The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology
Open accessAbstract
(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).
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“There is no consensus amongst laypeople about how such moral dilemmas should be resolved (154, 155), nor is there normative agreement amongst philosophers on how they should be resolved and why.”
From The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making (2024) · cites this paper as [155]
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Schwarz, G. (1978) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136 · Cited by 47,033
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008) · Dublin Institute of Technology · doi:10.21427/d7cf7r · Cited by 8,746
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
(2005) · Cited by 6,097
Parfit, D. (1986) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019824908x.001.0001 · Cited by 5,803
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,712
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Anscombe G. E. M. (1981). Ethics, religion and politics: Collected philosophical papers (Vol. III). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
- Gorsuch R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Gray J. (2015, 5 21). How & how not to be good. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/05/21/how-and-how-not-to-be-good/
- Kline R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Parfit D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Rawls J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
- Ross W. D. (2002). The right and the good. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Singer P. (1993). Practical ethics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 433
Niszczota, P., Conway, P. J., & Białek, M. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104664 · Cited by 7
Ends versus Means: Kantians, Utilitarians, and Moral Decisions
Bénabou, R., Falk, A., & Henkel, L. (2024) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w32073 · Cited by 7
Intuitive Theories and the Cultural Evolution of Morality
Crockett, M. J., Kim, J. S., & Shin, Y. S. (2024) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214241245412 · Cited by 6
“Within and across cultures, adults vary in the extent to which they make rule-versus outcome-based moral judgments (Awad et al., 2020; Everett et al., 2021; Kahane et al., 2018).”
Religiosity and moral judgment: Moderating role of moral internalization and moral competence
Mestvirishvili, M. (2024) · Archive for the Psychology of Religion · doi:10.1177/00846724241267893 · Cited by 5
“This new approach distinguishes between the positive and negative dimensions of utilitarianism (Kahane et al., 2018).”
Kyriakou, A., & Mavrou, I. (2025) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728924000877 · Cited by 6
Social discounting and anti-/pro-sociality: A meta-analysis and (short-form) replication
Amormino, P., Gao, J., Li, P., Induni, S., Amar, S., Balabanis, K., Burt, A., Dockray, K., Doherty, H., Dube, N., et al. (2025) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113447 · Cited by 5
Foreign and Regional Languages Make You Less Deontological
Peressotti, F., Pianezzola, G., Battistutta, M., & Miozzo, M. (2024) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.346 · Cited by 6
Palumbo, S., Mariotti, V., Anastasio, T., Rota, G., Lucchi, L., Manfrinati, A., Rumiati, R., Lotto, L., Sarlo, M., Pietrini, P., et al. (2020) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112681 · Cited by 5
Urbina, G. N. R., Molero‐Chamizo, A., Hinojiante, H., Contreras, E. V., & Martínez-García, C. (2021) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00049530.2021.1882276 · Cited by 5
Vaccine Nationalism Counterintuitively Erodes Public Trust in Leaders
Colombatto, C., Everett, J. A. C., Senn, J., Maréchal, M. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2023) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976231204699 · Cited by 5
“They also completed the Social Desirability Scale (Fischer & Fick, 1993) and the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (Kahane et al., 2018) as well as a question related to their political orientation (“In political matters, people talk of ‘the left’ and ‘the right.’”
Choosing victims: Human fungibility in moral decision-making
Białek, M., Fugelsang, J. A., & Friedman, O. (2018) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s193029750000872x · Cited by 5
“However, most studies of moral decision-making instead focus on the different question of whether such sacrifices are morally permissible (e.g., Białek & De Neys, 2016, 2017; Gürçay & Baron, 2017; Kahane et al., 2018; Millar, Turri & Friedman, 2014; Millar, Starmans, Fugelsang & Friedman, 2016).”
