Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants

Significance We report the largest cross-cultural study of moral preferences in sacrificial dilemmas, that is, the circumstances under which people find it acceptable to sacrifice one life to save several. On the basis of 70,000 responses to three dilemmas, collected in 10 languages and 42 countries, we document a universal qualitative pattern of preferences together with substantial country-level variations in the strength of these preferences. In particular, we document a strong association between low relational mobility (where people are more cautious about not alienating their current social partners) and the tendency to reject sacrifices for the greater good—which may be explained by the positive social signal sent by such a rejection. We make our dataset publicly available for researchers. When do people find it acceptable to sacrifice one life to save many? Cross-cultural studies suggested a complex pattern of universals and variations in the way people approach this question, but data were often based on small samples from a small number of countries outside of the Western world. Here we analyze responses to three sacrificial dilemmas by 70,000 participants in 10 languages and 42 countries. In every country, the three dilemmas displayed the same qualitative ordering of sacrifice acceptability, suggesting that this ordering is best explained by basic cognitive processes rather than cultural norms. The quantitative acceptability of each sacrifice, however, showed substantial country-level variations. We show that low relational mobility (where people are more cautious about not alienating their current social partners) is strongly associated with the rejection of sacrifices for the greater good (especially for Eastern countries), which may be explained by the signaling value of this rejection. We make our dataset fully available as a public resource for researchers studying universals and variations in human morality.

[1]  M. Crockett,et al.  Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A Two-Dimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology , 2017, Psychological review.

[2]  D. Medin,et al.  Pressing questions in the study of psychological and behavioral diversity , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  M. Yuki,et al.  Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships. , 2012 .

[4]  J. Thomson.  The Trolley Problem , 1985 .

[5]  M. Crockett,et al.  Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  J. Henrich,et al.  The Moral Machine experiment , 2018, Nature.

[7]  E. Hoebel,et al.  The law of primitive man : a study in comparative legal dynamics , 1955 .

[8]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment , 2009, Cognition.

[9]  P. Foot.  The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect , 2020, The Doctrine of Double Effect.

[10]  Fiery Cushman,et al.  Patterns of Moral Judgment Derive From Nonmoral Psychological Representations , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  John Mikhail.  Is the Prohibition of Homicide Universal? Evidence from Comparative Criminal Law , 2010 .

[12]  Adam B. Moore,et al.  In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of the dual process model of moral judgment , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[13]  M. Hauser,et al.  The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment , 2006, Psychological science.

[14]  K. Hugenberg,et al.  The Adaptive Utility of Deontology: Deontological Moral Decision-Making Fosters Perceptions of Trust and Likeability , 2017 .

[15]  Anne C. Pisor,et al.  Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justifications , 2007 .

[17]  John Mikhail,et al.  Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  T. Tännsjö,et al.  Chinese and Westerners Respond Differently to the Trolley Dilemmas , 2012 .

[19]  Edmond Awad.  Classic Trolley - Moral Machine website , 2019 .

[20]  A. Roets,et al.  Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Judgment Versus Real-Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas , 2017, Psychological science.

[21]  J. Henrich,et al.  Weighing outcome vs. intent across societies: How cultural models of mind shape moral reasoning , 2019, Cognition.

[22]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  Overlooked Evidence and a Misunderstanding of What Trolley Dilemmas Do Best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018) , 2019, Psychological science.

[23]  A. Roets,et al.  An Asymmetric Moral Conformity Effect , 2017 .

[24]  F. Cushman,et al.  Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? , 2018, Cognition.

[25]  Reginald B. Adams,et al.  Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Sample and Setting , 2018 .

[26]  Colin Camerer,et al.  “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  Masaki Yuki,et al.  Similarity attraction and actually selecting similar others: How cross‐societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarity in Japan and the USA , 2009 .

[28]  Lei Chang,et al.  Cultural Adaptations to Environmental Variability: An Evolutionary Account of East–West Differences , 2011 .

[29]  Joshua D. Greene.  Solving the Trolley Problem , 2016 .

[30]  L. Li,et al.  Interpersonal relationship mindsets and rejection sensitivity across cultures: The role of relational mobility , 2017 .

[31]  G. Adams,et al.  Relational Mobility Increases Social (but Not Other) Risk Propensity , 2016 .

[32]  J. Savulescu,et al.  ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good , 2015, Cognition.

[33]  A. Colman,et al.  Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems , 2014, Judgment and Decision Making.

[34]  D. Medin,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article International Journal of Psychology Culture and the Quest for Universal Principles in Moral Reasoning , 2022 .

[35]  S. Bruers,et al.  A Review and Systematization of the Trolley Problem , 2014 .

[36]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers , 2018, Cognition.

[37]  M. Hauser,et al.  Sociocultural Influences on Moral Judgments: East–West, Male–Female, and Young–Old , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[38]  Hoon-Seok Choi,et al.  Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.