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 accessAbstract
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.
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?
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
Self-report captures 27 distinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gradients
Cowen, A. S., & Keltner, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1702247114 · Cited by 897
Patterns of Moral Judgment Derive From Nonmoral Psychological Representations
Cushman, F., & Young, L. (2011) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01167.x · Cited by 179
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- 10.1007/s40881-017-0035-0 · DOI
- Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
- 10.1098/rspb.2006.0209 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0140525X11002202 · DOI
- Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.
- 10.1080/03057240.2018.1528971 · DOI
- 10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111684 · DOI
- 10.1159/000496136 · DOI
- 10.1037/xge0000507 · DOI
- 10.1177/1477878514546064 · DOI
- 10.1177/1745691620924473 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/17439760.2020.1765004 · DOI
- 10.1177/0959354317751666 · DOI
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
- Hume, D. (1902). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Clarendon Press.
- 10.1086/658142 · DOI
- Inbar, Y. (2018). Applied moral psychology. In Graham, J., Gray, K. (eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 537–543). The Guilford Press.
- 10.1038/nature16981 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.31234/osf.io/s6ct9 · DOI
- 10.1080/09515089.2022.2055537 · DOI
- 10.13140/RG.2.1.3478.4245 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.006 · DOI
- MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
- 10.1038/s41562-016-0042 · DOI
- 10.1177/1073191112450612 · DOI
- 10.1080/17439760.2014.994222 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797619900321 · DOI
- 10.1080/03057240.2019.1556939 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11211-017-0291-4 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185 · DOI
- Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook. American Psychological Association.
- 10.1037/13091-005 · DOI
- 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00300 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4159/9780674042605 · DOI · Paper page
- Reeve, C. D. (2004). Plato: Republic. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
- 10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.97 · DOI
- 10.18637/jss.v091.i02 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/ajps.12103 · DOI
- 10.1086/293259 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_8 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.009 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0025907 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.005 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/0199253889.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tics.2017.12.005 · DOI
- 10.1086/406755 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.850 · DOI
- 10.1177/1745691614556679 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agents
Piatti, G., Jin, Z., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Schölkopf, B., Sachan, M., & Mihalcea, R. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-3548 · Cited by 14
“When multiple agents are involved, questions of fairness arise [41, 42].”
Self-citation
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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