The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisiting External Validity: Concerns about Trolley Problems and Other Sacrificial Dilemmas in Moral Psychology
Open accessAbstract
Sacrificial dilemmas, especially trolley problems, have rapidly become the most recognizable scientific exemplars of moral situations; they are now a familiar part of the psychological literature and are featured prominently in textbooks and the popular press. We are concerned that studies of sacrificial dilemmas may lack experimental, mundane, and psychological realism and therefore suffer from low external validity. Our apprehensions stem from three observations about trolley problems and other similar sacrificial dilemmas: (i) they are amusing rather than sobering, (ii) they are unrealistic and unrepresentative of the moral situations people encounter in the real world, and (iii) they do not elicit the same psychological processes as other moral situations. We believe it would be prudent to use more externally valid stimuli when testing descriptive theories that aim to provide comprehensive accounts of moral judgment and behavior.
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition
Rawls, J. (1999) · doi:10.4159/9780674042582 · Cited by 9,455
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
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2 · Cited by 4,342
Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities
Bandura, A. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 · Cited by 4,228
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 · Cited by 1,897
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · Cited by 1,783
The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements
Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.6.777 · Cited by 546
Cited by
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
Sauer, H. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108529181 · Cited by 72
Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making
Tolmeijer, S., Christen, M., Kandul, S., Kneer, M., & Bernstein, A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517732 · Cited by 70
When AI ethics Goes astray: a case study of autonomous vehicles
Etienne, H. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320906508 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C.
- Venue
- Social and Personality Psychology Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 536-554
- ISSN
- 1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097888778
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 7.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
