The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients.
Abstract
Moral agency is the capacity to do right or wrong, whereas moral patiency is the capacity to be a target of right or wrong. Through 7 studies, the authors explored moral typecasting-an inverse relation between perceptions of moral agency and moral patiency. Across a range of targets and situations, good- and evil-doers (moral agents) were perceived to be less vulnerable to having good and evil done to them. The recipients of good and evil (moral patients), in turn, were perceived as less capable of performing good or evil actions. Moral typecasting stems from the dyadic nature of morality and explains curious effects such as people's willingness to inflict greater pain on those who do good than those who do nothing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567
Dehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134475 · Cited by 2,342
Self-citationHow (and where) does moral judgment work?
Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02011-9 · Cited by 1,945
Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030 · Cited by 1,687
New directions in equity research.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033967 · Cited by 1,649
On the Morality of Artificial Agents
Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1023/b:mind.0000035461.63578.9d · Cited by 1,218
Intuitions about consciousness: experimental studies
Knobe, J., & Prinz, J. (2008) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9066-y · Cited by 227
Cited by
Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., et al. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245918810225 · Cited by 944
Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.651387 · Cited by 1,008
Self-citationCauses and consequences of mind perception
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 · Cited by 759
Self-citationPeople are averse to machines making moral decisions.
Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 · Cited by 738
Self-citationThe Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868317698288 · Cited by 659
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 505-520
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2049520464
- Cited by
- 535
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 7.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0013748
- The paper
- Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
