The Impact of Heuristics on Moral Decision-Making Confidence: A Quantitative Comparative Analysis

Heuristics are decision-making strategies based on rules or shortcuts that enable individuals to quickly make choices. Heuristics have been primarily researched in a cognitive sense thus far, and it has been established that in cognitive decision-making, individuals select specific heuristics based on their past experiences in similar situations. Previous research has also demonstrated that selecting the appropriate heuristic for a given situation consistently leads to increased confidence; consequently, the heuristic that provides the highest level of confidence is the one utilized most often. However, this concept has not yet been explored in moral decision-making. This paper analyzes the five most common moral heuristics, social proof, authority figure, betrayal, tit for tat, and acts vs. omission, and the average confidence levels individuals report when using them. This study required participants to respond to a moral decision-making scenario using one of these five heuristics and rate their confidence in their decision. The heuristics yielding the highest average confidence ratings were betrayal and tit for tat, while the social proof and authority figure heuristics yielded the lowest. These results suggest that people utilize the betrayal and tit for tat heuristics the most often. Furthermore, when constructing arguments, these specific heuristics should be emphasized, as individuals are more likely to respond with confidence and agree with the presented argument.