Cited by 7Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing and dissociating virtues from the ‘bottom up’: A case study of generosity vs. fairness

Open access
Kraft-Todd, Gordon T., Kleiman-Weiner, Max, Young, Liane·2023·The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract

The empirical study of virtue is plagued by imprecise definitions and assessment. Here we propose a three-stage, data-driven (‘bottom-up’) method to differentiate lay perceptions of virtues. Employing two virtues—generosity (as cooperation) and fairness (as impartiality)—as a case study, we present findings utilizing data from 9 experiments (total N=2,667). First, natural language processing of free-response data indicated that participants used different ‘topics’ (i.e. clusters of words) to describe behaviours representing generosity (topics: ‘charity’ and ‘kindness’) and fairness (‘equality’). Second, participants in a survey experiment rated behaviours expressing generosity and fairness differently across 6 out of 9 underlying features measured. Third, participants perceive that actors in vignette-based experiments engaging in behaviours expressing generosity versus fairness were motivated differently on 5 out of 6 motivations measured. Our findings support the distinction of the virtues of generosity (as cooperation) and fairness (as impartiality) and indicate the utility of our bottom-up method for assessing and distinguishing virtues.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17439760.2022.2154254

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • When multiple agents are involved, questions of fairness arise. Agents must negotiate what they believe to be their fair share.

    “When multiple agents are involved, questions of fairness arise [41, 42]. Agents must negotiate what they believe to be their fair share.”

    From Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [42]

    The paper’s opening summary (p. 1) treats fairness as impartiality and associates it with equality, supporting the general relevance of fairness to how people are treated. It does not establish the cited sentence’s specific claim that questions of fairness arise whenever multiple agents are involved. The following sentence about negotiating a fair share has no citation attached. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. 10.1007/s40881-017-0035-0 · DOI
  2. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
  3. 10.1098/rspb.2006.0209 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1017/S0140525X11002202 · DOI
  5. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.
  6. 10.1080/03057240.2018.1528971 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111684 · DOI
  9. 10.1159/000496136 · DOI
  10. 10.1037/xge0000507 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/1477878514546064 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/1745691620924473 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1080/17439760.2020.1765004 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/0959354317751666 · DOI
  16. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
  17. Hume, D. (1902). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Clarendon Press.
  18. 10.1086/658142 · DOI
  19. Inbar, Y. (2018). Applied moral psychology. In Graham, J., Gray, K. (eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 537–543). The Guilford Press.
  20. 10.1038/nature16981 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.31234/osf.io/s6ct9 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/09515089.2022.2055537 · DOI
  23. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3478.4245 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.006 · DOI
  25. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
  26. 10.1038/s41562-016-0042 · DOI
  27. 10.1177/1073191112450612 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/17439760.2014.994222 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/0956797619900321 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/03057240.2019.1556939 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s11211-017-0291-4 · DOI
  32. 10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185 · DOI
  33. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook. American Psychological Association.
  34. 10.1037/13091-005 · DOI
  35. 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00300 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.4159/9780674042605 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Reeve, C. D. (2004). Plato: Republic. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
  39. 10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.97 · DOI
  40. 10.18637/jss.v091.i02 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1111/ajps.12103 · DOI
  42. 10.1086/293259 · DOI
  43. 10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_8 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.009 · DOI
  45. 10.1037/a0025907 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.005 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1093/0199253889.001.0001 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.12.005 · DOI
  49. 10.1086/406755 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.850 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/1745691614556679 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kraft-Todd, G. T., Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Young, L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
  • Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
  • Boston College (US)
Venue
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Published
2022-12-20
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
894-905
ISSN
  • 1743-9760 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9779
OpenAlex
W4312016724
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • The Journal of Positive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation (62221)
  • NSF) (1627157.)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
virtue, generosity, fairness, natural language processing, free-response data, cooperation, impartiality, motivation

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