Higher cognitive ability linked to weaker moral foundations in UK adults
Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates from the Department of Psychology at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom
This research investigates the relationship between cognitive ability and moral foundations, a field where previous studies have produced contradictory results. To clarify this ambiguity, the authors conducted two studies with UK residents (totaling 1,320 participants) using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 (MFQ-2) and the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) to measure moral values and cognitive ability, respectively.
The study tested four competing hypotheses:
1. Cognitive Impenetrability Model: Predicts no link between cognitive ability and moral foundations.
2. Positive Association Model: Posits that higher cognitive ability is linked to stronger endorsement of all moral foundations.
3. Enlightenment Model: Suggests higher cognitive ability is associated with stronger "individualizing" foundations (like care and equality) and weaker "binding" foundations (like loyalty, authority, and purity).
4. Morality Suppression Model: Predicts a negative association between cognitive ability and all moral foundations.
Both Study 1 and the preregistered Study 2 consistently supported the Morality Suppression Model. The findings revealed that higher general cognitive ability (g) was negatively linked to both individualizing and binding moral foundations. This suggests that individuals with higher cognitive abilities tend to have a weaker endorsement of all measured moral intuitions. The results from Study 2 closely replicated those of Study 1, confirming the preregistered hypotheses.
A specific finding was a consistent negative relationship between verbal ability and the "purity" foundation. The authors speculate that a large linguistic repertoire might make purity concerns seem naive or allow them to be verbally obfuscated.
In conclusion, the research resolves previous contradictions in the field by providing strong, replicable evidence that higher cognitive ability is associated with a diminished endorsement of moral foundations across the board. This challenges theories that link intelligence with enhanced or more "enlightened" moral intuitions
How it relates to our work:
Exploration of the Tension Between Intuition and Reason: The study investigates the relationship between cognitive ability (reasoning) and moral foundations (intuitions).
In Headspace 1, the participant makes an initial, intuitive choice (YES or NO) based on an emotional scenario and then must rationally justify it under intense questioning from an AI detective.
Similarly, Ladder of Life forces both human and AI participants to respond with intuitive gut reactions ("Would you risk your life for a stranger?") and then analyzes these responses from a logical perspective.
One hypothesis the study rejected was the "Enlightenment Model," which suggested that higher intelligence would lead to stronger "individualizing" foundations like care and equality. Tokens of Decency installations could offer an interesting ground for observation. We do not track participants' cognitive ability and how their responses relate to it, but it might be an experience worth exploring in a scientific context.
A key concept in Moral Foundations Theory, which the study uses, is that reasoning often comes after an intuitive moral judgment to provide a post-hoc justification. Headspace #1 is built around forcing participants to articulate these justifications. The interrogation scenes with Detective Lewis and Casey are essentially extended exercises in post-hoc justification for an initial choice. The authors speculate that a larger vocabulary might help people "verbally obfuscate" or rationalize away intuitive moral concerns. This resonates with the playful instruction for the detective AI to reward participants who invent "very original narratives" by pushing back, engaging directly with their sophisticated attempts at justification.