Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Spanish

In moral dilemmas, decision-making can be based on more utilitarian or deontological reasoning. In two experimental studies, we manipulated the number of people to be sacrificed (1 to save 5 vs. 3 to save 5) and whether personalizing information about them was presented. Results provide the first evidence of how the effects of kill-save ratios and identifiability of the potential victims are contingent on one another. Specifically, this research shows that when individuating information about the potential victims is present in a trolley dilemma, participants are more reluctant to sacrifice three persons to save five than to sacrifice one person to save five. When such individuating information is not present, the acceptability of sacrificing the victims does not depend on their number.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong

Friesdorf

Conway

(2019). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618755873

Bartels

D. M.

(2006). Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.004

Bartels

D. M.

(2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108(2), 381–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.001

Bonnefon

J. F.

Shariff

Rahwan

(2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654

Cikara

Farnsworth

R. A.

Harris

L. T.

Fiske

S. T.

(2010). On the wrong side of the trolley track: Neural correlates of relative social valuation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(4), 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq011

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Da Silva Frost

Ledgerwood

(2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, e14, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7

De Oliveira Junior

Thomaz

C.E.

(2006). Captura e Alinhamento de Imagens: Um Banco de Faces Brasileiro [Capture and alignment of images: a Brazilian faces database]. (Undergraduate Technical Report,). Department of Electrical Engineering.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

10.

FeldmanHall

Dalgleish

Evans

Navrady

Tedeschi

Mobbs

(2016). Moral chivalry: Gender and harm sensitivity predict costly altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616647448

11.

Jenni

Loewenstein

(1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007740225484

12.

Kogut

Ritov

(2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492

13.

Mata

(2016). Proportion dominance in valuing lives: The role of deliberative thinking. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(5), 441–448.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-49579-003

14.

Mata

(2019). Social metacognition in moral judgment: Decisional conflict promotes perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(6), 1061–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000170

15.

Paxton

J. M.

Ungar

Greene

J. D.

(2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x

16.

Pennycook

Cheyne

J. A.

Barr

Koehler

D. J.

Fugelsang

J. A.

(2014). The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 188–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.865000

17.

Schelling

T. C.

(1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. B. Chase (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure (pp. 127–162). The Brookings Institution. http://hdl.handle.net/10822/762904

18.

Small

D. A.

Loewenstein

(2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219

19.

Suter

R. S.

Hertwig

(2011). Time and moral judgment. Cognition, 119(3), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.018

20.

Tetlock

P. E.

Kristel

O. V.

Elson

S. B.

Green

M. C.

Lerner

J. S.

(2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853

21.

Trémolière

Bonnefon

J. F.

(2014). Efficient kill–save ratios ease up the cognitive demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214530436

22.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Pizarro

D. A.

Tannenbaum

Ditto

P. H.

(2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 479–491.http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

23.

Vega

Mata

Ferreira

M. B.

Vaz

A. R.

(2020). Metacognition in moral decisions: Judgment extremity and feeling of rightness in moral intuitions. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1741448

Real people or mere numbers? The influence of kill-save ratios and identifiability on moral judgements ( ¿Personas reales o meros números? La influencia de la proporción vidas sacrificadas/vidas salvadas y la identificabilidad en los juicios morales )

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References