*Aguilar, P., Brussino, S., & Fernández-Dols, J.-M. (2013). Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 449–452.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.002.
Article
Google Scholar
Altman, D.G., and J.M. Bland. 2011. How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 343: d2090. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2090.
Article
Google Scholar
Amit, E., S. Gottlieb, and J.D. Greene. 2014. Visual versus verbal thinking and dual-process moral cognition. In From dual-process theories of the social mind, ed. J.W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, and Y. Trope, 340–354. New York: The Guilford Press.
Anderson, E. 2018. Psyche and ethos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baez, S., E. Herrera, A.M. García, F. Manes, L. Young, and A. Ibáñez. 2017. Outcome-oriented moral evaluation in terrorists. Nature Human Behaviour 1 (6): 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0118.
Article
Google Scholar
*Barque Duran, A., Pothos, E. M., Hampton, J. A., & Yearsley, J. M. (2017). Contemporary morality: Moral judgments in digital contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.020.
Article
Google Scholar
Bartels, D.M., and D.A. Pizarro. 2011. The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition 121 (1): 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010.
Article
Google Scholar
Becker, G. 2011. Kohlberg und seine Kritiker: Eine systematische und forschungsgeschichtliche Analyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Book
Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2012. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Newburyport: Dover Publications.
*Bialek, M., & Neys, W. de. (2017). Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment and Decision making, 12(2), 148–167.
Google Scholar
Bloom, P. 2011. Family, community, trolley problems, and the crisis in moral psychology. The Yale Review 99 (2): 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9736.2011.00701.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Larry Hedges, Julian Higgins, and Hannah Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to meta-analysis. Oxford: Wiley.
Bostyn, D.H., S. Sevenhant, and A. Roets. 2018. Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science 29 (7): 1084–1093.
Article
Google Scholar
Bruers, S., and J. Braeckman. 2014. A review and systematization of the trolley problem. Philosophia 42 (2): 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9507-5.
Article
Google Scholar
Chan, Y.-L., X. Gu, J.C.-K. Ng, and C.-S. Tse. 2016. Effects of dilemma type, language, and emotion arousal on utilitarian vs deontological choice to moral dilemmas in Chinese-English bilinguals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 19 (1): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12123.
Article
Google Scholar
*Chen, C., Decety, J., Huang, P. C., Chen, C. Y., & Cheng, Y. (2016). Testosterone administration in females modulates moral judgment and patterns of brain activation and functional connectivity. Human Brain Mapping, 37(10), 3417–3430. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23249 .
Article
Google Scholar
Christensen, J.F., A. Flexas, M. Calabrese, N.K. Gut, and A. Gomila. 2014. Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607.
Article
Google Scholar
*Cipolletti, H., McFarlane, S., & Weissglass, C. (2016). The moral foreign-language effect. Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 23–40.
Article
Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
*Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021.
Article
Google Scholar
Conway, P., J. Goldstein-Greenwood, D. Polacek, and J.D. Greene. 2018. Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition 179 (1): 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018.
Article
Google Scholar
*Corey, J. D., Hayakawa, S., Foucart, A., Aparici, M., Botella, J., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2017). Our moral choices are foreign to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000356.
Article
Google Scholar
*Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PLoS One, 9(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094842.
Article
Google Scholar
*Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D., & Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(40), 17433–17438. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009396107.
Article
Google Scholar
*Crone, D. L., & Laham, S. M. (2017). Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 104(3), 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.022 .
Article
Google Scholar
*Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (2012). Emotion and deliberative reasoning in moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00328.
Article
Google Scholar
Cuijpers, P. (2016). Meta-analyses in mental Health Research: A practical guide. Amsterdam.
Cushman, F., R. Sheketoff, S. Wharton, and S. Carey. 2013. The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition 127 (1): 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.008.
Article
Google Scholar
Cushman, F., L. Young, and M. Hauser. 2006. The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science 17 (12): 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x.
Article
Google Scholar
DerSimonian, R., and N. Laird. 1986. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7 (3): 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
Article
Google Scholar
*Di Nucci, E. (2013). Self-sacrifice and the trolley problem. Philosophical Psychology, 26(5), 662–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.674664.
Article
Google Scholar
*Duke, A. A., & Begue, L. (2015). The drunk utilitarian: Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas. Cognition, 134, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.006 .
Article
Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 2011. Erziehung, Moral und Gesellschaft: Vorlesung an der Sorbonne 1902/1903. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
Feltz, A., and J. May. 2017. The means/side-effect distinction in moral cognition: A meta-analysis. Cognition 166: 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.027.
