Psychologists shed light on origins of morality

Feb 26, 2009

In everyday language, people sometimes say that immoral behaviours "leave a bad taste in your mouth". But this may be more than a metaphor according to new scientific evidence from the University of Toronto that shows a link between moral disgust and more primitive forms of disgust related to poison and disease.

"Morality is often pointed to as the pinnacle of human evolution and development," says lead author Hanah Chapman, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology. "However, disgust is an ancient and rather primitive emotion which played a key evolutionary role in survival. Our research shows the involvement of disgust in morality, suggesting that moral judgment may depend as much on simple emotional processes as on complex thought." The research is being published in Science on February 27, 2009.

In the study, the scientists examined facial movements when participants tasted unpleasant liquids and looked at photographs of disgusting objects such as dirty toilets or injuries. They compared these to their facial movements when they were subjected to unfair treatment in a laboratory game. The U of T team found that people make similar facial movements in response to both primitive forms of disgust and moral disgust.

The research employed electromyography, a technique that uses small electrodes placed on the face to detect electrical activation that occurs when the facial muscles contract. In particular, they focused on movement of the levator labii muscle, which acts to raise the upper lip and wrinkle the nose, movements that are thought to be characteristic of the facial expression of disgust.

"We found that people show activation of this muscle region in all three situations - when tasting something bad, looking at something disgusting and experiencing unfairness," says Chapman.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience. "Surprisingly, our sophisticated moral sense of what is right and wrong may develop from a newborn's innate preference for what tastes good and bad, what is potentially nutritious versus poisonous."

Source: University of Toronto

Explore further: What is whisper therapy?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The goTenna device pitch is No Service, No Problem

10 minutes ago

In the new age of Internet-based crowdfunding with special price offers, where startup teams try to push their product closer and closer to the gate of entry, goTenna's campaign offers a most attractive pitch. ...

Scientists enlist big data to guide conservation efforts

40 minutes ago

Despite a deluge of new information about the diversity and distribution of plants and animals around the globe, "big data" has yet to make a mark on conservation efforts to preserve the planet's biodiversity. ...

66-yard crater appears in far northern Siberia

1 hour ago

Russian scientists say they believe a 60-meter (66-yard) wide crater discovered recently in far northern Siberia could be the result of changing temperatures in the region.

Medical advances turn science fiction into science fact

2 hours ago

Exoskeletons helping the paralysed to walk, tiny maggot-inspired devices gnawing at brain tumours, machines working tirelessly as hospital helpers: in many respects, the future of medicine is already here.

Recommended for you

What is whisper therapy?

22 minutes ago

Consider the stress of modern life, with its cacophonous soundtrack of traffic, electronics and construction. It's no wonder so much of our leisure time is spent in a quest to let go of the workday and unwind. ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thales
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2009
It makes sense. I imagine this is the crux of moral dilemmas - instinct versus reason.
E_L_Earnhardt
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2009
Phychology discovers morality. Now that's news!
nilbud
3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2009
Just because you pull a face doesn't mean the underlying causes are related. There are a few things which would raise my eyebrows but that doesn't mean they are related, unless being stabbed is the same as being goosed. Munching a steak would cause disgust to a vegetarian and that is a learned response. As an atheist I'd suggest consulting some theologians and philosophers regarding the design of the experiments, morality is tricky.
definitude
2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2009
I am an atheist and a theologian, I have no problem with these findings. Frankly, I was just dealing with some individuals about moral civic duty. It is ironic because the conversation degenerated into arguments of disgust. It was ironic that debate over logic and social kinship might be hinged on matters of bias and social referencing of discomfort in Hygiene or survival, but that does seem to have an effect. Not only that, it seems to be the crutch of those who are disheartened by logical premise. I know it is not fair, but I can see how appearance can make or break a deal. Question is, do you really want to foster a deal with someone willing to reduce logic to an instinctual bias.
nilbud
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2009
"It was ironic that debate over logic and social kinship might be hinged on matters of bias and social referencing of discomfort in Hygiene or survival"

Was that supposed to mean something or do you just specialise in nonsense?
menkaur
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2009
Just because you pull a face doesn't mean the underlying causes are related. There are a few things which would raise my eyebrows but that doesn't mean they are related, unless being stabbed is the same as being goosed. Munching a steak would cause disgust to a vegetarian and that is a learned response. As an atheist I'd suggest consulting some theologians and philosophers regarding the design of the experiments, morality is tricky.

actually, it makes sense. our mind usually uses what it already has - if it is possible - instead of creating new circles for some unknown purposes. it makes evolutionary sense. i don't see, what's your problem
smiffy
not rated yet Feb 27, 2009
the scientists examined facial movements when participants tasted unpleasant liquids and looked at photographs of disgusting objects such as dirty toilets or injuries. They compared these to their facial movements when they were subjected to unfair treatment in a laboratory game.
This can hardly be a surprise. Something unpleasant is happening to the subject in both cases, eliciting similar emotional responses. If moral response is to be truly tested the subject should have been examined *witnessing* extremely unfair treatment of somebody else, which should provoke strong moral objections. I'd like to bet in that case the facial expressions would be quite different.
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2009
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH