The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Differences in Moral Judgments: The Role of Informational Assumptions
Abstract
This study examined differences in moral judgments as they relate to informational assumptions. It was hypothesized that (1) differences in moral judgments are related to differences in informational assumptions, (2) moral judgments change if the information believed to be true changes, and (3) the relation between informational assumptions and moral judgments is not affected by age. 72 subjects (aged 11-9, 15-10, and 21-3) evaluated events concerning welfare, justice, and rights and reevaluated them in light of the opposite information. A significant relation was found between the evaluations and the informational assumptions, and 80% of the evaluations changed in response to informational changes. The relation between evaluations and informational assumptions was significant within each age group. These findings demonstrated that informational assumptions are a source of variation in moral judgments and underscored the need to distinguish between the 2 types of judgments when studying differences in moral reasoning.
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.
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
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Cited by
Parenting Styles and Conceptions of Parental Authority during Adolescence
Smetana, J. G. (1995) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00872.x · Cited by 565
The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10101 · Cited by 502
The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind
Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., Richardson, C., Jampol, N., & Woodward, A. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.006 · Cited by 384
Turiel, E., & Dahl, A. (2019) · The Normative Animal? · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190846466.003.0010 · Cited by 34
Martínez, C. A., & Posada, R. (2022) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1111/jora.12729 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Wainryb, C.
- Venue
- Child Development
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-08-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 840-840
- ISSN
- 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2037047587
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Differences in Moral Judgments: The Role of Informational Assumptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01573.x
- The paper
- Wainryb, C. (1991). Understanding Differences in Moral Judgments: The Role of Informational Assumptions. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01573.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
