PLoS ONE 7 (9):e45457. doi:10.1371/journal.pone (2012)
AbstractEvery day, thousands of polls, surveys, and rating scales are employed to elicit the attitudes of humankind. Given the ubiquitous use of these instruments, it seems we ought to have firm answers to what is measured by them, but unfortunately we do not. To help remedy this situation, we present a novel approach to investigate the nature of attitudes. We created a self-transforming paper survey of moral opinions, covering both foundational principles, and current dilemmas hotly debated in the media. This survey used a magic trick to expose participants to a reversal of their previously stated attitudes, allowing us to record whether they were prepared to endorse and argue for the opposite view of what they had stated only moments ago. The result showed that the majority of the reversals remained undetected, and a full 69% of the participants failed to detect at least one of two changes. In addition, participants often constructed coherent and unequivocal arguments supporting the opposite of their original position. These results suggest a dramatic potential for flexibility in our moral attitudes, and indicates a clear role for self-attribution and post-hoc rationalization in attitude formation and change.
Similar books and articles
How the Polls Can Be Both Spot On and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions.Lars Hall, Thomas Strandberg, Philip Pärnamets, Andreas Lind, Betty Tärning & Petter Johansson - 2013 - PLoS ONE 8 (4):e60554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task.Petter Johansson, Lars Hall, Sverker Sikstrom & Andreas Olsson - 2005 - Science 310 (5745):116-119.
De Se Attitudes: Ascription and Communication.Dilip Ninan - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (7):551-567.
How Something Can Be Said About Telling More Than We Can Know: On Choice Blindness and Introspection.Petter Johansson, Lars Hall, Sverker Sikström, Betty Tärning & Andreas Lind - 2006 - Consciousness and Cognition 15 (4):673-692.
Values and Ethics-Related Measures for Management Education.Stephen L. Payne - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (4):273 - 277.
Employee Attitudes Toward Whistleblowing: Management and Public Policy Implications. [REVIEW]Elletta Sangrey Callahan & John W. Collins - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (12):939 - 948.
Humanitarian Versus Organizational Morality — a Survey of Attitudes Concerning Business Ethics Among Managing Directors.Ulrica Nylén - 1995 - Journal of Business Ethics 14 (12):977 - 986.
A Survey of Managers' Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility and Actions That May Affect Companies' Success.Ron Cacioppe, Nick Forster & Michael Fox - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 82 (3):681 - 700.
The Moral Intensity of Privacy: An Empirical Study of Webmasters' Attitudes. [REVIEW]Thomas R. Shaw - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 46 (4):301 - 318.
Are Businesspeople Buying It?: Measuring Managerial Attitudes Toward Sustainability.Tom E. Thomas & Peter Melhus - 2009 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 20:182-193.
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics of Business Students in Malaysia.Kazi Firoz Alam - 1995 - Journal of Business Ethics 14 (4):309 - 313.
A Survey of Calgary Paediatricians'attitudes Regarding the Treatment of Defective Newborns. A Report From Canada.B. A. Y. E. & MICHAEL M. BURGESS - 1991 - Bioethics 5 (2):139–149.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Against Dispositionalism: Belief in Cognitive Science.Jake Quilty-Dunn & Eric Mandelbaum - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2353-2372.
Technologically scaffolded atypical cognition: The case of YouTube’s recommender system.Mark Alfano, Amir Ebrahimi Fard, J. Adam Carter, Peter Clutton & Colin Klein - 2020 - Synthese (1-2):1-24.
The Fragmentation of Belief.Joseph Bendana & Eric Mandelbaum - forthcoming - In Cristina Borgoni, Dirk Kindermann & Andrea Onofri (eds.), The Fragmented Mind. Oxford, UK:
References found in this work
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
Abstract.[author unknown] - 2011 - Dialogue and Universalism 21 (4):9-9.
The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.Jonathan Haidt - 2001 - Psychological Review 108 (4):814-834.