BackgroundWait, did I do that? Effects of previous decisions on moral decision‐making
Frechen, N., & Brouwer, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2279 · Cited by 5
“Sacrificial dilemmas specifically have been criticized for their lack of realism (Bauman et al., 2014) and because they cannot capture or measure utilitarianism as a complex construct (Conway et al., 2018; Kahane et al., 2018).”
BackgroundKeswani, V., Conitzer, V., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. P., Nguyen, B. K., Heidari, H., & Borg, J. S. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714167 · Cited by 8
“Understanding human moral decision-making has been a important part of multiple disciplines, with philosophy [46, 91, 121, 127, 146] and psychology [54, 63, 79, 82, 101, 149] being the prominent disciplines leading this research.”
Junger, N., & Hirsch, O. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.57960 · Cited by 6
“This is because, following utilitarianism, instrumental harm, which means "the sacrifice of an individual to save a greater number" [232], is tolerated in order to protect public health [28].”
BackgroundPolicy discounting across and beyond the lifespan
Barnfield, M. (2024) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12719 · Cited by 4
Responsible Leadership in Sport: An Ethical Dilemma
Rodenburg, K. S., Hayes, L., Foti, L., & Pegoraro, A. L. (2021) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc11030085 · Cited by 4
Nasa, J., Rotman, J. D., Mercurio, K. R., Staton, M. G., & Vocino, A. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/732843 · Cited by 4
Empathy and Utilitarian Judgment in Incarcerated and Community Control Adolescents
Bacchini, D., Angelis, G. D., & Dragone, M. (2018) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818781438 · Cited by 4
“to a new alternative “two-dimensional” model of utilitarian thinking highlighting the distinct “positive” (impartial concern for the greater good) and “negative” (permissive attitude toward instrumental harm) components of utilitarian decision-making (Kahane et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialPlaks, J. E., Lv, J., Zhao, M., Staples, W., & Robinson, J. S. (2021) · Social Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/17470919.2021.1953133 · Cited by 4
“A strong version of the utilitarian principle of impartial beneficence (Kahane et al., 2018) dictates that you should strive toward the benefit of all”
BackgroundInfluentialMoral Dilemmas in Hospitals: Which Shooting Victim Should Be Saved?
Navarick, D. J., & Moreno, K. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.770020 · Cited by 4
“The scales are: the “Moral Identity Scale” (Aquino and Reed, 2002), the “Oxford Utilitarianism Scale” (Kahane et al., 2017), and the “Centrality of Religiosity Scale” (Huber and Huber, 2012).”
MethodUtilitarianism and the Moral Status of Animals: A Psychological Perspective
Jaquet, F., Gouiran, M. D., & Cova, F. (2022) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-022-10322-8 · Cited by 5
Decision Making in Moral Judgment Context is Modulated by Individual Metacognition
Hugo Osorio, T., & Gabriel Reyes, M. (2023) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.1177/00332941231191067 · Cited by 5
“Utilitarian character judgments are established on the premise that we should always act in such a way as to impartially maximize the welfare of all (Kahane et al., 2018), and minimize suffering, e.g., condemning a dangerous criminal to the death penalty is justi fi ed, as this action will save…”
Instrumental goals shape EU citizens' attitudes to the Russia–Ukraine war over time
Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J. (2023) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1002/ijop.12932 · Cited by 4
Question framing and sensitivity to consequences in sacrificial moral dilemmas
Navarick, D. J. (2020) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224545.2020.1749019 · Cited by 5
Bagó, B., Kovács, M., Protzko, J., Kekecs, Z., Nagy, T., Hoekstra, R., Li, M., Musser, E. D., Arvanitis, A., Iones, M. T., et al. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9uaqm · Cited by 4
Trolleys, Triage and Covid-19: The Role of Psychological Realism in Sacrificial DilemmasPreprint
Kneer, M., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/v87sb · Cited by 4
Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisisPreprint
Everett, J. A. C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E., Boggio, P. S., Bos, B., Brady, W. J., Chawla, M., Chituc, V., Chung, D., Drupp, M. A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/mzswb · Cited by 6
The Prospects and Challenges of Measuring MoralityPreprint
Sun, J., & Schwitzgebel, E. (2023) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/nhvz9 · Cited by 4
Karlsson, H., Erlandsson, A., Sandberg, J., & Västfjäll, D. (2025) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2024.35 · Cited by 3
Verhagen, R., Neerincx, M. A., & Tielman, M. L. (2025) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732157 · Cited by 3
“We balanced demographics, risk propensity [61], trust propensity [63], and utilitarianism [47] across explanation and counterbalancing conditions.”
