ORBi: Detailled Reference

Article (Scientific journals)

Does empathy predict decision-making in everyday Trolley-like Problems?

Nasello, Julian; Dardenne, Benoît; Blavier, Adelaïde et al.

2021 • In Current Psychology

Peer reviewed

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/257527

DOI
10.1007/s12144-021-01566-1

Files (2)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Full Manuscript - Does Empathy predict UC.docx

Author postprint (158.31 kB)

Annexes

8 - Supplementary Materials.docx

Publisher postprint (84.76 kB)

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Utilitarianism; Moral Decision-Making; Trolley Problems; Social Dilemmas; Empathy

Abstract :

[en] Two ecological and social versions of the Trolley-like Problem (a direct-impact [DI]and a no-direct-impact [NDI] scenario) were created to investigate decision-making and determine whether age, gender, and empathy significantly predicted people’s choices. Two hundred and fifty-five participants were recruited in this study. We found that men and women made more Utilitarian Choices (UC) in the NDI scenario. In this scenario, the attribution of penalties was low (6%). In the DI scenario, we found that the UC rate was significantly reduced compared to the NDI scenario, and, surprisingly, women made more UC than men. We found that UC decreased as a function of men’s affective empathy in the NDI scenario. In the DI one, lower affective empathy levels predicted UC differently for men and women. Lastly, the attribution of penalties tripled. In conclusion, this study highlighted the role played by scenarios, gender, and empathy in predicting UC in Trolley-like Problems.

Disciplines :

Social, industrial & organizational psychology

Author, co-author :

Nasello, Julian ; Université de Liège - ULiège > RUC

Dardenne, Benoît ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Psychologie > Psychologie sociale

Blavier, Adelaïde ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Psychologie > Psycho-traumatisme

Triffaux, Jean-Marc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Psychologie médicale

Language :

English

Title :

Does empathy predict decision-making in everyday Trolley-like Problems?

Publication date :

2021

Journal title :

Current Psychology

ISSN :

1046-1310

eISSN :

1936-4733

Publisher :

Springer, New-York, United States - New York

Peer reviewed :

Peer reviewed

Additional URL :

https://rdcu.be/chvdu

Available on ORBi :

