scholarly journals Sensitivity to Moral Principles Predicts Both Deontological and Utilitarian Response Tendencies in Sacrificial Dilemmas

2021 ◽  
pp. 194855062110270
Author(s):  
Dries H. Bostyn ◽  
A. Roets ◽  
P. Conway
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Action Principle ◽  
Moral Concern ◽  
Philosophical Position ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Helping Others

When facing sacrificial dilemmas in which harm maximizes outcomes, people appear sensitive to three moral principles: They are more averse to actively causing harm than passively allowing it ( action principle), causing harm directly than indirectly ( contact principle), and causing harm as a means than as a by-product of helping others ( intention principle). Across five studies and a meta-analysis ( N = 1,218), we examined whether individual differences in people’s sensitivity to these principles were related to participants’ moral preferences on sacrificial dilemmas. Interestingly, sensitivity to each of these principles was related to both elevated harm-rejection (i.e., deontological) as well as elevated outcome-maximization (i.e., utilitarian) response tendencies. Rather than increasing responses consistent with only one philosophical position, people sensitive to moral principles balanced moral concerns about causing harm and maximizing outcomes similar to people high in other measures of moral concern.

scholarly journals Sensitivity to Moral Principles Predicts Both Deontological and Utilitarian Response Tendencies in Sacrificial Dilemmas

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dries Hannes Bostyn ◽  
Arne Roets ◽  
Paul Conway
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Action Principle ◽  
Moral Concern ◽  
Philosophical Position ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Helping Others

When facing sacrificial dilemmas in which harm maximizes outcomes, people appear sensitive to three moral principles: They are more averse to actively causing harm than passively allowing it (action principle), more averse to causing harm directly than indirectly (contact principle), and more averse to causing harm as a means than as a by-product of helping others (intention principle). Across five studies and a meta-analysis (N = 1218), we examined whether individual differences in people’s sensitivity to these principles were related to participants’ moral preferences on sacrificial dilemmas. Interestingly, sensitivity to each of these principles was related to both elevated harm-rejection (i.e., deontological) as well as elevated outcome maximization (i.e., utilitarian) response tendencies. Rather than increasing responses consistent with only one philosophical position, people sensitive to moral principles balanced moral concerns about causing harm and maximizing outcomes, similar to people high in other measures of moral concern.

scholarly journals The repeatability of cognitive performance: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1756) ◽  
pp. 20170281 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cauchoix ◽  
P. K. Y. Chow ◽  
J. O. van Horik ◽  
C. M. Atance ◽  
E. J. Barbeau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Extrinsic Factors ◽  
Widespread Occurrence ◽  
Taxonomic Class ◽  
Vast Literature

Behavioural and cognitive processes play important roles in mediating an individual's interactions with its environment. Yet, while there is a vast literature on repeatable individual differences in behaviour, relatively little is known about the repeatability of cognitive performance. To further our understanding of the evolution of cognition, we gathered 44 studies on individual performance of 25 species across six animal classes and used meta-analysis to assess whether cognitive performance is repeatable. We compared repeatability ( R ) in performance (1) on the same task presented at different times (temporal repeatability), and (2) on different tasks that measured the same putative cognitive ability (contextual repeatability). We also addressed whether R estimates were influenced by seven extrinsic factors (moderators): type of cognitive performance measurement, type of cognitive task, delay between tests, origin of the subjects, experimental context, taxonomic class and publication status. We found support for both temporal and contextual repeatability of cognitive performance, with mean R estimates ranging between 0.15 and 0.28. Repeatability estimates were mostly influenced by the type of cognitive performance measures and publication status. Our findings highlight the widespread occurrence of consistent inter-individual variation in cognition across a range of taxa which, like behaviour, may be associated with fitness outcomes. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Causes and consequences of individual differences in cognitive abilities’.

Individual differences in parents’ impressions of children and child physical abuse: A meta-analysis.

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy J. McCarthy ◽  
Michael F. Wagner ◽  
Ariel Basham ◽  
Caicina Jones
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Physical Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Child Physical Abuse

scholarly journals Personal factors and group creativity characteristics: A correlational meta-analysis [stage 1]

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrien Alejandro Fillon ◽  
Fabien Girandola ◽  
Nathalie Bonnardel ◽  
Jared Kenworthy ◽  
Lionel Souchet
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Personal Factors ◽  
Creative Activity ◽  
Group Creativity ◽  
Team Creativity ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
The Relationship

Previous research has investigated the relationship between personal factors and group creativity characteristics. On one side, they showed that individual differences play a role in group and team creativity. On the other side, they showed that group creativity activities have different characteristics, leading to numerous ways to assess effectiveness of creative activity. Nonetheless, no meta-analysis was performed on the relationship between the characteristics of the creative activity and individual differences. In this Registered Report, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = [XXX; number of studies/datasets]) on the relationship between personal factors and group creative activities characteristics (N = [XXXX]). We found [weak-to-no / weak / weak-to-medium / medium / medium-to-strong / strong] support for a [positive / negative] correlation between personal factors and creativity activities characteristics, r = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]. We tested several moderators of the relationship, including [moderators]. Our analysis indicated that the relationship is [stronger / weaker] [moderators, e.g., in males than in females]. Data and analysis can be found in: https://osf.io/xwph9/?view_only=335369af22dc425096b1149cea66426a

scholarly journals Individual differences in behaviour explain variation in survival: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Moiron ◽  
Kate L. Laskowski ◽  
Petri Toivo Niemelä
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Animal Personality ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
In The Wild ◽  
Behavioural Types ◽  
Risky Behaviours ◽  
First Time

Research focusing on among-individual differences in behaviour (“animal personality”) has been blooming for over a decade. One of the central theories explaining the maintenance of behavioural variation posits a trade-off between behaviour and survival with individuals expressing greater “risky” behaviours suffering higher mortality. Here, for the first time, we synthesize the existing empirical evidence for this key prediction. Our results did not support this prediction as there was no directional relationship between riskier behaviour and greater mortality; however there was a significant absolute relationship between behaviour and survival. In total, behaviour explained a significant, but small, portion (4.4%) of the variance in survival. We also found that risky (versus “shy”) behavioural types live longer in the wild, but not in the laboratory. This suggests that individuals expressing risky behaviours might be of overall higher quality but the lack of predation pressure and resource restrictions mask this effect in laboratory environments. Our work implies that individual differences in behaviour explain important differences in survival but not in the direction predicted by theory. Importantly, this suggests that the models predicting survival trade-offs may need revision and/or empiricists may need to reconsider their proxies of risky behaviours when testing such theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document