Learning from outcomes shapes reliance on moral rules versus cost–benefit reasoning
Maier, M., Cheung, V., & Lieder, F. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02271-w · Cited by 11
“Furthermore, when including evidence for meta-cognitive learning as a covariate, we found a significant main effect of condition on all measures of transfer (OUS Sacrificial Harm Sub-scale: b = 2.16, This evidence of transfer to a new experiment, which to participants appeared to be conducted by different researchers,…”
InfluentialMapping the moral architecture of effective and extraordinary altruism
Law, K. F., Syropoulos, S., Amormino, P., Marsh, A. A., Young, L., & O’Connor, B. B. (2025) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf326 · Cited by 3
“Moreover, the especially high endorsement of IB among EAs lends credence to a broader view of utilitarian ethics grounded in compassionate, impartial concern for others, rather than defined solely by its more controversial association with instrumental harm (38, 59, 61).”
Within your rights: Dissociating wrongness and permissibility in moral judgement
Murray, S. F., Jiménez‐Leal, W., & Amaya, S. (2023) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12680 · Cited by 3
Kunnari, A., Francis, K., Sundvall, J. R. I., & Laakasuo, M. (2024) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2024.2373150 · Cited by 4
“…styles (affective and/or deliberative), what factors individuals take into account when evaluating whether something is right or wrong (e.g., the Moral Foundations model; Graham et al., 2011), and preferences for utilitarian or deontological ethics (Kahane et al., 2018; Laakasuo et al., 2017).”
Moral-dilemma judgments by individuals and groups: Are many heads really more utilitarian than one?
Rokosz, M., Białek, M., Stefańczyk, M., & Gawronski, B. (2024) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106053 · Cited by 4
Oxford Utilitarianism Scale: Psychometric Properties of a Spanish Adaptation (OUS-Spa)
Pascual‐Soler, M., Berríos-Riquelme, J., Gómez-Frías, R., Caamaño-Rocha, L., & Navarro, M. D. F. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251325342 · Cited by 3
“The results of the confirmatory factor analysis support the two-dimensional model of utilitarianism (2D model) proposed by Kahane et al. (2018), providing evidence for the distinct psychological profiles represented by the two subscales: Impartial Beneficence (IB) and Instrumental Harm (IH).”
InfluentialExamining the unfolding of moral decisions across time using the reach-to-touch paradigm
Parker, S., & Finkbeiner, M. S. (2019) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2019.1601640 · Cited by 3
“More recently Kahane et al. (2018) have suggested that sacrificial moral dilemmas, such as those employed in the current study fail to capture the entire nature of utilitarian judgement.”
