Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Registered Report
  • Published:

Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 06 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

The study of moral judgements often centres on moral dilemmas in which options consistent with deontological perspectives (that is, emphasizing rules, individual rights and duties) are in conflict with options consistent with utilitarian judgements (that is, following the greater good based on consequences). Greene et al. (2009) showed that psychological and situational factors (for example, 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 (for example, the trolley problem). Our knowledge is limited concerning both the universality of these effects outside the United States and the impact of culture on the situational and psychological factors affecting moral judgements. Thus, we empirically tested the universality of the effects of intent and personal force on moral dilemma judgements by replicating the experiments of Greene et al. in 45 countries from all inhabited continents. We found that personal force and its interaction with intention exert influence on moral judgements in the US and Western cultural clusters, replicating and expanding the original findings. Moreover, the personal force effect was present in all cultural clusters, suggesting it is culturally universal. The evidence for the cultural universality of the interaction effect was inconclusive in the Eastern and Southern cultural clusters (depending on exclusion criteria). We found no strong association between collectivism/individualism and moral dilemma judgements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Results of study 1 (effect of personal force).
Fig. 2: Results of study 2 (personal force and intention interaction).
Fig. 3: Correlation between country-level collectivism and effect size of the interaction between personal force and intention on the trolley problem.
Fig. 4: Correlation between country-level collectivism and effect size of the interaction between personal force and intention on the speedboat problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Collected anonymized raw and processed data are publicly shared on the Github page of the project: https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/trolleyMultilabReplication/tree/master/data.

Code availability

Code for data management and statistical analyses have been written in R and are available at https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/trolleyMultilabReplication.

Change history

References

  1. Mill, J. S. & Bentham, J. Utilitarianism and Other Essays (Penguin, 1987).

  2. Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Yale Univ. Press, 1785).

  3. Greene, J. D. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap between Us and Them (Penguin, 2013).

  4. London, J. A. How should we model rare disease allocation decisions? Hastings Cent. Rep. 42, 3 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573–1576 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxf. Rev. 5, 5–15 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baron, J. in Moral Inferences (eds Bonnefon, J.-F. & Trémolière, B.) 137–151 (Psychology Press, 2017).

  8. Baron, J. & Gürçay, B. A meta-analysis of response-time tests of the sequential two-systems model of moral judgment. Mem. Cogn. 45, 566–575 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cushman, F., Young, L. & Hauser, M. The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: testing three principles of harm. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1082–1089 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44, 389–400 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 2105–2108 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gürçay, B. & Baron, J. Challenges for the sequential two-system model of moral judgement. Think. Reason. 23, 49–80 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mikhail, J. Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 143–152 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boyle, J. Medical ethics and double effect: the case of terminal sedation. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 25, 51–60 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gross, M. L. Bioethics and armed conflict: mapping the moral dimensions of medicine and war. Hastings Cent. Rep. 34, 22–30 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gross, M. L. Killing civilians intentionally: double effect, reprisal, and necessity in the Middle East. Polit. Sci. Q. 120, 555–579 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tully, P. A. The doctrine of double effect and the question of constraints on business decisions. J. Bus. Ethics 58, 51–63 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Greene, J. D. et al. Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition 111, 364–371 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrett, H. C. et al. Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4688–4693 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Abarbanell, L. & Hauser, M. D. Mayan morality: an exploration of permissible harms. Cognition 115, 207–224 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cushman, F. Action, outcome, and value: a dual-system framework for morality. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17, 273–292 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A. & Mendes, W. B. Simulating murder: the aversion to harmful action. Emotion 12, 2 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ellsworth, R. M. & Walker, R. S. in The Routledge International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology (eds DeLisi, M. & Vaughn, M. G.) 85–102 (Routledge, 2014).

