P457/P657 Science of Moral Judgment; Professor Kruschke.

Spring 2015. Tu/Th 2:30-3:45, Rm 228 Psych.

 

Course description: This course surveys recent scientific research about the psychology of moral judgment, broadly construed. Moral psychology examines how people make judgments of appropriate behavior. Many scientific disciplines inform this domain, including social psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, brain science, cognitive psychology, robotics and artificial intelligence, among others. This is not a course about religion, nor is it a course about the philosophy of ethics. This course is about the psychological mechanisms of moral judgment, not a course about what correct judgments ought to be.

 

Required readings: This is a readings-and-discussion course. Each day focuses on a particular scientific article. Students are expected to actively discuss the articles in class. The list of readings is presented in the schedule, below. Readings are available online to enrolled students at the course’s Oncourse Resources.

 

Prerequisites: Advanced undergraduates who are able to carefully read, digest, and discuss scientific articles are heartily encouraged to enroll in P457. Graduate students should enroll in P657. There are no formal pre-requisites.

 

Grading procedure:

Quizzes: Most classes begin with a quiz on the day’s reading. The purpose of the quizzes is to prepare you for in-class discussion and recognize your preparation. Each quiz is worth 15 points. You can see from the schedule below that there are 25 quizzes altogether. Your best 21 quizzes (315 points total) will count toward your grade. There are no make-up quizzes for missed quizzes (unless you have documented proof that you had to miss more than 4 quizzes all for reasons beyond your control, in which case notify Prof. Kruschke immediately).

Exams: There are 3 exams. The purpose of the exams is to help you retrospectively synthesize the readings. Each exam is worth 100 points, for 300 points total. All exams are mandatory. Make-up exams are given only with documented proof that you had to miss an exam for reasons beyond your control, in which case you must notify Prof. Kruschke immediately, and in advance if possible.

Course grade: Letter grades are based on your total points, as a percentile relative to other students in the course. There are no pre-set point cutoffs for specific letter grades, nor is there a pre-set quota for how many students can receive A’s or B’s, etc. Because this is an advanced class, past experience suggests that there will be mostly A’s and B’s but also a significant number of C’s and lower grades as appropriate.

 

Instructor: Professor John K. Kruschke, johnkruschke@gmail.com. Office hours by appointment; please do ask.

Assistant: Brad Celestin, bcelesti@indiana.edu. Office hours to be announced.

 

Disclaimer: All information in this document is subject to change. Changes will be announced in class.

 

Schedule

Week

Day / Date

Theme

Class Activity. “Q&D” means Quiz and Discussion regarding the specified article. Each quiz starts promptly at 2:30.

1

Tu

Jan 13

Overviews

Welcome and course overview. Morality in everyday life; e.g. from TV show, What Would You Do?, and from Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340-1343.

1

Th

 

Q&D: Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th Edition. Hobeken, NJ: Wiley. Pp. 797-832.

2

Tu

 

Q&D: Haidt & Kesebir (2010), continued.

2

Th

 

Q&D: Bartels, D. M., Bauman C. W., Cushman F. A., Pizarro D. A., and McGraw A. P. (2014), “Moral Judgment and Decision Making,” In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.) Blackwell Reader of Judgment and Decision Making. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

3

Tu

 

Q&D: Waldmann, M. R., Nagel, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2012). Moral judgment. The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, 364-389.

3

Th

Individual differences

Q&D: Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.

4

Tu

 

Q&D: Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57.

4

Th

Emotion

Q&D: Fiske, A. P. (2002). Socio-moral emotions motivate action to sustain relationships. Self and Identity, 1(2), 169-175. AND

Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 1-6.

5

Tu

 

Q&D: Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape: moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3) 219–236.

5

Th

Feb 12

 

Exam review.

6

Tu

Feb 17

 

Exam

6

Th

Cognitive processes and models

Q&D: Gray, K., Schein, C., & Ward, A. F. (2014). The Myth of Harmless Wrongs in Moral Cognition: Automatic Dyadic Completion From Sin to Suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,143(4), 1600–1615.

7

Tu

 

Q&D: Sloman, S. A., Fernbach, P. M., & Ewing, S. (2009). Causal models: The representational infrastructure for moral judgment. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 50, 1-26.

7

Th

 

Q&D: Uttich, K., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition, 116(1), 87-100.

8

Tu

 

Q&D: Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Moral satisficing: Rethinking moral behavior as bounded rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 528-554.

8

Th

Evolution

Q&D: Lahti, D. C., & Weinstein, B. S. (2005). The better angels of our nature: group stability and the evolution of moral tension. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(1), 47-63.

9

Tu

 

Q&D: DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 477.

9

Th

 

Q&D: Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 218-226.

10

Tu

Mar 24

 

Q&D: Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360-1366.

Exam review.

10

Th

Mar 26

 

Exam. In-class data collection for Cushman et al. (2009).

11

Tu

Punishment

Q&D: Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y., & Costa, J. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a “trembling hand” game. PloS one, 4(8), e6699.

11

Th

 

Q&D: Liddell, T. M. and Kruschke, J. K. (2014). Ostracism and fines in a public goods game with accidental contributions: The importance of punishment type. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 523-547.

12

Tu

 

Q&D: McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(01), 1-15.

12

Th

Innateness

Q&D: Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P., & Mahajan, N. (2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 108(50), 19931-19936.

13

Tu

 

Q&D: Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Failed attempts to help and harm: Intention versus outcome in preverbal infants’ social evaluations. Cognition, 128(3), 451-474.

13

Th

 

Q&D: Sloane, S., Baillargeon, R., & Premack, D. (2012). Do infants have a sense of fairness? Psychological Science, 23(2), 196–204.

14

Tu

Acquisition

Q&D: Rakoczy, H., & Schmidt, M. F. (2013). The early ontogeny of social norms. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 17-21. AND

Keupp, S., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2013). Why do children overimitate? Normativity is crucial. Journal of experimental child psychology, 116(2), 392-406.

14

Th

 

Q&D: Sripada, C. S., & Stich, S. (2005). A framework for the psychology of norms. In: P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The Innate Mind, Vol.2 Culture and Cognition. Ch. 17, pp. 280-301. Oxford University Press.

15

Tu

Machine ethics

Q&D: Allen, C., Wallach, W., & Smit, I. (2006). Why machine ethics? Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 21(4), 12-17. AND

Malle, B., & Scheutz, M. (2014). Moral Competence in Social Robots. In IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology, Chicago.

Exam Review.

15

Th

Apr 30

 

Exam.

Finals

No exam or assignments due during final-exam week.