BardsleyN.CubittR.LoomesG.MoffattP.StarmerC.SugdenR. (2010). Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400831432
2.
BostynD. H.SevenhantS.RoetsA. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29, 1084–1093. doi:10.1177/0956797617752640
3.
CamererC. F.DreberA.ForsellE.HoT.-H.HuberJ.JohannessonM.. . . WuH. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351, 1433–1436. doi:10.1126/science.aaf0918
4.
DavisD. D.HoltC. A. (1993). Experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
EpleyN.HuffC. (1998). Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 759–768. doi:10.1177/0146167298247008
6.
FeldmanHallO.MobbsD.EvansD.HiscoxL.NavradyL.DalgleishT. (2012). What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition, 123, 434–441. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001
7.
GoldN.ColmanA. M.PulfordB. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65–76.
8.
GoldN.PulfordB. D.ColmanA. M. (2013). Your money or your life: Comparing judgements in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury and death. Economics and Philosophy, 29, 213–233. doi:10.1017/S0266267113000205
9.
GoldN.PulfordB. D.ColmanA. M. (2014). The outlandish, the realistic, and the real: Contextual manipulation and agent role effects in trolley problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 35. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00035
10.
GoldN.PulfordB. D.ColmanA. M. (2015). Do as I say, don’t do as I do: Differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 50–61. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2015.01.001
11.
HertwigR.OrtmannA. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 59–92. doi:10.1080/10508420701712990
12.
KangM. J.CamererC. F. (2013). fMRI evidence of a hot-cold empathy gap in hypothetical and real aversive choices. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, Article 104. doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00104
13.
LoewensteinG. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0028
14.
LoewensteinG. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review, 90, 426–432. doi:10.1257/aer.90.2.426
15.
LoewensteinG. (2005). Hot–cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4), S49–S56. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49
16.
StoryG. W.VlaevI.MetcalfeR. D.CrockettM. J.Kurth-NelsonZ.DarziA.DolanR. J. (2015). Social redistribution of pain and money. Scientific Reports, 5, Article 15389. doi:10.1038/srep15389
17.
TassyS.OullierO.ManciniJ.WickerB. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 250. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250