BackgroundOxford Faydacılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması
Kumova, F., & Bahçekapılı, H. G. (2021) · Psikoloji Çalışmaları / Studies in Psychology · doi:10.26650/sp2020-0055 · Cited by 5
What drives public attitudes towards moral bioenhancement and why it matters: an exploratory study
Budić, M., Galjak, M., & Rakić, V. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00732-1 · Cited by 3
Ignorance and moral judgment: Testing the logical priority of the epistemic
Crutchfield, P., Scheall, S. D., Rzeszutek, M. J., Brown, H. D., & Mateus, C. C. S. (2023) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2023.103472 · Cited by 5
The Psychology and Rationality of Moral Judgment
Wiegmann, A., & Sauer, H. (2021) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11252.003.0075 · Cited by 3
Contrasting two models of utilitarian reasoning
Antoniou, R., Romero-Kornblum, H., Young, J. C., You, M. Y., Kramer, J. H., Rankin, K. P., & Chiong, W. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17498 · Cited by 3
“Our instrument [20] included dilemmas involving both dimensions of utilitarian psychology, per Kahane and colleagues [3] account, addressing three core domains of conflict between utilitarian judgment and common-sense morality: agent-centered permissions (AP), special obligations (SO), and personal rights (PR, related…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMoral reasoning through the eyes of persons with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia
Antoniou, R., Haeusermann, T., Sideman, A. B., Fong, K. C., Callahan, P. M., Miller, B. L., Kramer, J. H., Chiong, W., & Rankin, K. P. (2023) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1197213 · Cited by 3
Carron, R., Brigaud, E., Anders, R., & Blanc, N. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1477825 · Cited by 5
A method for adding cyberethical behaviour measurements to computer science homework assignments
Mäses, S., Aitsam, H., & Randmann, L. (2019) · Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3364510.3364529 · Cited by 3
“The OUS consists of 9 questions, from what first five measure impartial beneficence (IB) and last four instrumental harm (IH) [11].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIntellectual humility and existentially relevant moral decisions
Tongeren, D. R. V., DeWall, C. N., Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. N. (2021) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2021.2006763 · Cited by 4
“…because previous research has identified two dimensions of utilitarian decision making, we tested a third exploratory hypothesis: whether either of the two dimensions of utilitarian beliefs (i.e. impartial beneficence and instrumental harm) would moderate the VOI effects (see Kahane et al., 2018).”
MethodDeontological and Utilitarian Responses to Sacrificial Dilemmas Predict Disapproval of Sin StocksPreprint
Niszczota, P., Białek, M., & Conway, P. J. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/m3nhx · Cited by 3
The Dual-Process Model and Moral Dilemmas: Reflection Does Not Drive Self-Sacrifice
Simpson, D. (2021) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/22738034 · Cited by 3
A new typology of psychological mechanisms underlying prosocial decisionsPreprint
Erlandsson, A., Moche, H., & Dickert, S. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/wg75a · Cited by 3
Schroth, J. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394238651.ch12 · Cited by 3
Chan, B. S. B. (2024) · Philosophy of engineering and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77857-5_2 · Cited by 2
Assessing Measurement Invariance With Exploratory Factor Analysis Trees
Straub, N., Goretzko, D., & Sterner, P. (2025) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000898 · Cited by 3
Cobzeanu, A., Opariuc‐Dan, C., Merlici, I.-A., Cobzeanu, B. M., & Tănase, I. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1625981 · Cited by 2
“Four items from the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (Kahane et al., 2018) were used to assess participants’ instrumental harm tendencies ( α = 0.74 (95% CI [0.72, 0.76])).”
InfluentialLuan, Y., & Wang, Z. (2025) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.70042 · Cited by 2
Non-utilitarian design in gamified destination donations
Yu, J., & Wong, J. W. C. (2025) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2025.104062 · Cited by 2
Hou, Y., Jiang, Y., Xie, W., Li, D., & Huang, Y. (2026) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728926101047 · Cited by 2
Zakharin, M., & Bates, T. C. (2026) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2026.113678 · Cited by 2
Norm conflicts and morality: The CNIS Conflict model of moral decision-making
Skovgaard‐Olsen, N., & Klauer, K. C. (2026) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2026.10030 · Cited by 4
Moral intuition is moral but not objective
Yuan, X., & Chang, L. I. U. (2021) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2021.02083 · Cited by 3
“…研究者设 计了人行天桥开关困境 (The footbridge switch dilemma), 该困境与远距离人行天桥困境的不同 之处在于, 活板门的开关不是在远处, 而是在受 害者旁边。结果表明, 赞同“以一换五”的比例与 远距离人行天桥困境无显著差异(Greene et al., 2009)。因此, 空间距离并非影响人们作出道德选 择的关键因素。 在人行天桥困境中 , 实施者直接触碰受害 者。人行天桥开关困境则没有发生直接触碰, 因 此, 触碰可能是一个关键因素。但人行天桥困境 除了触碰外, 还直接对受害者施加力量, 即使用…”
Baleva, M. V., Kornienko, D. S., & Павловна, Я. Н. (2023) · Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Психология и педагогика · doi:10.22363/2313-1683-2023-20-1-24-40 · Cited by 2
Family favouring effects across intent and outcome -based moral judgements and decisions
Tahamata, V. M., & Tseng, P. H. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231216428 · Cited by 2
“…favouritism effect can also be observed in moral dilemma experiments (for a review, see Bloom, 2011), where individuals are willing to sacrifice one person to save five but hesitate to do so if the person is a family member, friend, or ingroup member (Bonnefon et al., 2016; Kahane et al., 2018).”
