IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v9y2014i1p65-76_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems

Author

Listed:
  • Gold, Natalie
  • Colman, Andrew M.
  • Pulford, Briony D.

Abstract

Trolley problems have been used in the development of moral theory and the psychological study of moral judgments and behavior. Most of this research has focused on people from the West, with implicit assumptions that moral intuitions should generalize and that moral psychology is universal. However, cultural differences may be associated with differences in moral judgments and behavior. We operationalized a trolley problem in the laboratory, with economic incentives and real-life consequences, and compared British and Chinese samples on moral behavior and judgment. We found that Chinese participants were less willing to sacrifice one person to save five others, and less likely to consider such an action to be right. In a second study using three scenarios, including the standard scenario where lives are threatened by an on-coming train, fewer Chinese than British participants were willing to take action and sacrifice one to save five, and this cultural difference was more pronounced when the consequences were less severe than death.

Suggested Citation

  • Gold, Natalie & Colman, Andrew M. & Pulford, Briony D., 2014. "Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 65-76, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:65-76_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000499X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:65-76_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.