  25. Gold, N., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgm. Decis. Maki. 9, 65–76 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ahlenius, H. & Tännsjö, T. Chinese and Westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmas. J. Cog. Cult. 12, 195–201 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore, A. B., Lee, N. L., Clark, B. A., & Conway, A. R. In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of thedual process model of moral judgment. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6, 186–195 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Perkins, A. M. et al. A dose of ruthlessness: interpersonal moral judgment is hardened by the anti-anxiety drug lorazepam. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 612–620 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cushman, F., Young, L. & Greene, J. D. in The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (eds Vargas, M. & Doris, J.) 47–71 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  30. Koenigs, M. et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature 446, 908–911 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Szekely, R. D. & Miu, A. C. Incidental emotions in moral dilemmas: the influence of emotion regulation. Cogn. Emot. 29, 64–75 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson, R. C. et al. Guilt, shame, and adjustment in three cultures. Personal. Individ. Differ. 8, 357–364 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tracy, J. L. & Matsumoto, D. The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11655–11660 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Biswas-Diener, R. Emotions across cultures and methods. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35, 304–326 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heinrichs, N. et al. Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 1187–1197 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gleichgerrcht, E. & Young, L. Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS ONE 8, e60418 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Luo, S. et al. Interaction between oxytocin receptor polymorphism and interdependent culture values on human empathy. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10, 1273–1281 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheon, B. K. et al. Cultural influences on neural basis of intergroup empathy. NeuroImage 57, 642–650 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Koenig, L. B., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F. & Bouchard, T. J. Jr Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings. J. Pers. 73, 471–488 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kahane, G. On the wrong track: process and content in moral psychology. Mind Lang. 27, 519–545 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. & Savulescu, J. ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition 134, 193–209 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kahane, G. et al. Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol. Rev. 125, 131–164 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. & Greene, J. D. Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition 179, 241–265 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hauser, M. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.(Ecco/HarperCollins, 2006).

  46. Hauser, M. D., Young, L. & Cushman, F. Reviving Rawls’ linguistic analogy. Moral Psychol. 2, 107–143 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H. & Raver, J. L. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness–looseness. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1225 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I. & Bonnefon, J.-F. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2332–2337 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R. & Hütter, M. Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: the CNI model of moral decision-making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 343 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Conway, P. & Gawronski, B. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 216 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Moshontz, H. et al. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Bond, M. H. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. in Culture and Psychology. Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology (eds Matsumoto, D. & van de Vijver, F. J. R.) 75–100 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  53. Costa, A. et al. Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE 9, e94842 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Meade, A. W. & Craig, S. B. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol. Methods 17, 437–455 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E. & Cushman, F. A. Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? Cognition 170, 95–101 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dienes, Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front. Psychol. 5, 781 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Schönbrodt, F. D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Bayes factor design analysis: planning for compelling evidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 128–142 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N. & Jamil, T. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/index.html (2015).

  59. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

  60. Dienes, Z. How do I know what my theory predicts?. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 364–377 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Muthukrishna, M. et al. Beyond WEIRD psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychol. Sci. 31, 678–701 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.A. Vadillo was supported by 2016-T1/SOC-1395 and 2020-5A/SOC-19723 from Comunidad de Madrid, PSI2017-85159-P from AEI and UE/FEDER. M.P.-C. was supported by 2017/01/X/HS6/01332 from the National Science Centre, Poland. P.M. was supported by Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF), starting grant: AUFF-E-2019-9-4. B. Bago was supported by ANR grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d’Avenir programme) and ANR Labex IAST. R.M.R. was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP180102384). N.B.D. was supported by CAPES grant no. 88887.364180/2019-00. C.S., K.A.Ś. and I. Zettler were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation (CF16-0444) and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (7024-00057B). J.L. was supported by EXC 2126/1–390838866 under Germany’s Excellence Strategy. K.B. was supported by the following grants from the National Science Centre, Poland: (1) while working on the data collection, no. 2015/19/D/HS6/00641, (2) while working on the final version of the paper, no. 2019/35/B/HS6/00528. A.W. was supported by FONDECYT 11190980, CONICYT. A. Fleischmann was supported by the German Research Foundation (research unit grant FOR-2150, LA 3566/1-2). H.Y. was supported by JSPS grant 18K03010. Y.Y. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (16H03079, 17H00875, 18K12015 and 20H04581). K.Q. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (17H06342, 20K03479 and 20KK0054). A. Ikeda was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (20J21976). K.M.K. was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant no. 31530032 and Key Technological Projects of Guangdong Province grant no. 2018B030335001. J.B.C. was supported by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship grant no. DGE-1839285. M. Parzuchowski, K. Rybus and N.M.S. were supported by Polish National Science Center and DFG Beethoven grant 2016/23/G/HS6/01775. A.C.S. was supported by Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology grant no. SFRH/BD/126304/2016. L. Boncinelli was supported by PRIN 2017 grant no. 20178293XT (Italian Ministry of Education and Research). M.F.F.R. was supported by PSA 006 BRA 008 Data Collection in Support of PSADM 001 Measurement Invariance Project. M. Misiak was supported by a scholarship from the Foundation for Polish Science (START) and by a scholarship from the National Science Centre (2020/36/T/HS6/00256). P.B. was supported by Slovak Research and Development Agency project no. APVV-18-0140. M.A. was supported by Slovak Research and Development Agency project no. APVV-17-0418 and project PRIMUS/20/HUM/009. A. Findor and M.H. were supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under contract no. APVV-17-0596. T.G. was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (no. 950-224884). P.P. was supported by the Swedish Research Council (2016-06793). Y.L. was supported by The Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (grant no. 2020SJA0017). M. Kowal was supported by a scholarship from the National Science Centre (2019/33/N/HS6/00054). P.A. was supported by UID/PSI/03125/2019 from the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: B. Bago and B.A. Data curation: B. Bago, M. Kovacs and T.N. Formal analysis: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, T.N., Z.K. and B.P. Funding acquisition: P.A., P.M., K.Q., I. Zettler and R. Hoekstra. Investigation: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, M.A., S. Adamus, S. Albalooshi, N.A.-A., S. Alper, S.A.-S., S.G.A., S. Amaya, P.K.A., G.A., D.A., P.A., J.J.B.R.A., A.A., P.B., K.B., B. Bashour, E. Baskin, L. Batalha, C.B., J. Bavolar, F.B., M. Becker, B. Becker, A.B., M. Białek, E. Bilancini, D.B., L. Boncinelli, J. Boudesseul, B.T.B., E.M.B., M.M.B., D.P.C., N.C.C., J.B.C., C.R.C., W.J.C., P.C., H.C.-P., R.F.C., O.Ç., R.C.C., V.C.A., C.P.C., S.C., Y.D., J.A.M.d.G., W.C.d.V., E.G.D.B., C.D., B.J.W.D., X.D., F.D., A.D., N.B.D., J.E., C.E.-S., L.E., T.R.E., G.F., F.M.F., S.F., A. Findor, A. Fleischmann, F.F., R.F., D.-A.F., C.H.Y.F., S.G., O.G., A.-R.G.-N., M.E.G., I.G., T.G., B.G., M. Gollwitzer, A.G., M. Grinberg, A.G.-B., E.A.H., A.H., W.A.N.M.H., J.H., K.R.H., J.J.J.H., E.H., M.H., C.A.H., R. Huskey, A. Ikeda, Y.I., G.P.D.I., O.I., C.I., A. Iyer, B. Jaeger, S.M.J.J., W.J.-L., B. Jokić, P.K., V.K., G.K., F.K.-M., A.T.A.K., K.M.K., B.J.K., H.E.K., R.I.K., M. Kowal, E.K., L.K., A.K., A.O.K., F.L., C.L., J.L., E.B.L., A.L., I.Y.-M.L., L.B.L., M.C.L., J.N.L., C.A.L., S.C.L., M.L., Y.L., H.L., T.J.S.L., S.L., M.T.L., P.L., J.G.L., T.L., M. Máčel, S.P.M., M. Maganti, Z.M.-M., L.F.M., H.M., G.M.M., D.M.S., C.-J.M., A.D.A.M., M. Mazidi, J.P.M., N.M., M.C.M., L.M., T.L.M., A. Mirisola, M. Misiak, P.M., M.M.-J., A. Monajem, D.M., E.D.M., E.N., I.N.A., D.P.O., J.O., N.C.O., A.A.Ö., M. Panning, M.P.-P., N.P., P.P., M.P.-C., M. Parzuchowski, J.V.P., J.M.P., M. Peker, K.P., L.P., I.P., M.R.P., N.P.-J., A.J.P., M.A.P., E. Pronizius, D.P., E. Puvia, V.Q., K.Q., A.Q., B.R., D.A.R., U.-D.R., C.R., K. Reynolds, M.F.F.R., J.P.R., R.M.R., P.R., F.R.-D., S.R.-F., B.T.R., K. Rybus, A. Samekin, A.C.S., N.S., C.S., K.S., K.A.Ś., M. Sharifian, J. Shi, Y.S., E.S., M. Sirota, M. Slipenkyj, Ç.S., A. Sorokowska, P.S., S. Söylemez, N.K.S., I.D.S., A. Sternisko, L.S.-W., S.L.K.S., S. Stieger, D.S., J. Strube, K.J.S., R.D.S.-C., N.M.S., B. Takwin, S.T., A.G.T., K.E.T., L.E.T., M. Tonković, B. Trémolière, L.V.T., B.N.T., M. Twardawski, M.A. Vadillo, Z.V., L.A.V., B.V., D.V., M.V., M.A. Vranka, S. Wang, S.-L.W., S. Whyte, L.S.W., A.W., X.W., F.X., S. Yadanar, H.Y., Y.Y., O.Y., S. Yoon, D.M.Y., I. Zakharov, R.A.Z., I. Zettler, I.L.Ž., D.C.Z., J.Z., X.Z. and B.A. Methodology: B. Bago, Z.K., B.P., R. Hoekstra and B.A. Project administration: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, J.P. and B.A. Resources: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, S.G.A., G.A., P.A., H.C.-P., R.C.C., Y.D., X.D., W.J.-L., F.K.-M., C.L., H.M., A.A.Ö., V.Q., A.C.S., Y.S., J. Strube, N.M.S., M.V., I. Zakharov and B.A. Supervision: B. Bago, J.P., P.A., A.A.Ö., P.S., M.V. and B.A. Validation: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, T.N., Z.K., B.P. and B.A. Visualization: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, T.N. and B.P. Writing - original draft: B. Bago and B.A. Writing - review and editing: B. Bago, M. Kovacs, J.P., B.P., M.A., S. Adamus, S. Albalooshi, N.A.-A., S. Alper, S.A.-S., S.G.A., S. Amaya, P.K.A., G.A., D.A., P.A., J.J.B.R.A., A.A., P.B., K.B., B. Bashour, E. Baskin, L. Batalha, C.B., J. Bavolar, F.B., M. Becker, B. Becker, A.B., M. Białek, E. Bilancini, D.B., L. Boncinelli, J. Boudesseul, B.T.B., E.M.B., M.M.B., D.P.C., N.C.C., J.B.C., C.R.C., W.J.C., P.C., H.C.-P., R.F.C., O.Ç., R.C.C., V.C.A., C.P.C., S.C., Y.D., J.A.M.d.G., W.C.d.V., E.G.D.B., C.D., B.J.W.D., X.D., F.D., A.D., N.B.D., J.E., C.E.-S., L.E., T.R.E., G.F., F.M.F., S.F., A. Findor, A. Fleischmann, F.F., R.F., D.-A.F., C.H.Y.F., S.G., O.G., A.-R.G.-N., M.E.G., I.G., T.G., B.G., M. Gollwitzer, A.G., M. Grinberg, A.G.-B., E.A.H., A.H., W.A.N.M.H., J.H., K.R.H., J.J.J.H., E.H., M.H., C.A.H., R. Huskey, A. Ikeda, Y.I., G.P.D.I., O.I., C.I., A. Iyer, B. Jaeger, S.M.J.J., W.J.-L., B. Jokić, P.K., V.K., G.K., F.K.-M., A.T.A.K., K.M.K., B.J.K., H.E.K., R.I.K., M. Kowal, E.K., L.K., A.K., A.O.K., F.L., C.L., J.L., E.B.L., A.L., I.Y.-M.L., L.B.L., M.C.L., J.N.L., C.A.L., S.C.L., M.L., Y.L., H.L., T.J.S.L., S.L., M.T.L., P.L., J.G.L., T.L., M. Máčel, S.P.M., M. Maganti, Z.M.-M., L.F.M., H.M., G.M.M., D.M.S., C.-J.M., A.D.A.M., M. Mazidi, J.P.M., N.M., M.C.M., L.M., T.L.M., A. Mirisola, M. Misiak, P.M., M.M.-J., A. Monajem, D.M., E.D.M., E.N., I.N.A., D.P.O., J.O., N.C.O., A.A.Ö., M. Panning, M.P.-P., N.P., P.P., M.P.-C., M. Parzuchowski, J.V.P., J.M.P., M. Peker, K.P., L.P., I.P., M.R.P., N.P.-J., A.J.P., M.A.P., E. Pronizius, D.P., E. Puvia, V.Q., K.Q., A.Q., B.R., D.A.R., U.-D.R., C.R., K. Reynolds, M.F.F.R., J.P.R., R.M.R., P.R., F.R.-D., S.R.-F., B.T.R., K. Rybus, A. Samekin, A.C.S., N.S., C.S., K.S., K.A.Ś., M. Sharifian, J. Shi, Y.S., E.S., M. Sirota, M. Slipenkyj, Ç.S., A. Sorokowska, P.S., S. Söylemez, N.K.S., I.D.S., A. Sternisko, L.S.-W., S.L.K.S., S. Stieger, D.S., J. Strube, K.J.S., R.D.S.-C., N.M.S., B. Takwin, S.T., A.G.T., K.E.T., L.E.T., M. Tonković, B. Trémolière, L.V.T., B.N.T., M. Twardawski, M.A. Vadillo, Z.V., L.A.V., B.V., D.V., M.V., M.A. Vranka, S. Wang, S.-L.W., S. Whyte, L.S.W., A.W., X.W., F.X., S. Yadanar, H.Y., Y.Y., O.Y., S. Yoon, D.M.Y., I. Zakharov, R.A.Z., I. Zettler, I.L.Ž., D.C.Z., J.Z., X.Z. and B.A.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bence Bago.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Paul Conway, Joshua D Greene and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Effect of physical force on moral dilemma judgments, no exclusion criteria applied.

Results in Study 1 (effect of personal force without applying any exclusion criteria) on the Trolley (a) and Speedboat dilemma (b). Error bars are 95% Confidence Intervals around the mean. Scale ranged from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 9 (completely acceptable), n = 7,744.

Extended Data Fig. 2

The effect of personal force on moral dilemma judgements (without applying any exclusion criteria).

Extended Data Fig. 3

Interaction between personal force and intention on moral judgments (without applying any exclusion criteria).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Effect of physical force and intention on moral dilemma judgments, no exclusion criteria applied.

Results in Study 2 (personal force and intention interaction without applying any exclusion criteria) on the Trolley (a) and Speedboat dilemma (b). Error bars represent 95% Confidence Intervals. Scale ranged from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 9 (completely acceptable), n = 19,340.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Correlation between country level collectivism and personal force and intention interaction effect size, no exclusion criteria applied.

Correlation between country-level collectivism and the Eta squared effect size of the interaction between personal force and intention with no exclusion criteria applied on the Trolley (a) and Speedboat dilemma (b). The size of the circles indicate the size of the sample in a given country. Blue line is the weighted regression line.

Extended Data Fig. 6

Individualism/collectivism associations with the interaction between personal force and intention on moral judgments (without applying any exclusion criteria).

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bago, B., Kovacs, M., Protzko, J. et al. Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample. Nat Hum Behav 6, 880–895 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing