Two critical thinking skills—the tendency to avoid myside bias and to avoid one-sided thinking—were examined in three different experiments involving over 1200 participants and across two different paradigms. Robust indications of myside bias were observed in all three experiments. Participants gave higher evaluations to arguments that supported their opinions than those that refuted their prior positions. Likewise, substantial one-side bias was observed—participants were more likely to prefer a one-sided to a balanced argument. There was substantial variation in both types of (...) bias, but we failed to find that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less myside bias or less one-side bias. Although cognitive ability failed to associate with the magnitude of the myside bias, the strength and content of the prior opinion did predict the degree of myside bias shown. Our results indicate that cognitive ability—as defined by traditional psychometric indicators—turns out to be surprisingly independent of two of the most important critical thinking tendencies discussed in the literature. (shrink)

This essay presents a case study of how normative and descriptive approaches to comparative religious ethics, as well as textual and empirical approaches, can be mutually enriching. Taking early Confucian ethical views on the centrality of parent‐child relationships in childhood moral development as an example, I examine how empirical evidence can be brought to bear on certain dimensions of traditional ethical views in order to deepen our appreciation for them and help us to see how their insights might be applied (...) in a contemporary setting. I also show how empirical evidence can sometimes serve as a helpful guide in further developing, refining, and amending certain dimensions of traditional ethical views. I illustrate the value of this approach by examining several aspects of Confucian views on infancy, childhood, parent‐child relationships, and moral cultivation in relation to attachment theory. (shrink)

Recent work in behavioral economics and psychology provides valuable resources for religious ethicists. This book discussion examines contributions by Cass Sunstein, Daniel Kahneman, George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton, Uri Gneezy and John A. List, and Douglas Hough. This literature raises important questions about ethical decision-making, moral agency and responsibility, and the ethics of life in global capitalism. It also opens up promising areas for interdisciplinary dialogue between economics and religious studies. This book discussion concludes that religious ethicists have much to (...) contribute to the conversations about moral anthropology that are now being held in behavioral economic research, and to the broader political economic debates in which this research participates. (shrink)