetweenrisktakingandsuccessasareghter.Thereputedevidenceforthislinkwasthen“totallydiscredited”viaadebrieng JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark299session.AccordingtoAndersonetal.(1980),thedebriengsessionhadonlya“minimal”impactonthesubjects'subse-quentjudgments,whichweremadeasiftheoncestipulatedlinkbetweenrisk-takingandbeingasuccessfulreghterwasstillineffect.Indeed,asmentionedabove,Haidt's(2001)owndepic-tionoftheresultsindicatesthatanunspeciednumberofsubjectsdidappealtothelikelihoodofrelationalharmearlyonintheprocedure,buthadtheirappealsoverruledbythepre-programmedreminderthat“noharmwasdone”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.9).Haidtetal.(2000)donotreporttheexactwordingtheyemployed,butitisareasonableconjecturethatbeingtold(inwhateverterms)to“tryagain”asone'sinitialresponsefailedtotakeintoaccounttheharm-freenatureoftheactwouldamounttoanimpliedrequesttoframeallsubsequentanswersundertheassumptionthatallandanyharmfulcon-sequencesofthesiblings'actionshavebeenforestalled,thusrenderinganyfurtherreferencetoharmconversationallyotiose.Asubjectcontinuingtoexpresshisorherincredulitybeyondthispointwouldnotonlyruntheriskappearingun-cooperative(seeNorenzayan&Schwarz,1999onhow,“inanattempttobecooperativecommunicators,subjectsac-tivelymonitorandtrytoprovideinformationtailoredtotheresearchers'interests”),slow,anduncouth(seeBonnefon,Feeney&DeNeys,2011onpolitenessasanobstacletoeffectivecommunication)(Goffman,1955),butwouldalsondthemselvesswimmingagainsttwoofthemightiestcur-rentsinthepsychologyofsocialinuence—atendencytodefertotheepistemicpositionofthe“manincharge”(Mil-gram,1974)andatendencytopaylipservicetothejudg-mentsofone'speers,evenwhenthesearepatentlyatoddswiththeevidenceofone'ssenses(e.g.,Asch,1956)(Sabini,1995).OneothernoteworthycomplicationinHaidtetal.'s(2000)approachistheirunstatedassumptionthatweresub-jectstoreasontheirwayfromahigher-orderprincipletoacase-specicjudgmentinaccordancewiththerationalde-ductivemodel(“ItiswrongtodoX;thisacaseofX;thisiswrong”)therelevanthigher-orderprinciplewouldneedtobecomprisedofsomevariantofthe“noharm,nofoul”rule.WhileHaidtetal.donotcommunicatethispointdirectly,itcanbelogicallyinferredfromthestudy'scoremethodolog-icalconceit,i.e.,thebeliefthatsubjects'abilitytoretrieveandadduceanysubjectivelywarrantablereasonsinsupportoftheirjudgmentofwrongshouldbequiteeffectivelyneu-tralizedviathenarrativeprovisothatthe“customary”impli-cationsoftheintra-familialsexwillsimplyfailtomaterial-izeinthisparticularcase.Yet,asJacobson(2013)pointedout,Incestandothersce-nariosofitskindcouldbecondemnedfromvirtuallyeveryconceivablenormativestandpointwithintheWesternphilo-sophicaltradition,includingdeontology,virtueethics,andrule-utilitarianism(seeRoyzman,Landy&Leeman,2015).Indeed,insomeofourpreviousstudies(Royzmanetal.,2008;Royzmanetal.,2009;Royzmanetal.,2011),ver-balandwrittenappealstothelikelihoodofemotionalharmwereregularlyco-mingledwithappealstothebasiccounter-normativenatureoftheact(“Itisinherentlywrong”,“Be-causeyouarenotsupposedtohavesexwitharelative”,“Be-causeoftheincesttaboo”)aswellasunappealingcharac-tertraits(“impulsive”,“irresponsible”).And,asTaylorandWolfram(1968)observedsome45yearsago,atthedeeper,“foundational”(Kagan,1998)levelofanalysis(seeFoot-note1),anindividual'sinherentcommitmentto,say,tellingthetruth(Kant,1785/1959)maybegroundedintheviewthat“theworldissoarrangedthat”tellingthetruth[ornotbeddingone'snextofkin]“ultimatelyworksouttothegen-eralgood,whetherornotthisiscleartotheagentornot”(Taylor&Wolfram,1968,p.243).Forsubjectshailingfromoneofthese“alien”normativepositions(laydeontology,layvirtueethics,layrule-utilitarianism),thestudy'scontinuedemphasisonrealizedharmastheonlylegitimatebasisforethicalassessmentmayhavespelledfurthernormativedis-orientation,leadingthem,willy-nilly,toafrmthattheydidnotinfacthaveanysound“arguments”toadduce.21.3OverviewofthehypothesesThepresentstudiesweredesignedtoaddressfourmainhy-potheses(alongwithasetofsub-hypotheses).First,weanticipatedthat,beingmindfulofincest'sreal-worldimpli-cations,subjectswouldrejectsome(thoughnotnecessar-ilyall)ofthestory'sharm-negatingprovisos,includingthekeystipulationthatJulieandMark'sdecisiontohavesexwouldleavetheirrelationshipunscathed.Second,wean-ticipatedthatsubjects'incredulityregardingthisandrelatedaspectsofthenarrativewouldremainintactfollowingade-tailedcounterargument,evenassubjectswentontoexhibitallthetrademarksignsofamorallydumbfoundedstate,in-cludingconfusion,apparentnon-responsivenesstoreasonsandthedeclarationofdumbfoundingitself.3Thesepredic- 2Wenotethatsimilarpointsapplyto“Cadaver”,thesecond(and,inourview,considerablymoreproblematic)ofthetwomoralcognitionnarrativesusedbyHaidtetal.,2000).Inanoddtwist,thestoryfeaturesacannibal-isticallyinclinedvegetarianlabassistantwhodecidestotakehomeandconsumeapieceofthecadaverplacedintheassistant'scare.Inthiscase,theaddedcomplicatingfactoristhestatedandunstated“metaphysical”beliefsregardingthecontinuityofpsychologicalfunctioningafterdeath,thebeliefsthatcollegestudentswhoholdthemmightndtoo“juvenile”toexpress.ThephenomenonhasbeenextensivelydocumentedbyBering(2006).Mostpertinently,Bering(2002)foundthat,amongundergradu-atesaskedtoassessthepsychologicalstatesofaprotagonistwhohadjustexperiencedasuddendeathincarcrash,evensubjectswhosubsequentlycategorizedthemselvesas“extinctivists”(i.e.,thosewhoendorsedtheviewthattheconsciousselfceasespermanentlywiththedeathofthebody)ac-knowledgedthat,atsomelevel,thedeadpersonknewthathewasdeadandthuscouldpotentiallybeasubjectofgoodorbadtreatmentfromothers(seealsoRozin&Stellar,2009).3Commentsvoicedbysubjectsinourpreviousstudies(Royzmanetal.,2008;Royzmanetal.,2009)indicatethattheywerelargelyinagreement JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark300tionswereexaminedinStudies1and2,respectively.Third,wehypothesizedthat,withcredulityandotherrelevantcon-siderationsproperlyfactoredin,physicaldisgustwouldnolongerbeasignicantpredictorofsubjects'disapprovaloftheactand,last,that,asthemoreconceptuallystringentcriteriaforthediagnosisofMDproperareapplied,thephe-nomenonwouldturnouttobeeitherentirelynon-existentorhighlyirregular,atbest.2Study1:Thecredulitycheck2.1Method2.1.1SubjectsTwentyfourundergraduates(ninefemale;Mage=21.96,SD=4.55,median=20)enrolledinaseminar-styleSocialPsy-chologycoursetookpartinthestudyinexchangeforextracredit.Subjectscompletedthetaskduringaclassbreak.Thetimecommitment(includingdebrieng)was3–5minutes.2.1.2MaterialsandprocedureThesurveyconsistedofHaidt's(2001)originalInceststory4(sansthenormativejudgmentprobe)followedbyveques-tions.Subjectswereaskedtoreadthevignettecarefullyandrespondattheirownpace.Notimepressurewasexerted.Therstfourquestions(eachratedona0-to-100scale,with0indicating“Notbelievableatall”and100—“100per-centbelievable”)were:“Giventhefactsofthestory,howbelievabledoyoundthatJulieandMarkwillhonortheirdecisionnottohavesexualrelationseveragain?”(Abstain);“Giventhefactsofthestory,howbelievabledoyoundthatJulieandMarkwillkeepwhathappenedbetweenthemase-cret?”(Secret);“Giventhefactsofthestory,howbelievabledoyoundthatJulieandMark'shavingsexwitheachotherwillnotnegativelyaffectthequalityoftheirrelationshiporhowtheyfeelabouteachotherlateron?”(Relationship);“Giventhefactsofthestory,howbelievabledoyoundthatJulieandMark'shavingsexwitheachotherwillhavenobadconsequencesforthempersonallyand/orforthoseclosetothem?”(Consequences).Additionally,subjectswereaskedtospeculateonwhat(ifany)effectJulieandMark'sdeci-siontohavesex“wouldhaveontheirlivesintherealworld” withJacobson's(2013)pointthattheemphasisonvariousmeansofcon-traceptionisavenerable“redherring:asalientbutirrelevantpointthatdistractsfromtherealissue”,therealperilbeing“ofcoursethatJulieandMarkwilldoirreparableharmtotheirrelationshipassiblings”(Jacobson,2013,p.301).Thussubjects'perceptionoftheeffectivenessofcontracep-tionreceivedrelativelylittleattentioninourstudies.4Hereandhenceforth,thesentence“Attheveryleastitwouldbeanewexperienceforeachofthem”wasomittedtopreclude(inlinewithsomepilotsubjects'comments)theimpressionthatJulieandMark'sincestuousencountermarkedtheirinitiationintosexualintimacyassuch.