Similarly, evoking emotionally salient situations may lead to treating moral judgements differently (Greene, Somerville, Nystrom, Darley & Cohen, 2001). However, enhancing security consistently relates to increased altruistic behaviours, even when involving distressed acquaintances or strangers. Likewise, moral judgements are led by social values, which apply to all people, not just kin. Mikulincer et al. (2005) suggest secure attachment enables resources to be reallocated to care giving behaviour while cognitively challenging, effortful actions can be delayed by emotional or cognitive demands. Correspondingly, emotionally salient dilemmas, requiring higher processing, are deemed less appropriate than less salient situations (Greene et al., 2001). Salience increases in direct actions, such as physically causing one death to save others, versus indirect action, such as inadvertently causing one death to save others (Greene et al., 2001). Emotionally incongruent replies yield slower response times (Greene et al., 2001); suggesting cognitive and emotional processes affect judgement, akin to altruism (Fine, 2006). FMRI studies suggest dilemmas activate emotion and reason-related structures. However, extent of emotional engagement varies, analogous to effects of attachment varying dependent on style, mental or emotional demands. Reasoning and working memory appears more engaged in impersonal dilemmas. Evidence suggests that reason, or other factors such as motivations, can override both affective-laden altruistic behaviour and moral judgement. The authors conclude dispositional or experimentally enhancing secure attachment increases altruistic care giving in diverse cultures. While motivations have some effect, enhancing security may override egoistic drives, personality, or
Similarly, evoking emotionally salient situations may lead to treating moral judgements differently (Greene, Somerville, Nystrom, Darley & Cohen, 2001). However, enhancing security consistently relates to increased altruistic behaviours, even when involving distressed acquaintances or strangers. Likewise, moral judgements are led by social values, which apply to all people, not just kin. Mikulincer et al. (2005) suggest secure attachment enables resources to be reallocated to care giving behaviour while cognitively challenging, effortful actions can be delayed by emotional or cognitive demands. Correspondingly, emotionally salient dilemmas, requiring higher processing, are deemed less appropriate than less salient situations (Greene et al., 2001). Salience increases in direct actions, such as physically causing one death to save others, versus indirect action, such as inadvertently causing one death to save others (Greene et al., 2001). Emotionally incongruent replies yield slower response times (Greene et al., 2001); suggesting cognitive and emotional processes affect judgement, akin to altruism (Fine, 2006). FMRI studies suggest dilemmas activate emotion and reason-related structures. However, extent of emotional engagement varies, analogous to effects of attachment varying dependent on style, mental or emotional demands. Reasoning and working memory appears more engaged in impersonal dilemmas. Evidence suggests that reason, or other factors such as motivations, can override both affective-laden altruistic behaviour and moral judgement. The authors conclude dispositional or experimentally enhancing secure attachment increases altruistic care giving in diverse cultures. While motivations have some effect, enhancing security may override egoistic drives, personality, or