Moral thinking across the world:Exploring the influence of personal force and intention in moral dilemma judgements [ Registered Report Stage 1 Protocol]

ABSTRACT: The study of moral judgements is often centered on moral dilemmas in which options consistent with deontological perspectives (i.e., emphasizing rules, individual rights and duties) are in conflict with options consistent with utilitarian judgements (i.e., following the greater good defined through consequences). In a seminal study of this field, Greene et al. (2009) showed that psychological and situational factors (e.g., the intent of the agent or the presence of physical contact between the agent and the victim) can play an important role in moral dilemma judgements. As their study was conducted with US samples, our knowledge is limited concerning the universality of this effect, in general, and the impact of culture on the situational and psychological factors of moral judgements, in particular. Here, we empirically test the universality of intent and personal force on moral dilemma judgements by testing the replicability of the experiments of Greene et al. on a large (N = X,XXX) and diverse sample across the world. We hypothesize that intent and personal force universally increase the unacceptability of outcome-maximizing harm in these dilemmas, and that the effect is stronger in collectivistic than in individualistic cultures due to cultural differences in emotional processing (guilt, shame, anxiety). The relevance of this exploration to a broad range of policy-making problems is discussed.