Article
Google Scholar
Flanagan, O.J. 1991. The science of the mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Foot, P. 1967. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review 5: 5–15.
Google Scholar
Fujita, K., M.D. Henderson, J. Eng, Y. Trope, and N. Liberman. 2006. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science 17 (4): 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Fumagalli, M., R. Ferrucci, F. Mameli, S. Marceglia, S. Mrakic Sposta, S. Zago, et al. 2010. Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing 11 (1): 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2.
Article
Google Scholar
Gao, Y., and S. Tang. 2013. Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral judgment in college students. Journal of Criminal Justice 41: 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.012.
Article
Google Scholar
*Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hutter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086.supp.
Article
Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., and J.S. Beer. 2017. What makes moral dilemma judgments ‘utilitarian’ or ‘deontological’? Social Neuroscience 12 (6): 626–632.
Google Scholar
*Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hutter, M. Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000399, 2018.
Gawronski, B., P. Conway, J. Armstrong, R. Friesdorf, and M. Hütter. 2016. Understanding responses to moral dilemmas. In The Sydney symposium of social psychology series: volume 18, ed. J.P. Forgas, L.J. Jussim, and P.A.M. van Lange, 91–110. New York: The social psychology of morality, Routledge.
*Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015a). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of emotions and norms. PLoS One, 10(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131529.
Article
Google Scholar
Geipel, J., C. Hadjichristidis, and L. Surian. 2015b. How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 59: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001.
Article
Google Scholar
Gibbs, J.C. 2006. Should Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental approach to morality be replaced with a more pragmatic approach? Comment on Krebs and Denton (2005). Psychological Review 113 (3): 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.666.
Article
Google Scholar
Graham, J., J. Haidt, S. Koleva, M. Motyl, R. Iyer, S.P. Wojcik, and P.H. Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 47. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. J.M. Olson, vol. 47, 55–130. Doordrecht: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4.
Greene, J. 2015. Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. London: Atlantic Books.
Greene, J.D. 2008. The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In A Bradford book: Vol. 3. The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain disorders, and development, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, 35–79. Cambridge: MIT Press.
*Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001.
Article
Google Scholar
*Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004.
Article
Google Scholar
Greene, J.D., L.E. Nystrom, A.D. Engell, J.M. Darley, and J.D. Cohen. 2004. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44 (2): 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027.
Article
Google Scholar
Greene, J.D., R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley, and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293 (5537): 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872.
Article
Google Scholar
Hadjichristidis, C., J. Geipel, and L. Savadori. 2015. The effect of foreign language in judgments of risk and benefit: The role of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 21 (2): 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000044.
Article
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108 (4): 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.
Article
Google Scholar
Hartung, J. 1999. An alternative method for Meta-analysis. Biometrical Journal 41 (8): 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199912)41:8<901::AID-BIMJ901>3.0.CO;2-W.
Article
Google Scholar
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hauser, M., F. Cushman, L. Young, J. Kang-Xing, and J. Mikhail. 2007. A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language 22 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., & Ebert, D. (2019). Doing Meta-Analysis in R. Retrieved from https://zenodo.org/record/2551803#.X43UGu3gphFhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551803.
Hayakawa, S., D. Tannenbaum, A. Costa, J.D. Corey, and B. Keysar. 2017. Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgment. Psychological Science 28 (10): 1387–1397.
Article
Google Scholar
Higgins, J.P.T., and S.G. Thompson. 2002. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 21 (11): 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.
Article
Google Scholar
Horne, Z., & Powell, D. (2013). Emotional arousal and moral judgments. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sabanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Chairs), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Jackson, D., M. Law, G. Rücker, and G. Schwarzer. 2017. The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns? Statistics in Medicine 36 (25): 3923–3934. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7411.
Article
Google Scholar
Kahane, G. 2015. Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400.
*Kahane, G., Wiech, K., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. (2012). The neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr005.
Article
Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2012. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kamm, Frances M. 2019. The trolley problem mysteries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kant, I. 2012. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge texts in the history of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khemiri, L., J. Guterstam, J. Franck, and N. Jayaram Lindstrom. 2012. Alcohol dependence associated with increased utilitarian moral judgment: A case control study. PLoS One 7 (6): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039882.
Article
Google Scholar
Klenk, M., & Hancock, J. (2019). Autonomy and online manipulation. Internet Policy Review. Retrieved from https://policyreview.info/articles/news/autonomy-and-online-manipulation/1431.
Klenk, M. (2021). (Online) manipulation: sometimes hidden, always careless. Review of Social Economy, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.1894350.
Koenigs, M., M. Kruepke, J. Zeier, and J.P. Newman. 2011. Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7 (6): 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr048.