Overconfidence and ethical contracts
Lambertsen, N. N., & Poulsen, M. L. (2024) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111841 · Cited by 2
Applying process dissociation to self-sacrificial moral dilemmas: Extending the dual-process model
Simpson, D., & Nash, K. A. (2024) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105873 · Cited by 3
“The critics favor measures like the Oxford utilitarianism scale, which includes a measure of impartial beneficence and a measure of instrumental harm (Kahane et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAge differences in utilitarian and deontological moral judgments
Lin, X., Wu, Y., Ding, L., Yao, L., & Yuan, B. (2024) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2024.2386535 · Cited by 3
“Kahane et al. (2018) highlight that these two dimensions are psychometrically independent and distinguishable.”
InfluentialWatching Others Mirror: Explaining the Range of Third-Party Inferences from Imitation
Powell, L. J., & Winkielman, P. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62634-0_16 · Cited by 2
Andrade, G. E., Abdelmonem, K. Y. A., Teir, H. J., Alqaderi, N., Elamin, A. B. A., & Bedewy, D. A. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-02456-y · Cited by 2
“The OUS has been properly validated [46], and it is considered to have adequate reliability [47].”
Development and Validation of the Social Discounting Task: Short Form
Amormino, P., Graue, A. E., Marsh, A. A., & Wilson, A. V. (2025) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506251328706 · Cited by 2
“Reduced social discounting (i.e., more generous decision-making) is associated with increased Honesty-Humility as indexed by the HEXACO-60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009; Rhoads, Vekaria, et al., 2023), increased identification with all of humanity as indexed by the Identification with all of Humanity (IWAH) scale (McFarland et…”
Estimating divergent moral and diversity preferences between AI builders and AI users
Purcell, Z. A., Charbit, L., Borst, G., & Nußberger, A.-M. (2025) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106198 · Cited by 2
“Participants ’ own utilitarianism was measured using the Oxford Utilitarian Scale (OUS; Kahane et al., 2018) containing nine items, for example “ If the only way to save another person ’ s life during an emergency is to sacrifice one ’ s own leg, then one is morally required to make this sacrifice.”
InfluentialYoo, Y., Kim, H., & Park, J. (2025) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2025.108175 · Cited by 2
Jang, E.-Y. (2020) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05518 · Cited by 2
Bai, H., Euh, H., Federico, C. M., & Borgida, E. (2021) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.657 · Cited by 3
Priming Intuition Decreases Endorsement of Instrumental Harm but Not Impartial BeneficencePreprint
Capraro, V., Everett, J. A. C., & Earp, B. D. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3315385 · Cited by 2
Difficult Conversations: Navigating the Tension between Honesty and BenevolencePreprint
Levine, E. E., Roberts, A. R., & Cohen, T. R. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3rwm7 · Cited by 2
WITHDRAWN: Helping the ingroup versus harming the outgroup: Evidence from morality-based groups
Grigoryan, L. K., Seo, S., Šimunović, D., & Hofmann, W. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104339 · Cited by 2
RetractedBeyond Moral Dilemmas: The Role of Reasoning in Five Categories of Utilitarian JudgmentPreprint
Jaquet, F., & Cova, F. (2020) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/eywhg · Cited by 2
“These results are in line with past research showing a dissociation between utilitarian answers to sacrificial dilemmas and utilitarian answers to items about duties of assistance (Capraro et al., 2019; Kahane et al., 2015; Kahane et al., 2018).”
