The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments.
Open accessAbstract
Moral judgments play a critical role in motivating and enforcing human cooperation, and research on the proximate mechanisms of moral judgments highlights the importance of intuitive, automatic processes in forming such judgments. Intuitive moral judgments often share characteristics with deontological theories in normative ethics, which argue that certain acts (such as killing) are absolutely wrong, regardless of their consequences. Why do moral intuitions typically follow deontological prescriptions, as opposed to those of other ethical theories? Here, we test a functional explanation for this phenomenon by investigating whether agents who express deontological moral judgments are more valued as social partners. Across 5 studies, we show that people who make characteristically deontological judgments are preferred as social partners, perceived as more moral and trustworthy, and are trusted more in economic games. These findings provide empirical support for a partner choice account of moral intuitions whereby typically deontological judgments confer an adaptive function by increasing a person's likelihood of being chosen as a cooperation partner. Therefore, deontological moral intuitions may represent an evolutionarily prescribed prior that was selected for through partner choice mechanisms. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“In experiments, people who make utilitarian judgments about matters of life and death are less trusted 171 .”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [171]
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 · Cited by 37,615
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
Rawls, J. (1971) · doi:10.4159/9780674042605 · Cited by 9,496
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
Parfit, D. (1986) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019824908x.001.0001 · Cited by 5,803
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1062872 · Cited by 4,561
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
Kant, I., & Korsgaard, C. M. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809590.004 · Cited by 3,775
Passions within reason: the strategic role of the emotions
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-4535 · Cited by 2,971
Gauthier, D. (1987) · doi:10.1093/0198249926.001.0001 · Cited by 1,933
Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05631 · Cited by 1,545
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964
Self-citationThe social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654 · Cited by 1,527
Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000093 · Cited by 434
Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620917336 · Cited by 417
Self-citationBostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617752640 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Everett, Jim A. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 145
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 772-787
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W3121353240
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 8
- FWCI
- 17.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Oxford University Press
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- moral intuitions, trustworthiness, cooperation, moral perception, normative ethics
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Morals, Social Desirability, Intuition, Ethical Theory, Trust
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