Article
Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1987a). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (2nd ed., pp. 170–206). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (2.th ed.). (1987b).
Kohlberg, L. (1987c). Stage and SequenceThe cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (2nd ed., pp. 7–169).
*Korner, A., & Volk, S. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.002.
Article
Google Scholar
*Kusev, P., van Schaik, P., Alzahrani, S., Lonigro, S., & Purser, H. (2016). Judging the morality of utilitarian actions: How poor utilitarian accessibility makes judges irrational. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1961–1967. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1029-2.
Article
Google Scholar
*Kvaran, T., Nichols, S., & Sanfey, A. (2013). The effect of analytic and experiential modes of thought on moral judgment. In N. Srinivasan & V. S. C. Pammi (Eds.), Progress in brain research: Vol. 202. Decision making: Neural and behavioural approaches (pp. 187–196). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62604-2.00011-3.
*La Olivera Rosa, A., Corradi, G., Villacampa, J., Marti Vilar, M., Arango, O. E., & Rossello, J. (2016). Effects of suboptimally presented erotic pictures on moral judgments: A cross- cultural comparison. PLoS One, 11(7), 1–12.
Google Scholar
Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2017). Computation of effect sizes. Dettelbach. Retrieved from https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17823.92329.
Li, Z., Xia, S., Wu, X., & Chen, Z. (2018). Analytical thinking style leads to more utilitarian moral judgments: An exploration with a process-dissociation approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.046.
Liao, S.M., A. Wiegmann, J. Alexander, and G. Vong. 2012. Putting the trolley in order: Experimental philosophy and the loop case. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5): 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.627536.
Article
Google Scholar
*Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., & Sarlo, M. (2014). A new set of moral dilemmas: Norms for moral acceptability, decision times, and emotional salience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1782.
Article
Google Scholar
*Lucas, B. J., & Livingston, R. W. (2014). Feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in moral dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.011.
Article
Google Scholar
*Manfrinati, A., Lotto, L., Sarlo, M., Palomba, D., & Rumiati, R. (2013). Moral dilemmas and moral principles: When emotion and cognition unite. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1276–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.785388.
Article
Google Scholar
Mendez, M.F., E. Anderson, and J.S. Shapira. 2005. An investigation of moral judgement in frontotemporal dementia. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology : Official Journal of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology 18 (4): 193–197.
Article
Google Scholar
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6 (7): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Article
Google Scholar
Moll, J., R. de Oliveira-Souza, and R. Zahn. 2008. The neural basis of moral cognition: Sentiments, concepts, and values. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124 (1): 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.005.
Article
Google Scholar
*Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19(6), 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x.
Article
Google Scholar
*Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Bialek, M., & Conway, P. (2018). Reading dilemmas in a foreign language reduces both deontological and utilitarian response tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(2), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000447.supp.
Article
Google Scholar
Nagel, J., and M.R. Waldmann. 2016. On having very long arms: How the availability of technological means affects moral cognition. Thinking & Reasoning 22 (2): 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1114023.
Article
Google Scholar
Nakamura, K. 2013. A closer look at moral dilemmas: Latent dimensions of morality and the difference between trolley and footbridge dilemmas. Thinking & Reasoning 19 (2): 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.768551.
Article
Google Scholar
*Nakamura, H., Ito, Y., Honma, Y., Mori, T., & Kawaguchi, J. (2014). Cold-hearted or cool-headed: Physical coldness promotes utilitarian moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.
Google Scholar
*Ong, H. H., Mullette Gillman, O.’D. A., Kwok, K., & Lim, J. (2014). Moral judgment modulation by disgust is bi-directionally moderated by individual sensitivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00194.
*Pastotter, B., Gleixner, S., Neuhauser, T., & Bauml, K. H. T. (2013). To push or not to push? Affective influences on moral judgment depend on decision frame. Cognition, 126(3), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.003.
Article
Google Scholar
Patil, I. 2015. Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgement: The mediating role of action aversion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 27 (3): 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1004334.
Article
Google Scholar
*Patil, I., Cogoni, C., Zangrando, N., Chittaro, L., & Silani, G. (2014). Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.870091.
Article
Google Scholar
Paxton, J.M., and J.D. Greene. 2010. Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3): 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01096.x.
Article
Google Scholar
*Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x.
Article
Google Scholar
*Pellizzoni, S., Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2010). The contact principle and utilitarian moral judgments in young children. Developmental Science, 13(2), 265–270.
Article
Google Scholar
*Petrinovich, L., & O’Neill, P. (1996). Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17(3), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(96)00041-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1983). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde (2. veränderte Aufl.). Klett-Cotta/Psychologie. Theorie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Pizarro, D.A., E. Uhlmann, and P. Bloom. 2003. Causal deviance and the attribution of moral responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (6): 653–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00041-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Rai, T.S., and A.P. Fiske. 2011. Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review 118 (1): 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021867.
Article
Google Scholar
Rakowski, E., ed. 2016. The Berkeley Tanner lectures. The trolley problem mysteries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rest, J.R., D. Narvaez, S.J. Thoma, and M.J. Bebeau. 2010. A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education 29 (4): 381–395.
Article
Google Scholar
*Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., Ekhtiari, H., & Dehghani, M. (2015). The role of self-sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PLoS One, 10(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127409.
Article
Google Scholar
Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Cham: Springer.
*Schaich Borg, J., Hynes, C., van Horn, J., Grafton, S., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An FMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(5), 803–817. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.803.
Article
Google Scholar
Schnall, S., J. Haidt, G.L. Clore, and A.H. Jordan. 2008. Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (8): 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771.
Article
Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E., and F. Cushman. 2012. Expertise in moral reasoning?: Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind & Language 27 (2): 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2012.01438.x.
Article
Google Scholar
*Shallow, C., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. (2011). Trolley problems in context. Judgment and Decision making, 7(6), 593–601.
Google Scholar
*Starcke, K., Ludwig, A. C., & Brand, M. (2012). Anticipatory stress interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making (Online Journal), 7(1), 61–68.
Google Scholar
*Strohminger, N., Lewis, R. L., & Meyer, D. E. (2011). Divergent effects of different positive emotions on moral judgment. Cognition, 119(2), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.012.
Article
Google Scholar
*Suter, R. S., & Hertwig, R. (2011). Time and moral judgment. Cognition, 119(3), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.018.
Article
Google Scholar
*Swann, W. B., Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. (2010). Dying and killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1176–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376656.
Article
Google Scholar
*Sylvia, T., Guy, K., Sarah, M., Julian, S., Neil, L., Miles, H., & Cowen, P. J. (2013). Beta adrenergic blockade reduces utilitarian judgement. Biological Psychology, 92, 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.09.005.
Article
Google Scholar
*Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Duclos, Y., Coulon, O., Mancini, J., Deruelle, C., Attarian S., Felician O. Wicker, B. (2012). Disrupting the right prefrontal cortex alters moral judgement. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr008.
Article
Google Scholar
*Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250.
Article
Google Scholar
Thompson, J.J. 1985. The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal 94: 1395–1415.
Article
Google Scholar
*Tinghog, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Koppel, L., & Vastfjall, D. (2016). Intuition and moral decision-making—The effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior. PLoS One, 11(10), 1–19, e0164012.
*Tremoliere, B., & Neys, W. de. (2013). Methodological concerns in moral judgement research: Severity of harm shapes moral decisions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(8), 989–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.841169.
Article
Google Scholar
*Tremoliere, B., Neys, W. de, & Bonnefon, J. F. (2012). Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition, 124, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.011.
Article
Google Scholar
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review 117 (2): 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.
Article
Google Scholar
*Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17(6), 476–477.
Article
Google Scholar
Van de Poel, I., and L. Royakkers. 2011. Ethics, technology, and engineering. Malden: Wiley/Blackwell.
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1967. Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology 5 (3): 6–18. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040505036.
Article
Google Scholar
*Waldmann, M. R., & Dieterich, J. H. (2007). Throwing a bomb on a person versus throwing a person on a bomb. Intervention myopia in moral intuitions. Psychological Science, 18(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01884.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Waldmann, M.R., J. Nagel, and A. Wiegmann. 2012. Moral judgment. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. K.J. Holoyak and R.G. Morrison, 274–299. New York: Oxford University Press.
Waldmann, M.R., and A. Wiegmann. 2010. A double causal contrast theory of moral intuitions in trolley dilemmas. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 32 (32): 2589–2594.
Google Scholar
*Wiegmann, A., Okan, Y., & Nagel, J. (2012). Order effects in moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 25(6), 813–836.
Article
Google Scholar
Wiegmann, A., and M.R. Waldmann. 2014. Transfer effects between moral dilemmas: A causal theory. Cognition 131 (1): 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.004.
Article
Google Scholar
Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and Manipulation. Political Studies, 61(2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x.
*Youssef, F. F., Dookeeram, K., Basdeo, V., Francis, E., Doman, M., Mamed, D., Maloo S., Degannes J., Dobo L., Ditshotlo P. Legall, G. (2012). Stress alters personal moral decision making. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(4), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.017.
Article
Google Scholar