Prediction of dishonest behavior using the CNI model of moral dilemma judgment: a registered report

References

• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J., & Goodwin, G. P. (2020). Consequences, norms, and inaction: A critical analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3), 421–442.
   Google Scholar
• Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12131
   Google Scholar
• Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. doi:10.1037/a0021524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. (2017). Trust, trolleys and social dilemmas: A replication study. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 146(5), e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. (2019). Should trolleys be scared of mice? Replies to Evans and Brandt (2019); Białek, Turpin, and Fugelsang (2019); Colman, Gold, and Pulford (2019); and Plunkett and Greene (2019). Psychological Science, 30(9), 1392–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619865236
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2019). Beyond physical harm: How preference for consequentialism and primary psychopathy relate to decisions on a monetary trolley dilemma. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1497536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canty, A., & Ripley, B. D. (2021). Boot: bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package.
   Google Scholar
• Capraro, V., Sippel, J., Zhao, B., Hornischer, L., Savary, M., Terzopoulou, Z., Faucher, P., & Griffioen, S. F. (2018). People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0205066. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205066.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
   Google Scholar
• Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crockett, M. J. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crone, D. L., & Laham, S. M. (2017). Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313495594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dang, J., King, K. M., & Inzlicht, M. (2020). Why are self-report and behavioral measures weakly correlated? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(4), 267–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickinson, D. L., & Masclet, D. (2019). Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 166, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.08.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.003.0002
   Google Scholar
• Francis, K. B., Howard, C., Howard, I. S., Gummerum, M., Ganis, G., Anderson, G., & Terbeck, S. (2016). Virtual morality: Transitioning from moral judgment to moral action? PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164374. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2018). Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion, 18(7), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000399
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Hütter, M., Luke, D. M., Armstrong, J., & Friesdorf, R. (2020). On the validity of the CNI model of moral decision-making: Reply to Baron and Goodwin (2020). Judgment and Decision Making, 15(6), 1054–1072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In. Devine, Patricia, Plant, Ashby (eds.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
   Google Scholar
• Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.686247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D. (2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 35–80). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7504.003.0004
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D., & Paxton, J. M. (2009). Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12506–12511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900152106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
   Google Scholar
• Heck, D. W., Thielmann, I., Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2018). Who lies? A large-scale reanalysis linking basic personality traits to unethical decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(4), 356–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619885840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131–164. doi:10.1037/rev0000093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kneer, M., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2022). Trolleys, triage and Covid-19: The role of psychological realism in sacrificial dilemmas. Cognition & Emotion, 36(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1964940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446(7138), 908–911. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05631
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Körner, A., Deutsch, R., & Gawronski, B. (2020). Using the CNI model to investigate individual differences in moral dilemma judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(9), 1392–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220907203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Körner, A., Joffe, S., & Deutsch, R. (2019). When skeptical, stick with the norm: Low dilemma plausibility increases deontological moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103834
   Google Scholar
• Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, D. M., & Gawronski, B. (2021a). Political ideology and moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(10), 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220987990
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luke, D. M., & Gawronski, B. (2021b). Psychopathy and moral dilemma judgments: A CNI model analysis of personal and perceived societal standards. Social Cognition, 39(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.1.41
   Google Scholar
• Luke, D. M., & Gawronski, B. (2021c). Temporal stability of moral dilemma judgments: A longitudinal analysis using the CNI model. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 48(8), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211035024
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall, J., Watts, A. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Do psychopathic individuals possess a misaligned moral compass? A meta-analytic examination of psychopathy’s relations with moral judgment. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(1), 40–50. doi:10.1037/per0000226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, A. B., Stevens, J., & Conway, A. R. A. (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment predict moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 621–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patil, I. (2015). Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgement: The mediating role of action aversion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1004334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patil, I., Cogoni, C., Zangrando, N., Chittaro, L., & Silani, G. (2014). Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.870091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plunkett, D., & Greene, J. D. (2019). Overlooked evidence and a misunderstanding of what trolley dilemmas do best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018). Psychological Science, 30(9), 1389–1391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619827914
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schein, C. (2020). The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalvi, S., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(15), 5503–5507. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400724111
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Suter, R. S., & Hertwig, R. (2011). Time and moral judgment. Cognition, 119(3), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415. https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17(6), 476–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar