↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Omissions and Byproducts across Moral Domains

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Omissions and Byproducts across Moral Domains
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046963
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter DeScioli, Kelly Asao, Robert Kurzban

Abstract

Research indicates that moral violations are judged less wrong when the violation results from omission as opposed to commission, and when the violation is a byproduct as opposed to a means to an end. Previous work examined these effects mainly for violent offenses such as killing. Here we investigate the generality of these effects across a range of moral violations including sexuality, food, property, and group loyalty. In Experiment 1, we observed omission effects in wrongness ratings for all of the twelve offenses investigated. In Experiments 2 and 3, we observed byproduct effects in wrongness ratings for seven and eight offenses (out of twelve), respectively, and we observed byproduct effects in forced-choice responses for all twelve offenses. Our results address an ongoing debate about whether different cognitive systems compute moral wrongness for different types of behaviors (surrounding violence, sexuality, food, etc.), or, alternatively, a common cognitive architecture computes wrongness for a variety of behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 62 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 43%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 17 25%