Beyond physical harm: how preference for consequentialism and primary psychopathy relate to decisions on a monetary trolley dilemma

References

• Alexander L., & Moore M. (2008). Deontological ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
   Google Scholar
• Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). Investigating theory of mind deficits in nonclinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 169–174. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2018). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550618755873
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154–161. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1506.04967.
   Google Scholar
• Bentham, J. (1983). The collected works of Jeremy Bentham: Deontology, together with a table of the springs of action; and the article on utilitarianism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1879.)
   Google Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. (2017). An asymmetric moral conformity effect subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 243–251. doi:10.1177/1948550616671999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of Mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. doi:10.1?/0956797617752640
   Google Scholar
• Cushman, F., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Finding faults: How moral dilemmas illuminate cognitive structure. Social Neuroscience, 7(3), 269–279. doi:10.1080/17470919.2011.614000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeScioli, P., Asao, K., & Kurzban, R. (2012). Omissions and byproducts across moral domains. PLoS One, 7(10), e46963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djeriouat, H., & Trémolière, B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of honesty/humility and harm/care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11–16. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iyer, R., Graham, J., & Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 497–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, N., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(1), 65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, N., Pulford, B. D., & Colman, A. M. (2013). Your money or your life: Comparing judgements in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury and death. Economics & Philosophy, 29(2), 213–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D. (2015). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro) science matters for ethics. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 9, 141–172. doi:10.1515/lehr-2015-0011
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E., & Cushman, F. A. (2018). Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? Cognition, 170, 95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551–560. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., & Shackel, N. (2010). Methodological issues in the neuroscience of moral judgement. Mind & Language, 25(5), 561–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., Wiech, K., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. (2011). The neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 393–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (1956). Critique of practical reason. (L. W. Beck, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1788.)
   Google Scholar
• Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708–714. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, C., Starmans, C., Fugelsang, J., & Friedman, O. (2016). It’s personal: The effect of personal value on utilitarian moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, J. C., Turri, J., & Friedman, O. (2014). For the greater goods? Ownership rights and utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 133(1), 79–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2018). The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 24–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, G. B., Altman, D. G., Askie, L. M., Duley, L., Simmonds, M. C., & Stewart, L. A. (2012). Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: A comparison of methods and recommendations for practice. PLoS One, 7(10), e46042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trémolière, B., & De Neys, W. (2013). Methodological concerns in moral judgement research: Severity of harm shapes moral decisions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(8), 989–993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vonk, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Ewing, D., Mercer, S., & Noser, A. E. (2015). Mindreading in the dark: Dark personality features and theory of mind. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 50–54. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 794–799. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition, 126(3), 364–372. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar