| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
02659nab a22002297a 4500 |
| 003 - CONTROL NUMBER IDENTIFIER |
|---|
| control field |
CITU |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION |
|---|
| control field |
20260730093954.0 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
260730c2025 |||p| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 022 ## - INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER |
|---|
| International Standard Serial Number |
0033-2909 |
| 100 1# - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Preferred name for the person |
Fahrenwaldt, Alina |
| Relator term |
author. |
| 245 10 - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Intuitive deontology? : |
| Remainder of title |
a systematic review and multivariate, multilevel meta-analysis of experimental studies on the psychological drivers of moral judgements |
| 264 #4 - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc |
2025 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc |
Abstract<br/><br/>Humans often face moral dilemmas posing a conflict between two motives: deontology (rule-following, e.g., “thou shalt not kill”) and utilitarianism (greater-good-maximization, e.g., sacrificing one for many). A long-standing debate concerns the influence of cognitive processing on moral judgments in such dilemmas. One popular dual process account suggests that intuition favors “deontological” judgments, whereas “utilitarian” judgments require more reflection. We conducted a comprehensive multilevel, multivariate meta-analysis to assess the cumulative evidence favoring intuitive deontology, its heterogeneity within and across studies, and its robustness to bias. Following established standards, our search for published and gray literature identified 731 unique effects nested in 139 studies from 80 reports meeting our eligibility criteria. Overall, we found a significant but small effect favoring intuitive deontology (OR = 1.18, 95% CI [1.10, 1.26]; p < .0001). We also observed substantial effect heterogeneity stemming from differences within and between studies. Results were robust to outliers, and we found no consistent indications of publication bias. Our preregistered exploration of various moderators resulted in significant explanation of the residual variance by manipulation and dilemma type, with the highest effects of intuitive deontology found for studies using foreign language or induction manipulations and the footbridge dilemma. In a post hoc analysis, restricting the data set to dilemma actions requiring personal force and instrumentality, we found an increased effect of intuitive deontology (OR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.19, 1.42]). Results question the universality of intuitive deontology, inform current discussions on the effect’s underlying mechanisms, and call for more carefully designed studies testing the effect. |
| 650 #0 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element |
Ethical problems. |
| 650 #0 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element |
Utilitarianism. |
| 650 #0 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element |
Moral development. |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Olsen, Jerome |
| Relator term |
author. |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Rahal, Rima-Maria |
| Relator term |
author. |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Fiedler, Susann |
| Relator term |
author. |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Title |
Psychological Bulletin |
| Relationship information |
Volume 151, Number 4 : (April 2025), pages 428-454. |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS |
|---|
| Source of classification or shelving scheme |
|
| Item type |
JOURNAL ARTICLE |