(Realworld).Thethreeresponseoptions(thersttwocoun-terbalancedfororder)were:“Itwouldhaveanegativeef-fect”(codedas1),“Itwouldhaveapositiveeffect”(codedas+1),and“Itwouldhavenoeffecteitherway”(codedas0).Subjectswerealsoaskedtoratetheirlevelofcondenceintheirjudgment(0=Notcondentatall;100=Extremelycondent).Thecondence-adjustedratingsof“realworldconsequences”(Realworld)werethencomputedbymulti-plyingsubjects'categoricaljudgments(1,0,+1)bytheirstatedcondenceinthesejudgments.Thesurveybeganwithtwoitems(Abstinence,Secret)thatwereexpectedtogarnerrelativelyhighbelievabilityratings(withtherelativeorderingdeterminedatrandom),whiletheRealworlditem,expectedtoelicitavery“neg-ative”appraisal(andonethatcouldbiasallsubsequentre-sponsesinthedirectionoflowercredulityratings),wasal-wayspresentedlast.2.2ResultsanddiscussionMeansand95%CIsforeachofthefourcredulityprobesaredisplayedinTable1a.MinimumbelievabilityratingsbynumberofsubjectscollapsedacrossthefourcredulityprobesarepresentedinTable1b.InlinewithHaidtetal.'sexpectations(2000),subjectswerelargelywillingtoacceptthatthesiblingswouldkeeptheirsexualencounterasecret.Ontheotherhand,subjectsweregenerallyinclinedtorejecttheharm-negatingprovisosassessedbyRelationshipandConsequences,whileremainingslightlylesscertainaboutthesiblings'prospectsfornotrepeatingtheactinthefuture.AsTable1bindicates,thehighestminimumbelievabilityscoreforanygivensubjectwasonlyinthe30s(ona0to100scale),withRelationshipandConsequencesbeingthetwomaindriversofskepticism(seethemeanandlowestbelievabilityratingsinTable1a).Lastly,subjectsseemedtobegenerallyoftheopinionthattherealworldconsequencesofJulieandMark'sactionswouldbequitesevere.Themeancondence-adjustedratingforRealworldwas68.33(SD=31.39),95%CI[81.59,55.07],signicantlybelow0(t[23]=10.66,p0.001).5Allinall,thestudyresultswerestronglyinlinewithourpriorexpectation(Royzmanetal.,2009)thatasubstantialproportionofcollege-ageadultswouldnditdifculttoac-ceptthereputedly“harmless”eventsofIncestasbeingtrulyandcrediblyharm-free.Thepurposeofournextstudywastoaskwhethersubjects'incredulitywouldremainintactfol-lowingaseriesoftargetedcounterargumentsmodeledafterthoseemployedbyHaidtetal.(2000). 5Wenoteasignicantzero-ordercorrelationsbetweensubjects'condence-adjustedRealworldratingsandtheirbelievabilityratingsforRelationship(r=0.44;p=0.03)andConsequences(r=0.63,p=0.001),respectively,withmorenegativereal-worldexpectationstranslatingintogreaterreluctancetoacceptthatJulieandMark'srelationshipwouldre-mainasunscathed. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark301Table1a:Meanbelievabilityratings,95%condenceinter-vals,andnumberofsubjectswhogavetheirlowestbeliev-abilityratingforSecret,Abstain,Relationship,andConse-quencesinStudy1. CredulityprobetypeMean95%C.I.Numberofsubjectswhogavetheirlowestbelievabilityrating Secret83.0072.32–93.671Abstain37.0025.53–48.475Relationship24.7511.56–37.9312Consequences20.009.22–30.7717 Note:Allmeanratingsweresignicantlyabove/belowthescale'smidpoint(thepointofuncertainty)(alpha=0.05).Overallfrequencyisgreaterthan24because10subjectsgavethesamelowestbelievabilityratingto2or3credulityprobes.Table1b:Minimumbelievabilityratingsbynumberofsub-jectscollapsedacrossthefourcredulityprobes. ScorerangeN 0-101611-20221-30231-40441-1000 Note:Meanofsubjects'minimumbelievabilityratingcollapsedacrosscredulityprobe:11.88,SD=14.45.Absentsuchademonstration,Haidtandcolleaguescouldjustiablyassertthat,whileacertainmeasureofdisbeliefwasanintegralpartofthesubjects'initialresponse,itwaspreciselythecounterargument'sjobtolayanysuchdoubtstorest,furthercitingtheirsubjects'tendencytogiveup(or,atleast,nottoreafrm)theirharm-basedreasonsasprimafacieevidencethatthedevil'sadvocate'scounter-claimsworkedjustasintended.3Study2:Manufacturingunreason3.1Method3.1.1SubjectsTwenty-eightundergraduates(19female;Mage=21.64,SD=2.49,medianage=21)enrolledinaseminar-stylepsy-chologycourse(JudgmentandDecisions)tookpartinthestudyinexchangeforextracredit.Subjectswerescreenedforpriorknowledgeofthevignette.Foursubjectsreportedhavingseenthestorybeforeaspartofaclasssurveyand/orasatestitem,butreportednoknowledgeoftheunderlyingtheoreticalclaimsorrelatedempiricalresults.Thus,theirdatawereretainedinthesample.3.1.2MaterialsandprocedureSubjectswereinterviewedindividually.Withsomedeliber-ateexceptions(seebelow),theprotocolwasmodeledafterthatinHaidtetal.(2000).Allsubjectsweretoldthattheywouldhearastorythattheymightormightnotndmorallyobjectionable.Theywereaskedtomakeajudgmentabouttheeventsitdescribed.Subjectsweretoldthat,oncetheygavetheirjudgment,theexperimenterwouldplay“devil'sadvocate”byquestioningtheirreasonsandthatthesubjectwasfreetorespondinanymannerthattheysawt.Af-terinformingthesubjectsoftheirrighttowithdrawfromthestudyandobtainingtheirconsenttoproceed,theex-perimenterreadaslightlymodiedversionofIncest,thenaskedsubjectstoindicatewhether,intheirpersonalopin-ion,itwas“OkforJulieandMarktomakelove?”(with“Yes,itwasok”and“No,itwasnotok”asthetwore-sponseoptions).TheversionusedinthisstudywasidenticaltothatusedinStudy1exceptforthenext-to-lastsentence,whichread:“Theybothenjoymakingloveandhavenore-gretsaboutit,buttheydecidenottodoitagain.”The“noregrets”provisowasaddedtorenderthestoryevenmore“harm-proof”andtobringitinlinewiththetextofthecoun-terargumentthatfollowed,whichwaspartlymodeledafterthatcitedinPiazza&Sousa(2014).Therestoftheproce-durevariedconsiderablydependingonthesubject'sanswertotheinitialevaluativeprobe(seeFigure1forthediagram-maticoverview).Subjectswerealsomonitoredforsignsofconfusion(e.g.,the“self-doubtface”describedindetailinHaidtetal.,2000,p.13)andothernon-verbalcues.Subjectswhodidnotobjecttothesiblings'actionswereaskedtoconrmtheiranswer,thentogiveareasonorrea-sonsforthejudgmenttheymade.Theywerethendirectedtothenalpageofthebookletcontainingthetwocredulityitemsdetailedbelow.Subjectswhodisapprovedofthesib-lings'actionswererstaskedtoconrmtheiranswer,thentociteareasonorreasons“supporting[their]judgmentthatitwasnotOkforJulieandMarktomakelove.”Toenableaccurateaccountingofchangesinreasonsofferedbysubjectsthroughthecourseofthestudy,eachsubjectwasprovidedwithan“experimentalbooklet”thatcontainedalistof5harm-basedreasonsgeneratedbasedonpriorpilotworkaswellaspreviouslypublishedresults(Haidtetal.,2000;Royzmanetal.,2008;Royzmanetal.,2009;Royz-manetal.,2011).Theveputativereasonswere:“1.Be-causeitwillharmthememotionally/psychologically.”;“2. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark302Figure1:DiagrammaticoverviewoftheinterviewprotocolinStudy2. Note:“Reasons(1)?”describestheinterviewer'sinitialre-questforreasonsfollowingtheoriginaljudgmentof“notOk”;“Reasons(2)?”describestheinterviewer'ssecondre-questforreasons,followingthejudgmentof“notOk”intheresponsetothecounterargument.Sinceallsubjectsmain-tainedthejudgmentof“notOk”followingthecounterargu-ment,theshadedarearepresentsapathofinquirythatwasnottakenwithanysubjectwithinthisstudy.Becauseitwillharmthoseclosetothem.”;“3.Becauseitcouldhaveharmedthememotionally/psychologically.”;“4.Becauseitcouldhaveharmedthoseclosetothem.”;“5.Becauseofthedangersofinbreeding.”Subjectsweretoldthattheywerefreetonominateallvereasons,noneofthereasons,orsomecombinationofreasons(“forexam-ple,youcansay`1'and`4'”).WhilethisfeatureofthestudydiminisheditsviabilityasadirectreplicationofHaidtetal.(2000),itactuallyenhanceditsviabilityasaconcep-tualreplicationoftheirprocedure.Thecurrentprocedureaffordedusaquantitativelyprecisemeasureofthe“reasonsdropped”variable,whilefurtherconducingtothestudy'sobjectiveofdeterminingwhethersubjects'readinesstodis-avowharm-relatedreasonsofdifferenttypes(leadinguptotheall-importantdeclarationofdumbfounding)iscompat-iblewiththeircontinuedrepresentationofthesiblings'ac-tionsinaharm-ladenmanner.Moreover,thepresentapproachallowedustomakeakeyconceptualdistinctionbetweenthoseharm-relatedcon-siderationsthatappealsolelytoactualorrealizedharm(e.g.,Reasons1,2)versusthosethatappealmainlytothedestructivepotentialoftheact(e.g.,Reasons3,4),withonlytheformerbeingpotentiallyaffected,i.e.,neutralizedormarkedlyattenuated,bythe“noharmdone”argumentalone.(Byanalogy,fewwouldwanttodisputethatanindi-vidualgroundinghercondemnationofaknowinglyrecklessact,e.g.,drivingwhileundertheinuence,inthedestruc-tivepotentialofthatactwouldbefullywithinherrightstokeepbothherdisapprovalandherreasonsevenafterbeinginformedthat,onthisparticularoccasion,“noharm”wasin-curred.)Subjectswerealsoaskedtociteanyadditionalrea-sonorreasonsoftheirown,whichweexpectedtobelargelydeontologicalinnature(i.e.,appealstoexistingnorms)andthusalsocounterargument-immune.Finallysubjectsweretoldthatiftheyfeltthatnoneofthelistedreasonsappliedandthattheyalsocouldndnogoodreasonorreasonsoftheirown,theymightconsiderendorsingoption6:“6.Idon'thaveastrongreasonatthispoint,butIjustfeelit'swrongforthemtodowhattheydid.”Withtheinterviewee'sresponsesreviewedandcon-rmed,thefollowingstandardizedstatementwasrecitedverbatim:“Ok,Iwillnowenactmyroleas`devil'sadvo-cate'bycallingyourattentiontosomeaspectsofthestory...Forexample,thestorymakesitclearthatJulieandMark'sactionswerefullyconsensualandtheybothhadnoregretsaboutwhattheydid.Theyalsotookeveryconceivablepre-caution.Theyusedtwoformsofbirthcontrol.Asaresult,therewasnoriskofpregnancy.Also,theactwasconductedinprivate,waskeptprivate,andtheybothenjoyedit.Theyalsoneverdiditagain.Inshort,it'sagiventhatnoharmhasoccurredorwilloccur.”Thesubjectwasthenasked:“DoyoustillthinkJulieandMark'sactionofhavingsexwithoneanotherwasnotOk?”(with“Yes,Istillthinkitwasnotok”and“No,Inowthinkthatitwasok”asthetworesponseoptions).Itwasexpectedthat,asintheoriginalstudy,most,ifnotall,subjectswouldretaintheirprioreval-uationoftheact.Afterconrmingsubjects'second(post-counterargument)evaluativejudgment,theexperimenterin-structedthemtoturntothebooklet'snext-to-lastpage.Thepagecontainedthesamemenuofharm-basedreasonsthatsubjectsreferredtoearlierinthestudy;onceagain,subjectswereaskedtociteany“reasonorreasons”fordisapprovingoftheact,whilebearinginmindthat,asthestorymakesitclear,“noharmhasoccurredorwilloccur.”Weantic-ipatedthatthissimplelocutionwouldbemarkedlyeffec-tiveinrestrictingsubjects'expressionofharm-basedrea-sons,causingthemtobecome“morallydumbfounded”intheend.Subjectswerethenaskedtoturntothelastpageoftheirbookletcontainingatwo-itemcredulityprobe.Itemone(Relationship)read:“HavingreadthestoryandconsideringtheargumentsIpresented,areyouabletobe- JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark303lievethatJulieandMark'shavingsexwitheachotherwillnotnegativelyaffectthequalityoftheirrelationshiporhowtheyfeelabouteachotherlateron?”Itemtwo(Conse-quences)read:“HavingreadthestoryandconsideringtheargumentIpresented,areyouabletobelievethatJulieandMark'shavingsexwitheachotherwillhavenobadconsequencesforthempersonallyand/orforthoseclosetothem?”Theresponseoptionsconsistedof“Yes(Iamabletobelieve)”and“No(Iamnotabletobelieve).”Sub-jectsrespondingwitha“No”toeithercredulityprobewerepromptedtoelaborateintheirownwords.Inaddition,subjectsrespondingwitha“No”totheRe-lationshipprobewereaskedwhethertheyconsideredtheexpectedrelationaldamagetobeaformofpsychologicalharm.Finally,aspartofthedebriengprocess,asubsetofsubjectsjudgingthesiblings'actionstobe“notOk”werequeriedaboutevidentinconsistenciesbetweentheirre-sponsestothecredulityitems(whichweexpectedtobecharacterizedbyastrongbeliefthatthesiblings'actionswillhavestronglynegativeconsequencesforallconcerned)andtheirtendencytorescindpreviouslyendorsedharm-basedreasons.Itwasapriorideterminedthattheuseofthisin-consistencyprobewouldbecontingentonthesubject'sei-ther(a)endorsingthe“declarationofdumbfounding”item6(initiallyorfollowingthecounterargument)andrespond-ingtoatleastoneofthecredulityprobesinthedirectionofdisbelief(indicatingthatonedidnot“buy”thatthesib-lingsorotherswouldnotbeharmed)or(b)disavowingallharm-relatedreasonsfollowingthecounterargumentandre-spondingtoatleastoneofthecredulityprobesinthedirec-tionofdisbelief.Dependingonthespecicsofthesub-ject'sresponse,someadditionalexploratoryquestionswereposed.Subjectsweretheninformedabouttherationaleforthestudy,thankedfortheirparticipation,andaskediftheyhadanyfurthercomments.3.2ResultsanddiscussionThekeydescriptivestatisticsaregiveninTable2a.Asexpected,thevastmajorityofsubjects(21outof28or75%)disapprovedofthesiblings'actions(p=0.01bythebinomialtest),withnotasinglerespondentreversinghisorherjudgmentfollowingthecounterargument.Also,asexpected,therewasasubstantialdifferenceintheaveragenumberoflistedreasonscitedbeforeandafterthecounter-argument(MBefore=2.04,SD=1.24,median=2;MAfter=0.28,SD=0.64,median=0).Thedifferencewasstatisti-callysignicantbyapairedt-test:t(20)=5.72,p0.001.Intriguingly,thispatternremainedlargelyintact(MBefore=0.95,SD=0.86,median=1;MAfter=0.14,SD=0.47,me-dian=0;t(20)=3.44,p=0.003)afterthecomparisonwaslimitedtoasubclassofcounterargument-immunereasons(Reasonitems3and4),thosethatappealedsolelytothede-structivepotentialoftheact,withoutanyconsiderationforitsactualresults.Proportionsofsubjectswhoendorsedeachoftheve“listedreasons”aregiveninTable2b.Somesubjects(n=10)alsoofferedadditionalreasonsoftheirown,allcen-teredonthecounternormativenatureoftheact—withthemajorityofstatements(6outof10)initiallytakingtheformof“unsupporteddeclarations”(e.g.,“It'simmoral”,“Itismorallywrong”)(Haidtetal.,2000).Oncesubjectswerepromptedtoelaborate,allsixdeclarationswere“unpacked”intowhatcouldbeconstrued(basedontheinvocationofnormsorcodesofconduct)aslogicallycoherentdeontolog-icalclaims(withagivensubjectstating,forexample,that,inhisviewofthings,incestwasinherentlyimmoraland,giventhatthisiswhatthesiblingsdid,theiractionswerealsoimmoral).Crucially,themajorityofthosecitingcounterargument-immunereasons(n=17)wentontodisavowoneormoreofthesereasons(15/17or88%)followingthecounterar-gument,with13outof17(76%)movingontoendorsethe“declarationofdumbfounding”option6.(Moststrik-ingly,themajority[n=7]ofsubjectsciting“deontologi-cal”reasonsduringthersthalfoftheinterview[n=10],thereasonsthatsubjectsthemselveschosetoputforthassomethingsupplementarytoharm-relatedconsiderations,declaredthemselvesdumbfoundedshortlyfollowingtheex-perimenter'sassertionthat“thatnoharmhasoccurredorwilloccur”).6HavingbeenlargelysuccessfulinreplicatingHaidtetal.'s(2000)originaleffect,wenowturntotheall-importantquestionofwhethersubjects'overwhelmingendorsementofitem6(thedeclarationofdumbfounding)towardthetailendofthestudymaybeconstruedasanaccuratereec-tionoftheirgenuineacceptanceofIncestasaharm-freeevent.Theresultssuggestotherwise(seeTable2a,Note**):inlinewithourexpectations,allbuttwosubjectsre-portedincredulityregardinglackofharmrelatedtobothRelationshipandConsequences,withtheremainingtwore-portingincredulityregardingConsequencesonly.(Duringthedebrieng,subjectstendedtore-afrmtheir“yes”and“no”answersbyreiteratingtheirbeliefthatthesiblings're-lationshipwouldbenegativelyaffectedintheend,whileoccasionallycitingwhatcouldbeconstruedasrule-andcharacter-basedconsiderationsasfurtherreasonsfortheirdisapprovaloftheact).Asexpected,lackofcredulityre-gardingtheharm-freenatureoftheactanddisapprovalofthesiblings'actwerestronglyandpositivelyassociated(seeTable2cfordetails)(p0.001byFisher'sexacttest).Thenalphaseofthestudywasdesignedtoexploresub-jects'owntakeontheapparentinconsistencybetweentheirinclinationtoimputeharmandtheirobservedtendencyto 6Subjectsalsotendedtodisplaythe“self-doubtface”(essentially,sus-tainedfrowns)detailedbyHaidtetal.(2000,p.13)andmadeverbalre-marksindicativeofconfusion,e.g.,“Thisisconfusing.” JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark304Table2a:KeydescriptivesforStudy2. Totalnumberofsubjects28SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOk21SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkandwereexposedtothecounterargument19Subjectswhoreversedtheirjudgmentfollowingthecounterargument0SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkanddroppedoneormorepriorreasonsfollowingthecounterargument17SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkandendorsed“adeclarationofdumbfounding”15SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkandfailedtoaccepttheharm-negatingprovisos21SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkandofferedcounterargument-immunereasons17SubjectswhothoughttheactwasnotOkandciteddeontologicalreasons10Subjectsintheabovecategorywhomadeadeclarationofdumbfoundingfollowingthecounterargument7Totalnumberofsubjectswithsupportingreasons21Subjectswhoseresponseswarrantedtheinconsistencyprobe(seeMethodfordetails)17 