Cited by 66Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and EducationPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Behavioral norms for condensed moral vignettes

Open access
Knutson, Kristine M., Krueger, Frank, Koenigs, Michael, Hawley, Angelina, Escobedo, Jessica R., Vasudeva, Viren, Adolphs, Ralph, Grafman, Jordan·2010·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

Moral judgment is an evaluation of the actions and character of a person made with respect to societal norms. Although many types of vignettes have been used in previous studies on moral beliefs and judgment, what is missing is a set of standardized common vignettes based in real life. The goal of this study was to provide researchers with stimuli that have values on several dimensions pertaining to moral judgment and whose underlying components are known. These values will allow researchers to select stimuli based on standardized ratings rather than on the results of pilot studies, while avoiding the limitations of the classic, abstract moral scenarios. Our study was composed of three phases, (i) collecting and shortening the vignettes, (ii) obtaining ratings of the vignettes on several dimensions including emotional intensity, degree of social norm violation, and level of harm or benefit caused and (iii) determining the underlying components of the vignettes by performing a factor analysis. We found three components that accounted for most of the variance: norm violation, social affect and intention. The resulting vignettes can be used in future parametric studies on moral judgment in behavioral, neuropsychological and functional imaging experiments.

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 · 10.1093/scan/nsq005

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stroebe, M.H.W, editors. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 11. London: Wiley, pp. 297-331.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knutson, K. M., Krueger, F., Koenigs, M., Hawley, A., Escobedo, J. R., Vasudeva, V., Adolphs, R., & Grafman, J.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
Corresponding author
Grafman, Jordan
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2010-02-12
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
378-384
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2154981204
Cited by
66
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
moral judgment, behavioral norms, social norms violation, emotional intensity, benefits and harms, intention, ethical dilemmas
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cues, Emotions, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Psychological Tests, Social Perception, Moral Obligations

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