Correction: Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The Supporting Information files S1 and S2 Text and S1, S2 and S3 Tables incorrectly contain tracked changes. Please view the corrected files below. Supporting information S1 Text Overview and critique of the Universal Moral Grammar model. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S2 Text Overview and critique of the Moral Foundations Theory. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S1 Table T-tests for the manipulation checks for low- and high-stakes vignettes. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S2 Table Correlation coefficients between self-identifications with moral theories and Preferences for Precepts Implied in Moral Theories (PPIMT). (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S3 Table Summary of the findings of the ADC-components. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file.

Related collections

Most cited references 1

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment

Veljko Dubljević, Sebastian Sattler, Eric Racine (2018)

Moral evaluations occur quickly following heuristic-like intuitive processes without effortful deliberation. There are several competing explanations for this. The ADC-model predicts that moral judgment consists in concurrent evaluations of three different intuitive components: the character of a person (Agent-component, A); their actions (Deed-component, D); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component, C). Thereby, it explains the intuitive appeal of precepts from three dominant moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism), and flexible yet stable nature of moral judgment. Insistence on single-component explanations has led to many centuries of debate as to which moral precepts and theories best describe (or should guide) moral evaluation. This study consists of two large-scale experiments and provides a first empirical investigation of predictions yielded by the ADC model. We use vignettes describing different moral situations in which all components of the model are varied simultaneously. Experiment 1 (within-subject design) shows that positive descriptions of the A-, D-, and C-components of moral intuition lead to more positive moral judgments in a situation with low-stakes. Also, interaction effects between the components were discovered. Experiment 2 further investigates these results in a between-subject design. We found that the effects of the A-, D-, and C-components vary in strength in a high-stakes situation. Moreover, sex, age, education, and social status had no effects. However, preferences for precepts in certain moral theories (PPIMT) partially moderated the effects of the A- and C-component. Future research on moral intuitions should consider the simultaneous three-component constitution of moral judgment.

0 comments Cited 14 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Journal ID (pmc): plosone

Title: PLoS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date (Electronic): 25 October 2018

Publication date Collection: 2018

Publication date PMC-release: 25 October 2018

Volume: 13

Issue: 10

Electronic Location Identifier: e0206750

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-18-30361

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206750

PMC ID: 6201947

PubMed ID: 30359457

SO-VID: 0ba735e9-14ba-461d-8205-6114eed75ad6

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 1

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.