Thisincludes13subjectswhomadetheirdeclarationofdumbfounding(item6)followingthecounterargumentand2additionalsubjectswhosedeclarationsprecededthecounterargument(resultinginthefactthatonly19of21subjectsheardthecounterargumentandhadachancetochangetheirviewsinitswake).Thecountrepresents21individualswhoindicatedalackofbeliefsonbothofthecredulityprobestowardthetailendofthestudy(with19out21reportingincredulityregardingRelationshipand21outof21reportingincredulityregardingConsequences[bothps0.001bythebinomialtest],withallincreduloussubjectsfurtherindicatingthattheyconsideredthelikelynegativeeffectonthesiblings'relationshiptobeaformofpsychologicalharm).Forpresentpurposes,counterargument-immunereasonswerethosecomprisedof(1)appealstodeontologicalconsid-erations:rules/inherentimmoralityoftheactand(2)appealstotheharm-inducingpotentialoftheact(seeitems3and4fromthe“reasons”menu).The“supportingreasons”countiscomprisedofallthesubjectswithcounterargument-immunereasonsaswellasanysubjectwhomaintainedhis/herbeliefintheharmfulimplicationsofthesiblings'actionsfollowingthecounterargument(asassessedbythecredulityprobes).Thesubjectsinquestion,allexhibitingacongurationofresponsetendenciesthatmettheaprioriconditionsfortheapplicationoftheinconsistencyprobespeciedinMethod,included(a)15subjects(themajority)whodroppedallharm-basedreasonsandendorsedthe“declarationofdumbfounding”item6whilealsorespondingtoatleastoneofthecredulityitemsinthedirectionofdisbelief(i.e.,indicatingthattheydidnot“buy”thatthesiblingsorotherswouldnotbeharmed)and(b)2subjectswhodroppedalloftheirharm-basedreasonsandrespondedtobothofthecredulityitemsinthedirectionofdisbelief.Table2b:Proportions(andcounts)ofsubjectsendorsingeachofthevelistedreasonsforwhyJulieandMark'sactionswerenotOk(inorderofdescendingfrequency). “Becauseitcouldhaveharmedthememotionally/psychologically”57.1%(12/21)“Becauseitwillharmthememotionally/psychologically”47.6%(10/21)“Becauseitcouldhaveharmedthoseclosetothem”38.1%(8/21)“Becauseofthedangersofinbreeding”38.1%(8/21)“Becauseitwillharmthoseclosetothem”23.8%(5/21) disavowallormostharm-relatedreasonsthattheyinitiallyendorsed.Withtheirattentioncalledtothefact,allsubjectsinquestion(17outof21interviewees)(seeTable2,Notefordetails)acknowledgedthattheirpriordisavowalofharm-relatedreasons,includingandespeciallythosein-formedbythedestructivepotentialoftheact,wasunjusti-ed.While6outof19(31%)seemedunabletoaccountfortheinconsistency(e.g.,“Iamnotsure”,“Iwasconfused”),theremainingmajoritytendedtostatethattheysaidwhattheysaidbecausetheyfeltpressuredtoand/orinferredthat JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark305Table2c:Relationshipsbetweensubjects'ap-proval/disapprovaloftheactandtheiracceptanceoftheharm-negatingprovisosinStudy2. NoYes Acceptedlackofharmwithrespecttorelationship?Disapprovalofact192Non-disapprovalofact16 Acceptedlackofharmwithrespecttoindividualconsequences?Disapprovalofact210Non-disapprovalofact52 theywererequiredtorespond“undertheassumption”thatnoharmhasoccurredorwilloccur.Sincewefailedtoanticipatethefullextentofsubjects'tendencytodisavowtheirnorm-basedreasonsfollowingthecounterargument,theinterviewprotocolhadnospecicpro-visionsinthatregard.However,theissuewasbroachedonanad-hocbasisduringthedebriengsession,leadingustoconcludethatlayingstressonharm-negatingconsid-erationsduringandafterthecounterargumentphasewaswhatcausedsomesubjectstojudgeorinferthatnon-harm-relatedreasonswereconversationally“irrelevant”,justasharm-relatedreasonswereconversationally“proscribed”.Allinall,thispatternofresultsindicatesthat,whiletheinterviewingprocedurehadhardlyanydiscernableeffectonwhatsubjectswerewillingtobelieve,ithadaverysubstan-tialeffectonwhattheywerewillingtoexpress.Onthewhole,theprocedureappearstohaveratherseriouslimi-tationsasameansofassessingthepresenceofamorallydumbfoundedstateasithasbeenformallydened(Haidtetal.,2000),beingevidentlyunabletodiscriminatebetweenthecasesinwhichthecriterialfeaturesofthemoraldumb-foundingresponse(judgmentwithoutsupportingreasons)aregenuinelymetfromthoseinwhichtheyonlyappeartobemet(supportingreasonsareabundantbutremainunex-pressed).7 7Inthisregard,adeclarationofdumbfoundingmaybeviewedassome-thingakintoafalseconfession,withapsychologistratherthanadetective“smoothingout”theprocess(seeBenforado,2015onthecommonalityofpsychologicallyinducedfalseconfessionsinthepresent-daycriminaljus-ticesystem).4Study3:Willthetrulymorallydumbfoundedpleasestandup!4.1Method4.1.1Subjects53undergraduates(32female)8enrolledintwoconcurrentsectionsofaseminar-stylepsychologycourse(JudgmentandDecisions)tookpartinthestudy.Subjectswerecom-pensatedwithextracredit.4.1.2MaterialsandProcedureTheprimarystudymaterialsconsistedofthreesurveys(completedbyallofthe53subjectsinvolvedinthestudy).Thesurveyswereadministeredatthreedifferentpointsintimeoverthecourseofasemester.Therstandsecondsurveys(containingthenormativejudgmentprobeandthecredulityprobe,respectively)wereadministeredfourweeksapart.Thesecondandthenalsurveywereadministeredtwoweeksapart.Theseintertemporaldelaysofferedseveraladvantages,includingreducedlikelihoodofposthocjus-tication,reducedreactivity,andmoremanageablesurveyadministrationtime.Therstsurveyincludedtheoriginal(Study-1)versionofthe“JulieandMark”vignette(Haidt,2001),followedbyanevaluativejudgmentprobetakenverbatimfromHaidt(2001):“WasitOkforJulieandMarktomakelove?”(p.814)(with“Yes,itwasok”and“No,itwasnotok”asthetworesponseoptions).Subjectswerethenaskedtosay“why”theyrespondedastheydid.Thesecondsurveyconsistedoftwoparts.InPart1,sub-jectswereaskedtoreadaseriesofstatements,thentose-lectonethatthey“identiedwith”mostorsawasbeing“mostconsistent”withtheirview“onhowapersonmayappropriatelyreasonabouthis/hernegativeevaluationofanact.”Thersttwostatementsweredesignedtosortsubjectsintotwobroadnormativeorientationcamps:thosewhoen-dorsedtheno-harm-no-foulorientationandthosewhodidnot.Thestatementdesignedtoconveytheno-harm-no-foulorientationconsistedofaclaimthat“violatinganes-tablishedmoralnormjustforfunorpersonalenjoymentiswrongonlyinsituationswheresomeoneisharmedasare-sult,butisacceptableotherwise.”Thealternativestipulatedthat“violatinganestablishedmoralnormjustforfunorpersonalenjoymentisinherentlywrongeveninsituationswherenooneisharmedasaresult.”Thestatementswerecounterbalancedfororder.Itwasverballyunderscoredthatthekeydistinctionisbetweenbelievingthatactsthatvi-olateamoralnormarewrongonlyiftheyresultinharm 8Ageinformationwasnotcollectedfromthissamplebasedonarequestfromsomeoftheoldersubjects.WeestimatetheagerangeforthemajoritywithinthissampletobecomparabletothatreportedinStudies1and2,i.e.18–22yearsofage,with6additionalindividualsintheir30sand40s. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark306andtheviewthatactsthatviolateamoralnormarewrongeveniftheydonotresultinharm.Subjectswerealsopre-sentedwithathirdstatementdesignedtoserveasanatten-tioncheck.Subjectswhoexpressedanafnityforthe“in-herentlywrong”positionwerethenaskedtodescribeafur-therreasonforendorsingthenormativepositionthattheyendorsed.ThisadditionalprobewasinspiredbytheworkofShellyKagan(1998)(seealsoTaylorandWolfram,1968)whospeculatesthatreason-givingmayoperateattwodiffer-entlevels,withagivencase-specicjudgmentofwrong(“ItwaswrongforMarktobreakhispromisetoPaul”)beingcommonlygroundedinapertinentintermediate-levelrule(e.g.,“Breakingpromisesiswrong”),thelevelatwhichmanyordinarypeople'sreason-givingisthoughttooper-ate(Harman,2010;Kagan,1998),whichmay,inturn,begroundedinthemorefoundationalrule-consequentialistconsiderations,e.g.,considerationofutilitytoallconcernedifthecollectivelyadvantageouspracticeofpromise-keepingwereupheld.Theresultantstatementswerecodedforevidenceofcon-sequentialreasoning(seebelow).Part2ofSurvey2wasdesignedtoassesssubjects'acceptanceofthestory'sharm-negatingprovisos.Tothatend,subjectswerepresentedagainwiththeIncestvignettefollowedbytwocredulityprobes(RelationshipandConsequences)similartothoseusedinStudy2.Thequestionswerecounterbalancedfororderandwerefollowedbytworesponseoptions:“Yes,Iamabletobelievethis”and“No,Iamnotabletobelievethis.”9Thethirdandnalsurveyconsistedofasetofitemsde-signedtocheckonalternativeinterpretationsofthend-ings.Thesurveybeganwithtwostandardizedtraitmea-suresaimedatestablishingifanyhypothesizedassociationsbetweentheSurvey1andSurvey2variablescouldbeex-plainedintermsofsocialdesirabilityor/andadesiretore-spondinapsychologicallyconsistentmanner(includedintheAppendix):a10-itemsocialdesirabilityscale(MC-1,Strahan&Gerbasi,1972;see,e.g.,BartelsandPizarro,2011forprioruse)andabrief9-itemversionofPreferenceforConsistencyScale(Cialdini,Trost&Newsom,1995).Subjectsalsoreportedtheirlevelofstatedisgustinresponsetothe“JulieandMark”vignetteusinga5-pointscale.Inlinewithpreviousresearch,statedisgustwasassessedviatheOralInhibitionindex(henceforth,OI)(seeRoyzmanetal.,2008;Royzmanetal.,2014).10Subjectswereaskedtoratetheirpoliticalorientationona7-pointscale,with“1”signifying“VeryConservative”,“7”—“VeryLiberal”and“4”—“middle-of-the-road”.Finally,subjectswerealso 9Thenormativeorientationcheckwasalwayspresentedrsttoassurethatsubjects'general-leveljudgmentwasnotaffectedbytheirreactiontotheIncestvignettethatfollowed.10OIconsistsofthreeitems(“gagging”,“physicallynauseated”,“lack-ingappetite”)rated(inthiscase)ona5-pointscale(Royzmanetal.,2008;Royzmanetal.,2014).askedtoindicateiftheyhaveencounteredtheIncestvignettebeforeand,ifso,underwhatcircumstances.Subjectsweretheninformedthatthethreesurveyswereallpartofthesameprojectandaskedtopendowntheirbestguessastotheproject'soverarchinggoal.Theywerethenthankedandfullydebriefed.4.1.3InterviewsTodeterminetheactualincidenceofmoraldumbfoundingwithinoursample,asetof“fullyconvergent”subjectswhohadpreviouslyrenderedanegativeevaluationofthesib-lings'actionswereinterviewedroughlymidwaybetweentheadministrationsofSurveys2and3.Asubjectwasdeemed“fullyconvergent”ifandonlyifhe/sheboth(1)en-dorsedtheno-harm-no-foulorientationinPart1ofSurvey3and(2)respondedafrmativelytobothofthecredulityprobes(indicatedthat,inhis/herview,JulieandMark'sac-tionscausednoharm).Furtherdetailsoftheinterviewpro-tocolanditsndingsarediscussedbelow.4.2ResultsanddiscussionThekeydescriptivestatisticsaredisplayedinTable3a.Aseriesofexploratoryanalysesconrmedthatallnon-categoricalvariablesmettheassumptionofnormality.Correlationalanalyses(Table3b)revealedsignicantas-sociationsbetweentheevaluativeresponse:incestpermissi-bility(Ok/not-Oktomakelove)andthefollowingsixvari-ables:Relationship,Consequence,Harm/Foul,Politics,OI,andSex,withgreaterpermissiveness(greatertendencytojudgetheactions“Ok”)expressedbyindividualsmorewill-ingtoaccepttheharm-negatingprovisos,individualsiden-tifyingwiththeno-harm-no-foulethic(Harm/Foul),politi-callyliberalindividuals,individualswithlowerdisgustrat-ings,andmales.TherewerealsosignicantassociationsofRelationshipwithConsequence,Harm/Foul,andSex.Mostimportantly,incestpermissibilityassessedinSur-vey1wasstronglyandsignicantlyassociatedwithRela-tionshipassessedinsession2,withgreaterincredulitycor-respondingtogreaterlikelihoodthatasubjectwoulddisap-proveoftheact.Furthermore,Relationshipwasnotsig-nicantlyassociatedwithanyofthefollowing:Consis-tency,Socialdesirability,Priorexposuretothevignette,OI,andPolitics(Table3b),withtherstthreevariablesbeingalsounrelatedtoConsequence,ortheoriginalpermissibilityjudgment.Thecorrelationalanalyseswerefollowedupwithahi-erarchicalbinarylogisticregression,withpermissibilityasthedependentvariableandRelationship,Consequence,Harm/Foul,Sex,Politics,OI(allinstep1)andConsistency JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark307Table3a:SampledescriptivesforStudy3. VariableMean/-PercentageSD Permissibility(0=OK,1=NotOk)68%N/ARelationship(0=acceptingthattherelationshipwillnotbeaffected,1=notacceptingthis)60%N/AConsequence(0=acceptingthatthesiblingswillnotbepersonallyaffected,1=notacceptingthis)68%N/AHarm/Foul(0=identifyingwiththeno-harm-no-foulview,1=identifyingwiththeno-harm-but-foulview)42%N/ASocialdesirabilityaverage(scorerange:0to1)(=0.559)0.370.19Consistencyaverage(scorerange:1to9)(=0.822)6.171.15Disgust(OI)(scorerange:1to5)(=0.768)2.311.09Politics(scorerange:1to7,withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterliberalism)4.691.43 Incaseofthecategoricalvariables(variables1through4),percentagesrepresentproportionsofsubjectsselectingoptioncodedas1.Table3b:Zero-ordercorrelationsamongkeyvariablesinStudy3.Thethreevariablesinboldfontarejointlyrelatedtopermissibilityandrelationship.Acorrelationof±0.271oraboveissignicantatthe0.05level(2-tailed)forthissamplesize(n=53). RelationshipConsequenceHarm/FoulSexSocialdesirabilityConsistencyOIPolitics Ok/NotOk.600.567.318.270.024.124.295.430Relationship.766.467.369.075.128.232.226Consequence.431.270.003.224.147.345Harm/Foul.150.066.284.058.467Sex.096.079.119.045Socialdesirability.157.097.093Consistency.168.084OI0.008 0=female,1=male,withthenegativecorrelationindicatinggreaterpermissivenessamongmalesubjects.Table3c:Logisticregressioncoefcients,p-values,andoddsratiosforincestpermissibility(Ok/NotOk)inStudy3asafunctionofCredulity(Relationship,Consequence),normativeidentication(Harm/Foul),Sex,OI,Politicswithandwithoutthedesireforconsistencyincluded. Model1:ConsistencynotincludedModel2:Consistencyincluded VariableBp(two-tailed)OddsratioBp(two-tailed)Oddsratio Relationship3.80.03944.9774.433.03484.194Consequence.278.8491.320.084.9551.088Harm/Foul1.484.322.2272.327.223.098Sex1.784.125.1681.810.145.164OI.483.3531.621.383.4781.467Politics1.494.019.2241.698.017.183Consistency.445.3881.560 JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark308(instep2)ascovariates.11AsseeninTable3c,Relation-shipandPoliticsweretheonlytwosignicantpredictorsofpermissibilityineithermodel.TofurtherexploretherelativestrengthsofRelationshipandOIaspredictorsoftheevaluativeresponse,wecon-ductedthreeadditionalbinarylogisticregressionsenlistingOk/notjudgmentasthedependentvariableandRelation-shipandOIasthetwopredictorvariables.WhilebothRelationship(B=2.96;Oddsratio=19.33,p0.001)andOI(B=0.66;Oddsratio=1.93,p=0.04)wereindi-viduallysignicantpredictorsofthepermissibility(Ok/notOk)response,Relationshipwastheonlysignicantpre-dictorwhenthetwovariableswereenteredascovariates(Relationship:p0.001;OI:p=0.16).Afollow-upanalysisshowedthattheseassociations(permissibility—Relationshipvs.permissibility—OI)weresignicantlydif-ferentfromeachotherbySteiger'sztestfordependentcor-relations:z=2.08,p=0.037.Finally,atwo-personcodingprocedure(82%initialinter-coderagreement;differentialcodeassignmentsresolvedthroughdiscussion)establishedthatappealstoglobalnega-tiveconsequenceswerethemostcommon(70.8%)“foun-dational”reasonofferedbysubjectsespousingtheviewthat“violatinganestablishedmoralnormisinherentlywrong”(Part1ofSurvey2).12Thisresultsuggeststhat,atleastamongcollegeundergraduates,trulycommitteddeontologists—“deontologistsallthewaydown”—maybefewandfarbetween.AdditionalAnalyses:“Unsupporteddeclarations”andthemoraldumbfoundingestimation.“Unsupporteddeclarations”(Haidtetal.,2000)werethelargestconceptuallycoherentcategoryofstatements(n=20)generatedinresponsetotheSurvey1requestforrea-sons,withsubjectseitherrestatingtherelevantmoralnorm(“Incestisfundamentallywrong”,“Brothersandsistersshouldnotmakelove.Evenitisasecret,itisstillmorallywrong”,“Regardlessofitsbeingsafesex.Theybrotherandsister.Andthatisjustwrong”,“Itisimmoral”)orclassify-ingtheactinamannerthatwouldwarranttheapplicationofthatnorm(“Incest”,“Incesttaboo”).Asnotedearlier,whileoneapproachwouldbetoregardsuchstatementsasfurtherevidenceofamorallydumbfoundedstate,ourpreviousre-sults(Study2)indicatethatthesecouldalsobeviewedascolloquiallyphrased/under-articulateddeontologicalclaims.Consistentwiththislatterinterpretation,wefoundasignif-icantpositiveassociationbetweenatendencytomakeputa- 11Consistencywasenteredinstep2toexplorethepossibilitythat,asstipulatedbythesentimentalistcomponentofthemoraldumbfoundingnar-rative,disgust(OI)wasthekeydeterminantofbothsubjects'permissibil-ityand(mediatedbyconsistency)theirunwillingnesstoacceptthesib-lings'actionsasgenuinelyharm-free.12Thetwoindependentcodersweretherstauthorandarst-yearun-dergraduatestudentwithnopriorknowledgeofthehypothesisorback-groundliterature(seehttp://journal.sjdm.org/15/15405/supp1.pdfforver-batimstatementsandcodingdetails).tive“unsupporteddeclarations”inSurvey1andtheSurvey2-assesedlikelihoodoffavoringanormativepositiondesig-natingactsinviolationofanestablishedmoralnormas“in-herentlywrong”(chi-square=6.85,p=0.009).Thatis,atendencytorender“unsupporteddeclarations”(e.g.,“Incestisfundamentallywrong”)wassystematicallyandpositivelyrelatedtoatendencytoidentifywiththeviewthatviolat-inganestablishedmoralnormis“plain”wrong,i.e.,wrongirrespectiveofanyharmfulimplicationsthatcouldensue.Theanalysesreportedintheremainderofthissectionweredesignedtoprovideaformalre-assessmentofthein-cidenceofmoraldumbfoundingdenedas“astubbornandpuzzledmaintenanceofamoraljudgmentwithoutsupport-ingreasons”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.8).InaccordancewiththerationalearticulatedintheMethod,onlythosesubjectswhowere“fullyconvergent”(inthiscase,14out53or26.4%ofthesample)andthustruly“withoutsupportingreasons”wereconsideredeligibleforfurtherscrutiny.Only4ofthese14“fullyconvergent”subjects(i.e.,thosewhobothbelievedboththatthesiblings'actionswerefreeofharmandthatharm-freeactsarenotsubjecttodisapproval)judgedthatJulieandMark'sbehaviorwas“notOk”.Allfourofthesesubjects(twofemales,twomales)weresubsequentlyin-terviewedwiththegoalofdetermininghowmany,ifany,wouldsatisfytheremainingcriteriaofHaidtetal.'s(2000)denitionbymaintainingtheirdisapprovalin“astubbornandpuzzled”manner.Ineachcase,asubjectwasrstpresentedwithaprintedsummaryoftheirearlier(Survey1andSurvey2)responses,andaskediftheyrememberedand/orendorsedthesere-sponsesasapplyingtothepresentcase.Allsubjectswerefoundtoendorsetheirpreviousresponseswhetherornottheyrememberedthem.Insteptwo,subjectsweresimplyadvisedtocarefullyreviewand,ifappropriate,reviseanyoftheirearlierjudgmentswithparticularattentionbeingdrawntothenormativerelevanceofharm.Forsubjectsfailingtomakeanyadjustmentsatthatpoint,theinconsistencybe-tweentheirSurvey1andSurvey2responseswerepointedoutdirectly.Inthecourseoftheinterview,twoofthefoursubjectsfullyacknowledgedtheinconsistencybetweentheirSurvey1andSurvey2responses,withonesubjectreversinghercase-specicjudgmentandtheotherreversingherprioren-dorsementoftheno-harm-no-foulstandard.Oneofthetwomalesubjectsalmostimmediatelydisqualiedhimselffromthe“fullyconvergent”classicationbystatingthathisSur-vey1selectionof“notOk”optionwasintendedmerelyasadescriptivestatementindicatinghisawarenessofthepre-vailingnormratherthatapersonaljudgmentthatJulieandMark'sbehaviorwaswrong:ajudgmentthathesaidhedidnotendorse.Finally,onemaleintervieweeexplicitlyacknowledgedtheinconsistencybetweenhis“fullyconver-gent”Survey2responsesetandhisSurvey1case-specicjudgmentthatJulieandMark'sactionswere“notOk”.Un- JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark309likehismalecounterpart,thisintervieweeacknowledgedthathisjudgmentof“notOk”didconveyapersonalmoraldisapprovaloftheactand,unlikehistwofemalecounter-parts,hewaseitherunableor/andunwillingtoresolvetheinconsistencybyalteringoneormoreelementsofhisover-allresponsepattern.Insum,withtherequisitemanipulationchecksoncredulityandnormativeorientationfactoredin,only14of53individualsinvolvedinthestudywereclassiableaslackingsupportingreasons,andonly3ofthese14indi-vidualsgenuinelydisapprovedofthesiblings'decisiontohavesex.Furthermore,only1ofthese3“dumbfounding-qualied”subjectsmaintainedhisdisapprovalinthe“stub-bornandpuzzled”manner,givingusamoraldumbfoundingestimateof1/53(1.88percent),notsignicantlygreaterthan0/53(z=1.00,p=0.32).5GeneraldiscussionThreestudiesutilizingtwodifferentversionsofthe“JulieandMark”vignetterevealedthat,contrathekeyassump-tionofthemoraldumbfoundingnarrative,subjectsweregenerallyreluctanttoacceptthesiblings'actionsasharm-free(Study1);notwithstandingthis,andinspiteofhavingothersubjectivelywarrantablereasonstodisapproveoftheact,subjectswentontoexhibitallthetrademarksignsofamorallydumbfoundedstate,includingconfusion,aten-dencytowithdrawreasons,andthedeclarationofdumb-foundingitself(Study2).13Finally,subjects'beliefs(theircredulity)regardingthenon-occurrenceofcertaintypesofharm,butnottheirlevelofphysicaldisgust,stronglyanduniquelypredictedtheirdisapprovaloftheact(Study3).Expressionsofincredulity,thoughsomewhatvariedfromonestudytothenext,remainedhighirrespectiveofwhetherthecredulitycheckwasperformedimmediatelyuponread-ingthescenario(andintheabsenceofanynormativeeval-uationoftheact)(Study1),attheendofastudysession,followingadetailedcounterargumentandrepeatedappealstotheharm-freenatureoftheact(Study2),or(Study3)aslongas4weeksafterthepermissibilityjudgmentwasob-tained.Moreover,theseclose-endedendorsementswereinsynchwithsubjects'spontaneous(pre-credulity-check)re-marksabouttheimaginedharmfulimplicationsoftheact(e.g.,thesiblingsndingitdifculttoformromantictieswithotherpeople,undergoing“acrisis”atsomefuturedate,and/orbeingtormentedbytheirsecret),mirroringsimilarremarksinHaidtetal.(seeHaidt,2001,Sommers,2009)aswellasinsomepriorworkofourown(e.g.,Royzman,2009). 13InBayesianterms,theproblemcouldbedescribedasoneofafar-too-lowdiagnosticspecicityrate(seeTable2a),creatingtheimpressionofamorallydumbfoundedstateevenamongthosewhoclearlypossessed(andknewthattheypossessed)subjectivelywarrantablereasonsfordisprovingoftheact.AkeycontributionofStudy3wasitsattempttoassessthetrueincidenceofMD,guidedbyHaidtetal.'s(2000)originaldenitionoftheterm.Webeganbylimitingourpoolofcandidatestothoseandonlythose(14outof53)whoseuniquecongurationofnormativeendorsements(noharm,nofoul)andempiricalbeliefs(noharm)leftthemtruly“withoutsupportingreasons”todisapproveoftheact.Only3ofthese14individualsdisapprovedofthesiblingshavingsexandonly1of3(1.9%)maintainedhisdisap-provalinthe“stubbornandpuzzled”manner.Noneofthisistodenythatreason-giversmayhaveabias(seeBaron,2008,onmysidebias).(Butthereisaworldofdifferencebetweensayingthatone'sreasonsaresomewhatbiasedandsayingthatonehasnoreasonswhatsoever).Nordoweharboranydoubtsthatperceptionsofharmandwrongcaninteract.Grayandcolleagues'(Grayetal.,2014)recentanalysisof“harmlesswrongs”(watchinganimalsextobe-comearoused,sexuallydelingacorpse)suggeststhatin-dividualstendtoquicklyandautomaticallyinferthatthereisaharmwherethereisawrong(justasindividualsmaypresumablyinferoverworkfromnextday'sfatigueorro-manticattachmentfromastabofjealousthoughts),makingitfeasiblethat,perhaps,asubstantialproportionofsubjectsinStudy2drewontheirantecedentjudgmentsofwrongtoinformtheirstudy-longbeliefthatthesiblingswereboundto“paytheprice”.Weresuchbeliefstrulyandgenuinelyheld?Wehavelittlereasontothinkotherwise.14Thissug-geststhat,whetherornotsomeoftherelevantbeliefscouldbeultimatelyshowntolieupstreamofthejudgmentsofwrong,thefactthatthoseholdingthesebeliefs(andthushavingsubjectivelywarrantablereasonstodisapproveoftheact)stillwentontodisplaythetrademarksignsofMD,in-cludingthedeclarationofdumbfoundingitself,reinforcesthekeydeationarypointsofStudies2and3:Haidtetal.'sintuitivelycompellingapproachtothediagnosisofamorallydumbfoundedstateissimplynotthediscriminantlyvalidmeasurethatitwaspurportedtobe,withamorerig-orouscounterpart(onetakingtheprecautiontolteroutallthosewithrealexpectationsoffutureharmandothersubjec-tivelywarrantablereasonstodisapproveoftheact)yieldingadumbfoundingestimateof1.Needlesstosay,itremainstobeseenhowthendingswereportmaychangeasafunctionoffuturestudiesthatemployadifferentsetofstimuliandalarger,lessWEIRD(White,educated,industrialized,rich,democratic;Henrich,Heine&Norenzayan,2010),non-collegiatesample.How-ever,giventhatallthreestudieswediscusswereintendedasconceptualreplicationsofHaidtetal.(2000),itbears 14Thereisnoapriorireasontodoubtthatthesebeliefswereanylessgenuinelyheldthantheevaluativejudgmentswithwhichtheylink;wealsocheckedonthispointmoreformallyinStudy3,showingnosignicantassociationbetweenbeliefsaboutharmandeitheranestablishedmeasureofsocialdesirabilityorthatofresponseconsistency;therewasalsonorelationshipbetweeneitherofthesemeasuresof“responseauthenticity”andjudgmentsofwrong. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark310mentionthatHaidtetal.'soriginalconclusionsderiveen-tirelyfrominterviewingasmall(N=31)andprototypi-callyWEIRDsubsetofUVAundergraduates,withnocross-culturalreplicationshavingbeenreportedatthisdate.Furthermore,onecouldcontendthat,giventhereputedassociationbetweenamore“traditional”lifestyleanda“broader”/more“multi-value”moraloutlook(Haidt,2012;Shweder,1990),isolatingMDshouldprovetobeespeciallytrickyamongtheworld'smorerepresentativepopulationswho,onHaidt's(2012)currentview(MoralFoundationsTheoryorMFT),wouldbeabletoaccessandadduceafarwiderrangeofreason-givingconsiderationsthantheirnon-traditionalcounterparts.Toillustrate,considertheFlag,oneoftheve“tabooviolation”vignettesdevelopedbyHaidtaspartofhisdoctoralworkontheculturalunderpinningsofmoraljudgment(Haidt,1992;Haidtetal.,1993).ThestorycentersonawomanwhocutsupanoldAmerican(orBrazil-ian,whensubjectswereBrazilian)agintorags,whichshethenusesforcleaningthebathroom.Though,alongwithother“tabooviolations”intheset,theFlaghasneverbeenutilizedaspartofaformaldumbfoundinginterview(Haidtetal.,2000),itsjuxtapositionofaninanimatepatientwithasolitaryagentmakesitseemlikeahighlypotentvariationonthe“harmlesswrong”motif(YoelInbar,March7,2015,privatecommunication).InourrecentuseoftheFlag(N=26,19female),wefoundthatrelativelyfewUniversityofPennsylvaniaundergraduatesdeemedtheagent'sbehav-ior“morallywrong”(27%)andevenfewerjudgedthattheagent“shouldbepunished”(4%)(willingnesstopunishbe-ingoneofHaidtetal.'s[1993]twoindicatorsthattheactionwasviewedasgenuinelyimmoral).Thefewwhodidjudgetheactiontobemorallywrongcitedtheag'ssignicanceasasymbolofthenation'shistoryandappealedtotheprin-ciplesofrespectforthathistoryaskeyconsiderationsguid-ingtheirchoice(e.g.,“Thevaluesoflovingyourcountryandtherepresentationoffreedomthattheagsigniesformemakesthismorallywrong”,“Accordingtomymorals,disrespectingordefacingasacredsymbolofnationalprideissymbolicallynotokay”)(seehttp://journal.sjdm.org/15/15405/supp2.savfortherawdataandcompleteverbatim“explanations”).Lackofinterpersonalharmwasthekeyreasoncitedbythosevoicingnomoraldisapprovaloftheact.