Abstract
The decline in violence and growing awareness of human rights can be viewed as natural experiments in history answering the question if humans are moral creatures. A dual-process approach, which assumes the intuitive and reflective systems, is adopted to examine how the reflective system controls the intuitive system, which possibly produces our cruelty. Reading a story may enhance our reflective system to suppress our cruelty. However, the power of the reflective system is weak in arousing people’s action against violence. Hence, theory of mind (ToM) accompanied by emotional empathy is necessary for the suppression of cruelty. However, ToM is modular in nature and one of the subsystems of the intuitive system; hence, empathy is narrow in its focus, which possibly causes social fragmentation and political polarisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bloom, P.: Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Ecco (2016)
Baron-Cohen, S.: Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press/Bradford, Cambridge, MA (1995)
Baumard, N., Hyafil, A., Morris, I., Boyer, P.: Increased affluence explains the emergence of ascetic wisdoms and moralizing religions. Current Biology 25(1), 10–15 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.063
Buffone, A.E., Poulin, M.J.: Empathy, target distress, and neurohormone genes interact to predict aggression for others-even without provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(11), 1406–1422 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549320
Carlson, S.M., Moses, L.J., Claxton, L.J.: Individual differences in executive functioning and theory of mind: An investigation of inhibitory control and planning ability. J. Experim. Child Psychol. 87(4), 299–319 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.002
Daly, M., Wilson, M.: Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (1988)
Djikic, M., Oatley, K., Moldoveanu, M.C.: Reading other minds: effects of literature on empathy. Scientific Study of Literature 3(1), 28–47 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.3.1.06dji
Dutton, E., Lynn, R.: A negative Flynn effect in Finland, 1997–2009. Intelligence 41(6), 817–820 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.008
Eisensee, T., Strömberg, D.: News droughts, news floods, and U. S. disaster relief. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2), 693–728 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.2.693
Evans, J.S.T.B.T.: On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 13, 321–339 (2007)
Evans, J.S.T.B.T.: Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2010)
Flynn, J.R.: Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, New York (2012)
Gottschall, J.: The story paradox: How our love of storytelling builds societies and tears them down. Basic Books (2021)
Haidt, J.: The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon, New York (2012)
He, J., Guo, D., Zhai, S., Shen, M., Gao, Z.: Development of social working memory in preschoolers and its relation to theory of mind. Child Development 90(4), 1319–1332 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13025
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R.W., Schmitt, M.: Working memory capacity and self-regulatory behavior: Toward an individual differences perspective on behavior determination by automatic versus controlled processes. J. Persona. Soc. Psychol. 95(4), 962–977 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012705
Jones, L.M., Finkelhor, D., Halter, S.: Child maltreatment trends in the 1990s: Why does neglect differ from sexual and physical abuse? Child maltreatment 11(2), 107–120 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505284375
Kidd, D.C., Castano, E.: Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science 342(6156), 377–380 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918
Kogut, T., Ritov, I.: The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? J. Behavi. Deci. Mak. 18, 157–167 (2005)
Leslie, A.M.: Pretense, autism, and the theory-of-mind module. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 1, 18–21 (1992)
Mar, R.A., Oatley, K.: The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspec. Psycholo. Sci. 3(3), 173–192 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x
Meyer, M.L., Spunt, R.P., Berkman, E.T., Taylor, S.E., Lieberman, M.D.: Evidence for social working memory from a parametric functional MRI study. Proce. Nation. Acad. Sci. 109(6), 1883–1888 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.112107710
Pinker, S.: The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking, New York (2011)
Pennycook, G., Bago, B., McPhetres, J.: Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication. J. Experim. Psychol. Gene. 152(1), 80–97 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001267
Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: The psychology of fake news. The Trends in Cognitive Science 25(5), 388–402 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Stanovich, K.E.: Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Erlbaum (1999)
Stanovich, K.E.: Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In: Evans, J.St.B.T., Frankish, K. (eds.) In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, pp. 55–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009)
Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F.: Individual differences in rational thought. J. Experim. Psychol. Gene. 127(2), 161–188 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161
Strack, F., Deutsch, R.: Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Person. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8(3), 220–247 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U.S., Furnham, A.: Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition 133(3), 572–585 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006
Verkuyten, M., Schlette, A., Adelman, L., Yogeeswaran, K.: Deliberative thinking increases tolerance of minority group practices: Testing a dual-process model of tolerance. J. Experim. Psychol. Appl. Adva. online Pub. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000429M.
Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., Adelman, L.: Does deliberative thinking increase tolerance? Political tolerance toward individuals with dual citizenship. Social Cognition 40(4), 396–409 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2022.40.4.396
Wrangham, R.W.: Hypotheses for the evolution of reduced reactive aggression in the context of human self-domestication. Frontiers in Psychology 10(1914), 1–11 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01914
Yama, H.: Morality and contemporary civilization: A dual process approach. In: Yama, H., Salvano-Pardieu, V. (eds.) Adapting human thinking and moral reasoning in contemporary society, pp. 92–114. IGI Global (2020)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yama, H. (2024). Are Humans Moral Creatures? A Dual-Process Approach for Natural Experiments of History. In: Baratgin, J., Jacquet, B., Yama, H. (eds) Human and Artificial Rationalities. HAR 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14522. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55245-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55245-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55244-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55245-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)