The tensions between individual rights and the common good have historically shaped law, politics, and public policy. This study explores how cultural factors impact moral judgments worldwide. Focusing on the personal force effect, which refers to how physical involvement in harm influences moral judgments, we analyzed Cultural Value Orientations, Social Axioms, and Tightness as potential moderators of the relationship between personal force and moral judgment. Using two cross-cultural datasets of 23 countries and 57 samples and meta-analytic techniques, we found that people generally view utilitarian actions more favorably when no personal force is required. We also found evidence that the Cultural Value Orientation of Mastery, the Social Axiom of Dynamic Externality, and Tightness moderate moral judgments by reducing the effect of personal force. Despite criticisms of sacrificial dilemmas, these findings underscore the importance of culture in shaping moral judgments worldwide. We suggest further research into realistic dilemmas and emphasize the relevance of these findings for law, politics, and public policy, advocating for informed decision-making in societal debates.
AwadE.DsouzaS.ShariffA.RahwanI.BonnefonJ.-F. (2020). Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911517117
2.
BagoB.KovacsM.ProtzkoJ.NagyT.KekecsZ.PalfiB.AdamkovicM.AdamusS.AlbalooshiS.Albayrak-AydemirN.AlfianI. N.AlperS.Alvarez-SolasS.AlvesS. G.AmayaS.AndresenP. K.AnjumG.AnsariD.ArriagaP.AczelB. (2022). Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5
3.
BaldwinJ. R.FaulknerS. L.HechtM. L.LindsleyS. L. (Eds.), (2006). Redefining culture: Perspectives across the disciplines. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BaronJ. (1992). The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.320
5.
BartelsD. M.BaumanC. W.CushmanF. A.PizarroD. A.McGrawA. P. (2015). Moral judgment and decision making. In KerenG.WuG. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 478–515). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch17
6.
BondM. H.LeungK.AuA.TongK.-K.de CarrasquelS. R.MurakamiF.YamaguchiS.BierbrauerG.SingelisT. M.BroerM.BoenF.LambertS. M.FerreiraM. C.NoelsK. A.van BavelJ.SafdarS.ZhangJ.ChenL.SolcovaI.LewisJ. R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104268388
7.
BostynD. H.SevenhantS.RoetsA. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640
8.
ChristensenJ. F.FlexasA.CalabreseM.GutN. K.GomilaA. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607
9.
CochranW. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666
10.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
11.
CroneD. L.LahamS. M. (2017). Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-Confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.022
12.
CushmanF.YoungL.HauserM. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
ErikssonK.StrimlingP.GelfandM.WuJ.AbernathyJ.AkotiaC. S.AldashevA.AnderssonP. A.AndrighettoG.AnumA.ArikanG.AycanZ.BagherianF.BarreraD.Basnight-BrownD.BatkeyevB.BelausA.BerezinaE.BjörnstjernaM.Van LangeP. A. M. (2021). Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
17.
GawronskiB.ArmstrongJ.ConwayP.FriesdorfR.HütterM. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.DuanL.AlmaliachA.AngS.ArnadottirJ.AycanZ.BoehnkeK.BoskiP.CabecinhasR.ChanD.ChhokarJ.D’AmatoA.FerrerM.FischlmayrI. C.YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
20.
GreeneJ. D.CushmanF. A.StewartL. E.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001
21.
GreeneJ. D.NystromL. E.EngellA. D.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
22.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
23.
HarrisS. (2011). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. Free Press.
24.
HauserM.CushmanF.YoungL.Kang-Xing JinR.MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
25.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
KakinohanaR. K.PilatiR.KleinR. A. (2022). Does anchoring vary across cultures? Expanding the many Labs analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, ejsp.2924. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2924
KleinR. A.VianelloM.HasselmanF.AdamsB. G.AdamsR. B.AlperS.AveyardM.AxtJ. R.BabalolaM. T.BahníkŠ.BatraR.BerkicsM.BernsteinM. J.BerryD. R.BialobrzeskaO.BinanE. D.BocianK.BrandtM. J.BuschingR.NosekB. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
30.
KlenkM. (2022). The influence of situational factors in sacrificial dilemmas on utilitarian moral judgments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(3), 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00547-4
31.
KörnerA.JoffeS.DeutschR. (2019). When skeptical, stick with the norm: Low dilemma plausibility increases deontological moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103834
32.
Kortenk AmpK. V.MooreC. F. (2014). Ethics under uncertainty: The morality and appropriateness of utilitarianism when outcomes are uncertain. American Journal of Psychology, 127(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.3.0367
33.
KouchakiM.SmithI. H.SavaniK. (2018). Does deciding among morally relevant options feel like making a choice? How morality constrains people’s sense of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000128
34.
LeungK.BondM. H.De CarrasquelS. R.MuñozC.HernándezM.MurakamiF.YamaguchiS.BierbrauerG.SingelisT. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033003005
35.
LiuW.WangH.ZhuH.ZhuX.HeX.ZhangW. (2022). Morality is supreme: The roles of morality, fairness and group identity in the ultimatum paradigm. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 2049–2065. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S370155
36.
LudwigJ.ReisenzeinR.HiemischA. (2020). Effects of instrumentality and personal force on deontological and utilitarian inclinations in harm-related moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01222
37.
PlunkettD.GreeneJ. D. (2019). Overlooked evidence and a misunderstanding of what trolley dilemmas do best: Commentary on bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018). Psychological Science, 30(9), 1389–1391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619827914
38.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
39.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–119). Sage Publications, Inc.
40.
SchwartzS. H. (2007). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. In EsmerY.PetterssonT. (Eds.), Measuring and mapping cultures: 25 Years of comparative value surveys (pp. 33–78). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004158207.i-193
SchwartzS. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In van de VijverF. J. R.ChasiotisA.BreugelmansS. M. (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463–493). Cambridge University Press.
43.
ShafirE. (Ed.), (2013). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton University Press.
44.
SmithP. B.BondM. H. (2019). Cultures and persons: Characterizing national and other types of cultural difference can also aid our understanding and prediction of individual variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02689
45.
ValentineJ. C.PigottT. D.RothsteinH. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961
46.
ViechtbauerW. (2005). Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261
47.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
48.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT.MillerE.BacheS.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD.SpinuV.YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