(Similarconsiderationswouldapplytoother“taboovi-olations”,e.g.,theChickenscenario—amanhassexwithadeadchicken,thencooksandeatsit;asHaidt[1992]pointedout,people'sresponsetothisactisgroundedintwoseparatetabooviolations[p.31],bestialityandnecrophilia,whosejointcapacitytoattractmoralcondemnationmayrivalthatofincest).15 15ThesedatahighlightthedifcultythattheFlagscenario(andothersofitskind)presentfordumbfoundingresearch.Clearly,nopertinentdumb-foundinginterviewcanbeconductedwithasubjectwhodeemstheact“notmorallywrong.”ButitisequallyunclearhowonewouldproceedinthecaseofthesubjectwhosemoralsdictatethatanimportantsymbolThesendingsaregenerallyinsynchwiththosereportedbyHaidtetal.(1993)some23yearsago:amongtherela-tivelyliberalUniversityofPennsylvaniaundergraduatesandotherhigh-SESPhiladelphians,ag-cutting,chickensex,andthelike“werenot[considered]morallywrong,aslongastheseactionswereperceivedtohavenoharmfulinterper-sonalconsequences”(Haidt,1992,p.45).BoththeFlagandtheChickenweremoralizedbythelow-SESrespon-dents(especially,inBrazil),but,again,inHaidt'sownin-terpretation,theseothergroups'disapprovalwassupportedbytheir“broaderconstructionofmorality”(p.45),denedbytheirendorsementofvariouscodesofinterpersonalcon-ductcommandingrespectforauthority,tradition,andcom-pliancewiththenaturallaw(Shweder,1990)(seealsoHaidtetal.,1993andHaidt,2012),makingthemanespeciallyun-likelypopulationwithinwhichtobaresymptomsofmoraldumbfoundingassuch.Moregenerally,astheforgoinganalysisillustrates,adef-initionallypristineboutofMDislikelytobeaextraordi-narilyrarend,onefeaturingapersonwhodoggedlyanddecisivelycondemnstheverysameactthatshehasnopriornormativereasonstodislike.FromtheBayesianperspec-tive,thismeansthatanyfuturereportsofMD,especiallythoseallegingittobeacommon(oreasilydemonstrable)featureofmoralcognition,shouldbetreatedwithutmostcautionandskepticism.Ultimately,Haidtetal.'s(2000)successin“revealing”highincidenceofMDamongtheirsubjectsisattributabletotwomainfactors.Therstconcernstheaforementionedsocial/conversationaldynamicsoftheinterviewingprocess(seeStudy2).(Relatedtothisfactoristhesubject'spossibleconcernovernotbeingabletofullyarticulatehisorherpo-sitionand/orcomingacrossas“inattentive”or“stubborn”,aswellas,perhaps,thesheerdesiretoendthemonotonyoftheinterview,allleadingto“Idon'tknows”,etc.asaneasywayout).Second,atleastsomeportionoftheallegeddumbfound-ingeffectcanbeexplainedbyHaidtetal.`sdecisionnottoviewcertainsubjectivelywarrantablereasonsassuch.Thistendency(akindofnormativehegemony)16hasbeenalreadyexempliedbyHaidtetal.'s(2000)penchantforin-terpretingapparentdeontologicalclaimsascasesof“unsup-porteddeclarations”(seeStudy2and3forthediscussion ofthenation'shistorymustnotbecasually“defaced.”Wouldonecontestthisperson'sapparentnormativecommitmenttotraditionandauthorityorwouldonecontend(asother,morepermissivesubjectshaveargued)thatitisuptoeachindividualagownertodecideifthecloththeyownistrulyasymbolorjustacloth?Theultimatestrategyremainsunclear.16Anexampleofthisphenomenonfromanon-academiccontextwouldbethecommonlyvoicedcomplaintaboutthesubstandardqualityofserviceofferedatvariousdiningestablishmentsofEasternandCentralEurope,whereserversaresaidtobeasinattentive(“shenevercheckedonusonce”)astheyareslow(“ittakesagestogetacheque”).Whatsuchcriticismsandgrievancescommonlyoverlookisthenatureofthelocalhospitalitynorms,whichprescribethat,asamatterofrespect,guestsmustbeallowedtoeatinpeaceandnot“rushedout”themomenttheysetdowntheirforks. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark311andtheevidence).Anevenmorestrikingexampleisaf-fordedbythe“physical”dumbfoundingtask(adaptedfromRozin,Millman&Nemeroff[1986])inwhichasubjectwasinvitedtodrinkfromaglassofwaterorapplejuiceintowhicha“sterilized”cockroachwasmomentarilyimmersed.Haidtetal.(2000)explainthatthetaskwas“designedtoproducethesamecognitivesituationasthemoralintuitiontasks:aclear`seeing-that'theactwaswrongorundesirable,coupledwithadifcultyinnding`reasoning-why'tojus-tifyone'srefusal”(p.8).Indeed,whenasubjectrefusedtopartakeofthejuice,theexperimenterargued,Incest-style,thattheroachwasthoroughlysterilizedandposednoriskofdisease.Furtherrefusalswereinterpretedasasignthatthesubjectwas“clearlydumbfounded”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.14)andbeyondthekenofrationalpersuasion.Thatis,inthemindsoftheseresearchers,thesheerpsychologicalun-pleasantnessoftakingintherecently“roached”juice(seeRoyzman&Sabini,2001ondisgustasa“cognitivelyim-penetrable”responsetoconcreteelementsofasituation)didnotqualifyasasubjectivelywarrantablereasonforsaying“No!”tothejuice17(justaspresumablythemomentaryphysicaldistresscausedbyamildelectricjoltwouldnotimpressthemasasubjectivelywarrantablereasonforsay-ing“No!”tothejolt).Indeed,Haidt'smorerecentworkonthefoundationsofmoralcognition(Haidt,2012)indicatesthatappealstodis-gustingness(unnaturalness,weirdness,andthelike)mayfunctionasproperreasonsevenamidstamoraldumbfound-inginterview.Aspreviouslydiscussed,thesignaturefea-tureofMFT(Haidt,2012)(seealsoHaidtetal.,1993)isitsinclusion(andnormativelegitimization)ofasetofnon-utiltiarianconsiderations,e.g.,Purity/Sanctity,thatallowforadeedoramodeofconducttobecensuredorsoundlycon-demnedbasedon“disgustingness”alone.TwoofthetotalofsixitemsdevelopedbyHaidtandcolleaguestoassessasubject'sendorsementofthevalueofPurity(a.k.a.,thePurity/Sanctityfoundation)arecouchedinthelanguageofdisgust:“[Itismorallyrelevant]whetherornotsomeonedidsomethingdisgusting”and“Peopleshouldnotdothingsthataredisgusting,evenifnooneisharmed”(seehttp://www.yourmorals.org).Thismeansthat,fromthepluralisticperspectiveofMFT,tellingsubjectsthat“thefactthatanactisdisgustingdoesnotmakeitwrong”(Haidtetal.,2000,p.9)wouldalmostcertainlyprecludesome(moretraditional)individualsfromaccessingtheverylanguageormodeofex-pressionthattheywouldneedtoallythemselveswithsexual 17Theimplicitpremiseofthe“Roach”isthatthedeeperevolutionary“reason”forsubjects'feelingsofrevulsion(andresultantavoidance)—aneedtosteerclearofpathogensandthosethatmovethemaround—isef-fectivelynulliedoncethecritterisrenderedgerm-free(makingallthosecontinuingtosay“No”dumbfounded).However,itseemsthat,bythesametoken,dumbfoundingwouldhavetobeimputedtoagroupof“naïve”malesubjectswhosestatedeagernesstobedanattractivefemaleconfederatere-mainsunabatedevenafterbeinginformedthathercurrentcontraceptiveregimentmakesherutterlyunabletoconceive.impropriety-linkedreasonsofPurity,and,thus,withrea-sonedcondemnationassuch.Finally,inlinewithsomesubjects'comments,wespec-ulatethatatleastapartoftheconfusionsurroundingthesubject-experimenterinteractionsinHaidtetal.(2000)isattributabletheinteractants'widelydivergentviewsonthenatureofthejusticatoryprocess,withsomesubjectsusingappealsto,say,familialdiscordor“dangersofinbreeding”(Haidt,2001,p.814)notsomuchasproximatereasonsfortheirantecedentlyacknowledgeddisapprovaloftheact,butratherasfoundationalreasonsforupholdingtheproscriptivenorm(i.e.,theincesttaboo)thattheyassumedtobetacitlyinvokedbymakingtheirdisapprovalheard.5.1ConclusionAllinall,thedatagatheredacrossthreestudiesandonepi-lotstudydemonstratethat,contrathereceivedwisdom,sub-jects'seeminglyarationalreactionstothe“JulieandMark”vignettearelargelyinlinewiththerationalistidealofmoralevaluationespousedbyallmajorscholarsofmoralcogni-tionfromKanttoKohlberg(andbeyond).Moregenerally,thepaperhighlights(a)theneedformorerobustmanipu-lationchecksonwhetherthecognitivelytaxingdemandsembeddedinmanyascenario-basedmoraljudgmenttaskhavebeenfullyorevenpartiallymetaswellas(b)theneedforalucidandthoughtfuldiscussiononwhatmayormaycountassupportingreasonsinthecontextofamoraljudg-menttask,withaneyetowardarticulatingclearernormativebenchmarkswherebyfuturecandidatecasesofmoralunrea-sonmayberationallyselectedandassessed.Furthermore,ourthreestudiesbringtolightsomefairlynuancedwaysinwhichharmorharm-relatedconsiderationsmayentertheprocessofmoralevaluation,whilealsodrawingattentiontothegeneralimportanceofgivingdueweighttosubjects'ownstandardsofjudgment,empiricalbeliefs,andconceptu-alizationofthejusticatoryprocess,allofwhichmaydifferconsiderablyfromthosefavoredbytheresearchersmaster-mindingthestudyorthescienticcommunityatlarge.ReferencesAnderson,C.A.,Lepper,M.R.,&Ross,L.(1980).Perse-veranceofsocialtheories:Theroleofexplanationinthepersistenceofdiscreditedinformation.JournalofPerson-alityandSocialPsychology,39,1037–1049.Asch,S.E.(1956).Studiesofindependenceandsubmissiontogrouppressure:I.Aminorityofoneagainstaunani-mousmajority.PsychologicalMonographs,70(9,WholeNo.417).Baron,J.(2008).Thinkinganddeciding(4thed.).Cam-bridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark312Baron,J.,&Hershey,J.C.(1988).Outcomebiasindecisionevaluation.