Dataset Information

Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.

ABSTRACT: [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 125(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2018-15704-001). The copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC-BY license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2017 The Author(s)" and the omitted disclaimer is found in the erratum. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Recent research has relied on trolley-type sacrificial moral dilemmas to study utilitarian versus nonutilitarian modes of moral decision-making. This research has generated important insights into people's attitudes toward instrumental harm-that is, the sacrifice of an individual to save a greater number. But this approach also has serious limitations. Most notably, it ignores the positive, altruistic core of utilitarianism, which is characterized by impartial concern for the well-being of everyone, whether near or far. Here, we develop, refine, and validate a new scale-the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale-to dissociate individual differences in the 'negative' (permissive attitude toward instrumental harm) and 'positive' (impartial concern for the greater good) dimensions of utilitarian thinking as manifested in the general population. We show that these are two independent dimensions of proto-utilitarian tendencies in the lay population, each exhibiting a distinct psychological profile. Empathic concern, identification with the whole of humanity, and concern for future generations were positively associated with impartial beneficence but negatively associated with instrumental harm; and although instrumental harm was associated with subclinical psychopathy, impartial beneficence was associated with higher religiosity. Importantly, although these two dimensions were independent in the lay population, they were closely associated in a sample of moral philosophers. Acknowledging this dissociation between the instrumental harm and impartial beneficence components of utilitarian thinking in ordinary people can clarify existing debates about the nature of moral psychology and its relation to moral philosophy as well as generate fruitful avenues for further research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

SUBMITTER: Kahane G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5900580 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.

Kahane Guy G Everett Jim A C JAC Earp Brian D BD Caviola Lucius L Faber Nadira S NS Crockett Molly J MJ Savulescu Julian J

Psychological review 20171221 2

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 125(2) of <i>Psychological Review</i> (see record 2018-15704-001). The copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC-BY license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2017 The Author(s)" and the omitted disclaimer is found in the erratum. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Recent research has relied on trolley-type sacrificial moral dilemma ...[more]

PMID: 29265854

Similar Datasets

Project description:This paper presents a new two-dimensional Multiple-Choice Model accounting for Omissions (MCMO). Based on Thissen and Steinberg multiple-choice models, the MCMO defines omitted responses as the result of the respondent not knowing the correct answer and deciding to omit rather than to guess given a latent propensity to omit. Firstly, using a Monte Carlo simulation, the accuracy of the parameters estimated from data with different sample sizes (500, 1,000, and 2,000 subjects), test lengths (20, 40, and 80 items) and percentages of omissions (5, 10, and 15%) were investigated. Later, the appropriateness of the MCMO to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Advanced 2015 mathematics and physics multiple-choice items was analyzed and compared with the Holman and Glas' Between-item Multi-dimensional IRT model (B-MIRT) and with the three-parameter logistic (3PL) model with omissions treated as incorrect responses. The results of the simulation study showed a good recovery of scale and position parameters. Pseudo-guessing parameters (d) were less accurate, but this inaccuracy did not seem to have an important effect on the estimation of abilities. The precision of the propensity to omit strongly depended on the ability values (the higher the ability, the worse the estimate of the propensity to omit). In the empirical study, the empirical reliability for ability estimates was high in both physics and mathematics. As in the simulation study, the estimates of the propensity to omit were less reliable and their precision varied with ability. Regarding the absolute item fit, the MCMO fitted the data better than the other models. Also, the MCMO offered significant increments in convergent validity between scores from multiple-choice and constructed-response items, with an increase of around 0.02 to 0.04 in R 2 in comparison with the two other methods. Finally, the high correlation between the country means of the propensity to omit in mathematics and physics suggests that (1) the propensity to omit is somehow affected by the country of residence of the examinees, and (2) the propensity to omit is independent of the test contents.

Dataset Information

Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.

Publications

Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets