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
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout




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
06 June 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01403-w
References
Mill, J. S. & Bentham, J. Utilitarianism and Other Essays (Penguin, 1987).
Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Yale Univ. Press, 1785).
Greene, J. D. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap between Us and Them (Penguin, 2013).
London, J. A. How should we model rare disease allocation decisions? Hastings Cent. Rep. 42, 3 (2014).
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573–1576 (2016).
Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxf. Rev. 5, 5–15 (1967).
Baron, J. in Moral Inferences (eds Bonnefon, J.-F. & Trémolière, B.) 137–151 (Psychology Press, 2017).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Gürçay, B. & Baron, J. Challenges for the sequential two-system model of moral judgement. Think. Reason. 23, 49–80 (2017).
Mikhail, J. Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 143–152 (2007).
Boyle, J. Medical ethics and double effect: the case of terminal sedation. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 25, 51–60 (2004).
Gross, M. L. Bioethics and armed conflict: mapping the moral dimensions of medicine and war. Hastings Cent. Rep. 34, 22–30 (2004).
Gross, M. L. Killing civilians intentionally: double effect, reprisal, and necessity in the Middle East. Polit. Sci. Q. 120, 555–579 (2005).
Tully, P. A. The doctrine of double effect and the question of constraints on business decisions. J. Bus. Ethics 58, 51–63 (2005).
Greene, J. D. et al. Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition 111, 364–371 (2009).
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).
Abarbanell, L. & Hauser, M. D. Mayan morality: an exploration of permissible harms. Cognition 115, 207–224 (2010).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).
Cushman, F. Action, outcome, and value: a dual-system framework for morality. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17, 273–292 (2013).
Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A. & Mendes, W. B. Simulating murder: the aversion to harmful action. Emotion 12, 2 (2012).
Ellsworth, R. M. & Walker, R. S. in The Routledge International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology (eds DeLisi, M. & Vaughn, M. G.) 85–102 (Routledge, 2014).
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).
Ahlenius, H. & Tännsjö, T. Chinese and Westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmas. J. Cog. Cult. 12, 195–201 (2012).
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).
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).
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).
Koenigs, M. et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature 446, 908–911 (2007).
Szekely, R. D. & Miu, A. C. Incidental emotions in moral dilemmas: the influence of emotion regulation. Cogn. Emot. 29, 64–75 (2015).
Johnson, R. C. et al. Guilt, shame, and adjustment in three cultures. Personal. Individ. Differ. 8, 357–364 (1987).
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).
Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Biswas-Diener, R. Emotions across cultures and methods. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35, 304–326 (2004).
Heinrichs, N. et al. Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 1187–1197 (2006).
Gleichgerrcht, E. & Young, L. Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS ONE 8, e60418 (2013).
Luo, S. et al. Interaction between oxytocin receptor polymorphism and interdependent culture values on human empathy. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10, 1273–1281 (2015).
Cheon, B. K. et al. Cultural influences on neural basis of intergroup empathy. NeuroImage 57, 642–650 (2011).
Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).
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).
Kahane, G. On the wrong track: process and content in moral psychology. Mind Lang. 27, 519–545 (2012).
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).
Kahane, G. et al. Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol. Rev. 125, 131–164 (2017).
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).
Hauser, M. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.(Ecco/HarperCollins, 2006).
Hauser, M. D., Young, L. & Cushman, F. Reviving Rawls’ linguistic analogy. Moral Psychol. 2, 107–143 (2008).
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H. & Raver, J. L. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness–looseness. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1225 (2006).
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).
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).
Conway, P. & Gawronski, B. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 216 (2013).
Moshontz, H. et al. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).
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).
Costa, A. et al. Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE 9, e94842 (2014).
Meade, A. W. & Craig, S. B. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol. Methods 17, 437–455 (2012).
Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E. & Cushman, F. A. Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible? Cognition 170, 95–101 (2018).
Dienes, Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front. Psychol. 5, 781 (2014).
Schönbrodt, F. D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Bayes factor design analysis: planning for compelling evidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 128–142 (2018).
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).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).
Dienes, Z. How do I know what my theory predicts?. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 364–377 (2019).
Muthukrishna, M. et al. Beyond WEIRD psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychol. Sci. 31, 678–701 (2018).
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
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
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
Supplementary Information (download PDF )
Supplementary Methods 1–4, Tables 1–10 and Figs. 1–5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5
This article is cited by
-
The emergence of moral alignment within human groups is facilitated by interbrain synchrony
Communications Biology (2025)
-
Out-group/in-group personal moral dilemmas in the Kogi worldview
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science (2025)
-
Oxytocin, but not vasopressin, decreases willingness to harm others by promoting moral emotions of guilt and shame
Molecular Psychiatry (2024)
-
What shall I do? Similarities and differences in moral judgements between Austrian and Mongolian students
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science (2024)
-
Repetition and emotional priming modulate complex decision-making processes differently depending on the task´s nature
Current Psychology (2024)