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol-ogy,54,569–579.Bartels,D.M.,&Pizarro,D.A.(2011).Themismeasureofmorals:Antisocialpersonalitytraitspredictutilitarianresponsestomoraldilemmas.Cognition,121,154–161.Bering,J.M.(2002)Intuitiveconceptionsofdeadagents'minds:Thenaturalfoundationsofafterlifebeliefsasphe-nomenologicalboundary.JournalofCognitionandCul-ture,2,263–308.Bering,J.M.(2006).Thefolkpsychologyofsouls.Behav-ioralandBrainSciences,29,453–462.Bonnefon,J.F.,Feeney,A.,&DeNeys,W.(2011).Theriskofpolitemisunderstanding.CurrentDirectionsinPsy-chologicalScience,20,321-324.Benforado,A.(2015).Unfair:TheNewScienceofCriminalInjustice.Crown.Camerer,C.,Lowenstein,G.,&Weber,M.(1989).Thecurseofknowledgeineconomicsettings:Anexperimen-talanalysis.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,97,1232–1254.Cialdini,R.B.,Trost,M.R.,&Newsom,J.T.(1995).Pref-erenceforconsistency:Thedevelopmentofavalidmea-sureandthediscoveryofsurprisingbehavioralimplica-tions.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,69,318–328.Colby,A.,&Kohlberg,L.(1987).Themeasurementofmoraljudgment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ferguson,H.J.,&Sanford,A.J.(2008).Anomaliesinrealandcounterfactualworlds:Aneye-movementinvestiga-tion.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,58,609–626.Ferguson,H.J.,Scheepers,C.,&Sanford,A.J.(2010).Ex-pectationsincounterfactualandtheoryofmindreason-ing.LanguageandCognitiveProcesses,25,297–346.Fischhoff,B.(1975).Hindsight=foresight:Theeffectofoutcomeknowledgeonjudgementunderuncertainty.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:HumanPerceptionandPerformance,1,288–299.Goffman,E.(1955).OnFace-work:AnAnalysisofRitualElementsofSocialInteraction.Psychiatry:JournalfortheStudyofInterpersonalProcesses,18,213-231.Gray,K.,Schein,C.,&Ward,A.F.(2014).Themythofharmlesswrongsinmoralcognition:Automaticdyadiccompletionfromsintosuffering.JournalofExperimen-talPsychology:General,143,1600–1615.Greene,J.(2013).Moraltribes.PenguinPress.Haidt,J.(1992).Moraljudgment,affect,andculture,orisitwrongtoeatyourdog?Unpublisheddoctoraldisser-tation.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofPennsylvania,Philadelphia,PA.Haidt,J.(2001).Theemotionaldoganditsrationaltail:Asocialintuitionistapproachtomoraljudgment.Psycho-logicalReview,108,814–834.Haidt,J.(2012).Therighteousmind:Whygoodpeoplearedividedbypoliticsandreligion.NewYork:Pantheon.Haidt,J.,Bjorklund,F.,&Murphy,S.(2000).Moraldumb-founding:Whenintuitionndsnoreason.Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofVirginia.Haidt,J.,Koller,S.H.,&Dias,M.G.(1993).Affect,cul-ture,andmorality,orisitwrongtoeatyourdog?JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,65,613–628.Haidt,J.,McCauley,C.,&Rozin,P.(1994).Individualdif-ferencesinsensitivitytodisgust:Ascalesamplingsevendomainsofdisgustelicitors.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,16,701–713.Harman,G.,Mason,K.,&Sinnott-Armstrong,W.(2010).Moralreasoning.InJ.Doris&theMoralPsychologyResearchGroup(Eds.),Themoralpsychologyhandbook(pp.206–245).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Henrich,J.,Heine,S.J.,&Norenzayan,A.(2010).Theweirdestpeopleintheworld?Behavioralandbrainsciences,33,61–83.Huebner,B.(2011).Critiquingempiricalmoralpsychology.Philosophyofthesocialsciences,41,50–83.Hume,D.(1978).Atreatiseofhumannature.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1739-1740).Hume,D.(1983).Anenquiryconcerningtheprinciplesofmorals.J.B.Schneewind(Ed.).NewYork:Hackett.(Originalworkpublished1751).Jacobson,D.(2013).Moraldumbfoundingandmoralstupe-faction.M.Timmons(Ed.),OxfordStudiesinNormativeEthics,Volume2(pp.289–316).Oxford:OxfordUniver-sityPress.Kagan,S.(1998).Normativeethics.Boulder,CO:West-viewPress.Kant,I.(1959).Foundationsofthemetaphysicsofmorals(L.W.Beck,Trans.).Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill(Origi-nalworkpublished1785).Milgram,S.(1974).ObediencetoAuthority.NewYork:HarperandRow.Norenzayan,A.,&Schwarz,N.(1999).Tellingwhattheywanttoknow:Participantstailorcausalattributionstore-searchers'interests.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychol-ogy,29,1011–1020.Piazza,J.,&Sousa,P.(2014).Religiosity,politicalorienta-tion,andconsequentialistmoralthinking.SocialPsycho-logicalandPersonalityScience,5,334-342.Pizarro,D.A.,&Bloom,P.(2003).Theintelligenceofthemoralintuitions:AreplytoHaidt(2001).PsychologicalReview,110,193–196.Pinker,S.(2002).Theblankslate.London:PenguinClas-sics.Royzman,E.,Atanasov,P.,Landy,J.F.,Parks,A.,&Gepty,A.(2014).CADorMAD?Anger(notdisgust)asthepredominantresponsetopathogen-freeviolationsoftheDivinitycode.Emotion,14,892–907. JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.4,July2015JulieandMark313Royzman,E.,Cassidy,K.,&Baron,J.(2003).“Iknow,youknow”:Epistemicegocentrisminchildrenandadults.ReviewofGeneralPsychology,7,38–65.Royzman,E.B.,Goodwin,G.P.,&Leeman,R.F.(2011).Whensentimentalrulescollide:“Normswithfeelings”inthedilemmaticcontext.Cognition,121,101-114.Royzman,E.B.,Landy,J.F.,&Leeman,R.F.(2015).Arethoughtfulpeoplemoreutilitarian?CRTasauniquepre-dictorofmoralminimalisminthedilemmaticcontext.Cognitivescience,39,325–352.Royzman,E.B.,Leeman,R.,&Baron,J.(2009).Un-sentimentalethics:Towardsacontent-specicaccountofthemoral-conventionaldistinction.Cognition,112,159–174.Royzman,E.B.,Leeman,R.,&Sabini,J.(2008).“Youmakemesick”:Moraldyspepsiaasareactiontothird-partysiblingincest.MotivationandEmotion,32,100–108.Royzman,E.B.,&Sabini,J.(2001).Somethingittakestobeanemotion:Theinterestingcaseofdisgust.JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehaviour,31,29–59.Rozin,P.,Millman,L.,&Nemeroff,C.(1986).Operationofthelawsofsympatheticmagicindisgustandotherdo-mains.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,50,703–712.Rozin,P.,&Stellar,J.(2009).Posthumouseventsaffectratedqualityandhappinessoflives.JudgmentandDeci-sionMaking,4,273–279.Sabini,J.(1995).Socialpsychology(2nded.).NewYork:Norton.Shor,E.,&Simchai,D.(2009).IncestAvoidance,theIncestTaboo,andSocialCohesion:RevisitingWestermarckandtheCaseoftheIsraeliKibbutzim.Americanjournalofsociology,114,1803-1842.Shweder,R.A.(1990).Indefenseofmoralrealism:ReplytoGabennesch.ChildDevelopment,61,2060–2067.Singer,P.(2005).Ethicsandintuitions.JournalofEthics,9,331-352.Sommers,T.(2009).Averybadwizard.BelieverBooks.Strahan,R.,&Gerbasi,K.C.(1972).Short,homogeneousversionsoftheMarlowe-CrownSocialDesirabilityScale.JournalofClinicalPsychology,28,191–193.Taylor,G.,&Wolfram,S.(1968).Theself-regardingandother-regardingvirtues.ThePhilosophicalQuarterly,18,238–248.Thomson,J.J.(1986).Rights,restitutionandrisk.Cam-bridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Turiel,E.(2002).Thecultureofmorality:socialdevelop-ment,context,andconict.NewYork:CambridgeUni-versityPress.Appendix:AdditionalscalesusedSocialdesirabilityscale(MC-1)(Strahan&Gerbasi,1972)PersonalReactionInventoryListedbelowareanumberofstatementsconcerningper-sonalattitudesandtraits.Pleasereadeachitemanddecidewhetherthestatementistrue(circlingT)orfalse(circlingF)asitpertainstoyoupersonally.1.I'malwayswillingtoadmititwhenImakeamistake.2.IalwaystrytopracticewhatIpreach.3.Ineverresentbeingaskedtoreturnafavor.4.Ihaveneverbeenirkedwhenpeopleexpressedideasverydifferentfrommyown.5.Ihaveneverdeliberatelysaidsomethingthathurtsomeone'sfeelings.6.Iliketogossipattimes.7.TherehavebeenoccasionswhenItookadvantageofsomeone.8.Isometimestrytogetevenratherthanforgiveandforget.9.AttimesIhavereallyinsistedonhavingthingsmyownway.10.TherehavebeenoccasionswhenIfeltlikesmashingthings.ThePreferenceforConsistencyScale(Cialdini,Trost&Newsom,1995)Listedbelowareanumberofstatements.Youwillproba-blydisagreewithsomeofthemandagreewithothers.Infrontofeachitembelow,pleasewritethenumber:1ifyoustronglydisagree,2ifyoudisagree,3ifyousomewhatdis-agree,4ifyouslightlydisagree,5ifyouneitheragreenordisagree,6ifyouslightlyagree,7ifyousomewhatagree,8ifyouagree,and9ifyoustronglyagree.Pleaseanswereachquestionashonestlyandaccuratelyasyoucan,butdon'tspendtoomuchtimethinkingabouteachanswer.1.Itisimportanttomethatthosewhoknowmecanpre-dictwhatIwilldo.2.Iwanttobedescribedbyothersasastable,predictableperson.3.TheappearanceofconsistencyisanimportantpartoftheimageIpresenttotheworld.4.Animportantrequirementforanyfriendofmineispersonalconsistency.5.Itypicallyprefertodothingsthesameway.6.Iwantmyclosefriendstobepredictable.7.Itisimportanttomethatothersviewmeasastableperson.8.Imakeanefforttoappearconsistenttoothers.9.Itdoesn'tbothermemuchifmyactionsareinconsis-tent