since 01 March 2021

Statistics

Number of views

139 (19 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

6 (5 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

3

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

1

OpenCitations

3

Bibliography

Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (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. 10.1177/1948550618755873. DOI: 10.1177/1948550618755873
Balash, J., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2018). The ends justify the meanness: An investigation of psychopathic traits and utilitarian moral endorsement. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 127–132. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.009. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.009
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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Stocks, E., & L. (2015). The empathy-altruism hypothesis. In A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford: Oxford library of psychology. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.023. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.023
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495–509. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495
Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536–554. 10.1111/spc3.12131. DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12131
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals and taboos: Beliefs as assets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 805–855. 10.1093/qje/qjr002. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjr002
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. 10.1177/0956797617752640. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617752640
Brañas-Garza, P., Capraro, V., & Rascon-Ramirez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170, 19–23. 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022
Bruers, S., & Braeckman, J. (2014). A review and systematization of the trolley problem. Philosophia, 42(2), 251–269. 10.1007/s11406-013-9507-5. DOI: 10.1007/s11406-013-9507-5
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53(2), 413–425. 10.2307/1128984. DOI: 10.2307/1128984
Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1–15. DOI: 10.1037/a0021643
Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., D’Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). The basic empathy scale in adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679-691. DOI: 10.1037:a0032297.
Choe, S. Y., & Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment & Decision Making, 6(7), 580–592.
Copraro, V., & Sippel, J. (2017). Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents. Cognitive Processing, 18, 399–405. 10.1007/s10339-017-0822-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-017-0822-9
Crockett, M. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Siegel, J. Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17320–17325. 10.1073/pnas.1408988111. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408988111
D’Ambrosio, F., Olivier, M., Didon, D., & Besche, C. (2009). The basic empathy scale: A French validation of a measure of empathy in youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 160–165. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.020. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.020
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Davis, M. H. (2015). Empathy and prosocial behavior. In A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford: Oxford library of psychology. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.026. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.026
de Waal, F. B. M., & Suchak, M. (2010). Prosocial primates: Selfish and unselfish motivations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society-B, 365, 2711–2722. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0119
Decety, J. (2015). The neural pathways, development and functions of empathy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.001
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525–537. 10.1177/1745691614545130. DOI: 10.1177/1745691614545130
Di Nucci, E. (2013). Self-sacrifice and the trolley problem. Philosophical Psychology, 26(5), 662–672. 10.1080/09515089.2012.674664. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2012.674664
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. 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108, 726–735. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0297.00311
FeldmanHall, O., Mobbs, D., Evans, D., Hiscox, L., Navrady, L., & Dalgleish, T. (2012). What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition, 123(3), 434–441. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In Foot (1977). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp.19–32.
Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696–713. 10.1177/0146167215575731. DOI: 10.1177/0146167215575731
Fumagalli, M., Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Marceglia, S., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Zago, S., Lucchiari, C., Consonni, D., Nordio, F., Pravettoni, G., & Cappa, S. (2010a). Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing, 11(3), 219–226. 10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2
Fumagalli, M., Vergari, M., Pasqualetti, P., Marceglia, S., Mameli, F., Ferrucci, R., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Zago, S., Sartori, G., Pravettoni, G., Barbieri, S., Cappa, S., & Priori, A. (2010b). Brain switches utilitarian behavior: Does gender make the difference? PLoS One, 5(1), e8865. 10.1371/journal.pone.0008865. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008865
Gallucci, M. (2019). GAMLj: General analyses for linear models. [Jamovi module]. Retrieved from https://gamlj.github.io/.
Gao, Y., & Tang, S. (2013). Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral judgment in college students. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(5), 342–349. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.012
George, D., Carroll, P., Kersnick, R., & Calderon, K. (1998). Gender-related patterns of helping among friends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(1), 685–704. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00185.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00185.x
Ghorbani, M., Liao, Y., Çayköylü, S., & Chand, M. (2013). Guilt, shame, and reparative behavior: The effect of psychological proximity. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 311–323. 10.1007/s10551-012-1350-2. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1350-2
Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS One, 8(4), e60418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0060418. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
Gleichgerrcht, E., Torralva, T., Rattazzi, A., Marenco, V., Roca, M., & Manes, F. (2013). Selective impairment of cognitive empathy for moral judgment in adults with high functioning autism. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(7), 780–788. 10.1093/scan/nss067. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nss067
Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
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. 10.1126/science.1062872. DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872
Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523. 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02011-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02011-9
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144–1154. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389–400. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, W., Kinrade, C., Tortoriello, G. K., Richardson, K., & Breeden, C. J. (2020). Identifying with the “bad” guy: A novel account for apparent moral-judgment deficiencies in antagonistic personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 166(1), 110161. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110161. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110161
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316. DOI: 10.1037/h0027580
IBM Corp. Released. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 24.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611. DOI: 10.1016:J.adolescence.2005.08.010.
Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551–560. 10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400. DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kastner, R. M. (2010). Moral judgments and visual attention: An eye-tracking investigation. Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Languages, Cultures, and World Affair, 9, 114–128.
Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708–714. 10.1093/scan/nsr048. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsr048
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138), 908–911. 10.1038/nature05631. DOI: 10.1038/nature05631
Lapsley, D. K. (1996). Moral psychology. Boulder: Westview Press.
Li, Y., & Liu, A.-S. (2017). Moral judgment and its relationship with theory of mind in patients with autism spectrum disorder. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 31(5), 366–370.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., & Sarlo, M. (2014). A new set of moral dilemmas: Norms for moral acceptability, decision times, and emotional salience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 57–65. 10.1002/bdm.1782. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1782
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–634. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Mott, M. L., & Asher, B. (2012). Virtual morality: Emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional “trolley problem”. Emotion, 12(2), 364–370. 10.1037/a0025561. DOI: 10.1037/a0025561
Patil, I. (2015). Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of action aversion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 349–366. 10.1080/20445911.2015.1004334. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1004334
Patil, I., & Silani, G. (2014). Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 501. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00501. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00501
Pletti, C., Lotto, L., Buodo, G., & Sarlo, M. (2017). It’s immoral, but I’d do it! Psychopathy traits affect decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas and in everyday moral situations. British Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 351–368. 10.1111/bjop.12205. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12205
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72. 10.1017/S0140525X02000018. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X02000018
Ramsøy, T. Z., Skov, M., Macoveanu, J., Siebner, H. R., & Fosgaard, T. R. (2015). Empathy as a neuropsychological heuristic in social decision-making. Social Neuroscience, 10(2), 179–191. 10.1080/17470919.2014.965341. DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2014.965341
Raosoft. (2004). Raosoft Sample Size Calculator. Raosoft, Inc., Seattle. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Shultz, T. R., & Wells, D. (1985). Judging the intentionality of action-outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 83–89. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.83
Skulmowski, A., Bunge, A., Kaspar, K., & Pipa, G. (2014). Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: A virtual reality and eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neurosciences, 8(426), 1–16. 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00426. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00426
Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision making, 2, 79–95.
Swann, W. B., Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. (2010). Dying and killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1176–1183. 10.1177/0956797610376656. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610376656
Takamatsu, R. (2018). Turning off the empathy switch: Lower empathic concern for the victim leads to utilitarian choices of action. PLoS One, 13(9), e0203826. 10.1371/journal.pone.0203826. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203826
Takamatsu, R. (2019). Personality correlates and utilitarian judgments in the everyday context: Psychopathic traits and differential effects of empathy, social dominance orientation, and dehumanization beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 1–8. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.029. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.029
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual. Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
The Jamovi Project (2019). Jamovi, version 1.6.3 [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59, 204–217. DOI: 10.5840/monist197659224
Trémolière, B., & Djeriouat, H. (2016). The sadistic trait predicts minimization of intention and causal responsibility in moral judgment. Cognition, 146, 158–171. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.014. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.014
Vachon, D. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Fixing the problem with empathy: Development and validation of the affective and cognitive measure of empathy. Assessment, 23(2), 135–149. DOI: 10.1177/1073191114567941
Vyas, K., Jameel, L., Bellesi, G., Crawford, S., & Channon, S. (2017). Derailing the trolley: Everyday utilitarian judgments in groups high versus low in psychopathic traits or autistic traits. Psychiatry Research, 250, 84–91. 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.054. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.054
Walker, L. J. (1991). Sex differences in moral reasoning. In W.M., Kurtines & J. L., Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp.333–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wu, L., Kirmse, U., Flaisch, T., Boiandina, G., Kenter, A., & Schupp, H. T. (2017). Empathy, pain and attention: Cues that predict pain stimulation to the partner and the self capture visual attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 465. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00465. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00465

Similar publications