Abstract
It is sometimes considered that there are 2 routes to moral choice, deontological and utilitarian (with debate as to whether each of these routes uniquely reflect emotional vs. analytic components). Yet in moral judgments we are often faced with a third route to choice, based on rules imposed by an outside agency (most typically the legal framework of a country). Whether we agree with these rules or not, we can choose to guide moral choice in this way. Moreover, depending on the situation, we can sometimes choose to prioritize such external rules or not. Sometimes external rules coincide with either deontological or utilitarian biases. But what happens when they do not? Using a novel paradigm for moral judgment, the refugee dilemma, we provide evidence for such a route to moral choice based on external rules. We show in 3 experiments that participants with high scores on a cognitive reflection test or under cognitive load were more likely to adopt utilitarian or rule-based responses, as opposed to emotional ones. We also found that rule-based respondents reported the highest average psychological distance. These findings extend the predominant approach of dual process models. Supplemental materials are available here: https://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/ajp/media/untangling_decision_routes_in_moral_dilemmas/index.html