Moral responses to the COVID-19 crisisPreprint
Navajas, J., Heduan, F. Á., Garbulsky, G., Tagliazucchi, E., Dan Ariely, C., & Sigman, M. (2020) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ktv6z · Cited by 3
Unethical Investments: The Baseline Propensity to Invest and the Susceptibility to Moral DecayPreprint
Niszczota, P., Conway, P. J., & Białek, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4488208 · Cited by 2
“Moreover, utilitarian decision-makers appear focused on benefits for everyone (Kahane et al. 2018), whereas dark personality scorers focus mostly on their own benefit.”
Social Cognition of Moral Judgment
Conway, P. J. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197763414.013.27 · Cited by 1
Socioemotional dysfunction and the greater good: a case study
Antoniou, R., Callahan, P. M., Kramer, J. H., Miller, B. L., Chiong, W., & Rankin, K. P. (2024) · Neurocase · doi:10.1080/13554794.2024.2404682 · Cited by 1
“In a study conducted with healthy adults (Kahane et al., 2018), it was found that empathic concern played a key role in driving the positive dimension of utilitarian choices, characterized by impartial beneficence.”
InfluentialDoes Momentary Outcome‐Based Reflection Shape Bioethical Views? A Pre‐Post Intervention Design
Isern‐Mas, C., Bystranowski, P., Rueda, J., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2024) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.70009 · Cited by 1
The Motivation to Protect Future Generations as a Source of Meaning and Mental Well-Being
Manalili, M. M. C., Law, K. F., Signorini, A., Chukwudebe, A., Amormino, P., Goya‐Tocchetto, D., Markowitz, E. M., Young, L., & Syropoulos, S. (2025) · Journal of Individual Differences · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000443 · Cited by 1
Oxytocin restores context-specific hyperaltruistic preference
Zhang, H., Ni, Y., & Li, J. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.102756.3 · Cited by 1
Morality of Mentality and Culture: a Registered Replication and Cross-Cultural Extension
Wormley, A. S., Moon, J. W., Johnson, K. A., Hirschberger, G., Maraldi, E. D. O., Pecol, N., Saroglou, V., Siqueira, S. P. D. S., Michael Shengtao, W. U., MacKinnon, D. P., et al. (2025) · International Journal for the Psychology of Religion · doi:10.1080/10508619.2025.2575543 · Cited by 1
“…we measured individual-ism-collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 2011), attachment to the religious group (given that Judaism is both a religious and ethnic identity; Roccas et al., 2006), and moral utilitarianism (Kahane et al., 2018) as potential mechanisms in exploratory mediation models.”
Otte, J. N., & Paruzel‐Czachura, M. (2025) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-025-00793-w · Cited by 1
“We used the original procedures to measure the main scores for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale and trolley dilemmas.”
InfluentialIs global human well-being peaking?
Grafton, R. Q., Chu, L., Kompas, T., & Fanaian, S. (2025) · World Development Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.wds.2025.100265 · Cited by 1
Greater good from a distance: how psychological distance shapes utilitarian behavior
Bonora, M., Cristofaro, V. D., Pellegrini, V., Leone, L., & Giacomantonio, M. (2026) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2026.2617867 · Cited by 1
“We used the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS; Kahane et al., 2018), a 9-item scale with a response scale ranging from 1 (Totally Disagree) to 7 (Totally Agree) that taps into two domains (Impartial Beneficence – Instrumental Harm).”
Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments
Vogel, T. A., Priestley, L., Cutler, J., Hogg, T., Khalighinejad, N., Garrett, N., Apps, M. A. J., Rushworth, M. F. S., & Lockwood, P. L. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66880-9 · Cited by 3
Resource allocation by algorithms: people prefer almost any alternative
Michael, H., & Uhl, M. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02886-1 · Cited by 1
“As Kahane et al. (2018) note, utilitarianism is composed of the idea that people should be viewed impartially in moral dilemmas (impartial beneficence) and that can be morally just to harm someone for the greater good (instrumental harm).”
Brigaud, E., Carron, R., Anders, R., Shing, S. C. M., Madalina Croitoru, A., Ganesh, G., & Blanc, N. (2026) · Journal of Psychology and AI · doi:10.1080/29974100.2026.2628178 · Cited by 1
Proportionality as a predictor of utilitarian sacrifices: Evidence from the Polish MFQ-2
Cantarero, K., Wnęk, S., Sylwoniuk, Z., & Białek, M. (2026) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2026.113691 · Cited by 1
Cracking the code: unveiling e-cheating trends among tertiary education students
Jannat, T., Ullah, H., Hosen, M., Omar, N. A., Arefin, S., & Hazelton, J. (2025) · Tertiary Education and Management · doi:10.1007/s11233-025-09159-4 · Cited by 1
Behavioral Nudges in Finance: A Review and Future Research Agenda
Pandey, A., Tripathi, V., & Pandey, V. (2026) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/joes.70132 · Cited by 2
How power affects moral judgments: The role of intuitive thinking
Zheng, M., & Guinote, A. (2022) · Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal · doi:10.2224/sbp.10968 · Cited by 2
Andrade, G. E., Ahmed, U. A., Al-Nuaimy, Y., Zyara, Z. H. A., Hameed, H. S., & Bedewy, D. A. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2024.2313571 · Cited by 1
“This point has been emphatically made by Kahane et al. (2018), who posit that utilitarianism ought to be assessed beyond sacri fi cial harm, and utilitarianism really consists of two dimensions.”
BackgroundZheng, M., Guinote, A., & Luo, W. W. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13050256 · Cited by 2
“Researchers posit that sacrificial dilemmas capture one point of conflict between utilitarianism and deontology, but they differ from everyday life moral contexts (Kahane 2015; Kahane et al. 2018).”
Developing an Ethical Perspectives Scale
Diegel, K. J., Barth, T. M., & Lord, C. G. (2024) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.1177/00332941241269518 · Cited by 2
“This dual framework has provided key insights into ethical decision-making (Luca Casali & Perano, 2021; Malle, 2021; O ’ Fallon & Butter fi eld, 2005), but may overlook nuanced ethical issues (Kahane et al., 2018).”
Language mediation training and the foreign‑language effect in moral decision‑making*
García, Á. M. (2024) · Translation Cognition & Behavior · doi:10.1075/tcb.00093.gar · Cited by 2
Whom to Save? A Novel, Realistic Paradigm for Studying Human Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas
Jang, J., & Wallraven, C. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) · doi:10.1109/ismar-adjunct64951.2024.00105 · Cited by 1
“The Aggression Questionnaire (AGQ) [2] was utilized to assess violence, Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale(LSRP) for psychopathy [5], the Empathy Quotient (EQ) for empathy, and the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale [4] for measuring utilitarianism.”
Bates, T. C. (2025) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113109 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Everett, Jim A. C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-164
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- PMC
- PMC5900580
- OpenAlex
- W2779777831
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 144
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 11
- FWCI
- 13.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2018-04-16)
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education
- Wellcome Trust
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities (WT203132/Z/16/Z)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- utilitarianism, instrumental harm, impartial beneficence, moral psychology, moral philosophers, empathic concern, subclinical psychopathy, religiosity, trolley problem, altruism
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Empathy, Humans, Morals, Psychological Theory, Ethical Theory
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
