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
Figures
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
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
The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism.
Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2018) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000182 · Cited by 450
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191 · Cited by 371
“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.”
Mathematical foundations of moral preferences
Capraro, V., & Perc, M. (2021) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0880 · Cited by 337
Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1911517117 · Cited by 261
Everett, J. A. C., Colombatto, C., Chituc, V., Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9yqs8 · Cited by 252
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
