Parsing the Roles of Heredity Environment and Volitional Cognitive Processes in Moral Character Development Eugenia I Gorlin PhD amp Reinier Schuur MSc May 11 2017 ID: 640279
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Nurturing our Better Nature:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
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.Slide27Slide28
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