Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains

Greene, Joshua D.·2007·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Greene, 2001, An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment, Science, 293, 2105, 10.1126/science.1062872 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Greene, 2004, The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment, Neuron, 44, 389, 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Moll, 2007, Moral judgments, emotions, and the utilitarian brain, Trends Cogn. Sci., 11, 319, 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001 · DOI
  4. Thomson, 1985, The trolley problem, Yale Law J., 94, 1395, 10.2307/796133 · DOI
  5. Valdesolo, 2006, Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment, Psychol. Sci., 17, 476, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x · DOI
  6. Mendez, 2005, An investigation of moral judgment in frontotemporal dementia, Cogn. Behav. Neurol., 18, 193, 10.1097/01.wnn.0000191292.17964.bb · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 394

Metadata

Authors
Greene, J. D.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-08
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
322-323
ISSN
1364-6613
Cited by
394
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review