ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2021
Mathematical foundations of moral preferences.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Pooled it
- Stable intuition and the rise of deliberative prosociality in childhood.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Assessing three altruism facets by economic games and self-report: a multitrait-multimethod investigation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning with SHAP predicts honest behavior from personality traits and physiological data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- When revealed after the fact, selfish intentions undermine prosocial actions in 5-year-olds.PloS one · 2026Article
- Counterfeit judgments in large language models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Why people follow rules.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Empirical evidence for the spread of Cooperation through copying successful groups.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Indirect reciprocity in the public goods game with collective reputations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- A computational account of multiple motives guiding context-dependent prosocial behavior.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Cooperative bots exhibit nuanced effects on cooperation across strategic frameworks.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Social learning with complex contagion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Directed reciprocity subverts cooperation in highly adaptive populations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Prosocial preferences can escalate intergroup conflicts by countering selfish motivations to leave.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Cost Optimisation of Individual-Based Institutional Reward Incentives for Promoting Cooperation in Finite Populations.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2024Article
- Time pressure and deliberation affect moral punishment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Enhancing social cohesion with cooperative bots in societies of greedy, mobile individuals.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- The paradigm of tax-reward and tax-punishment strategies in the advancement of public resource management dynamics.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One-shot anonymous unselfishness in economic games is commonly explained by social preferences, which assume that people care about the monetary pay-offs of others. However, during the last 10 years, research has shown that different types of unselfish behaviour, including cooperation, altruism, truth-telling, altruistic punishment and trustworthiness are in fact better explained by preferences for following one's own personal norms-internal standards about what is right or wrong in a given situation. Beyond better organizing various forms of unselfish behaviour, this moral preference hypothesis has recently also been used to increase charitable donations, simply by means of interventions that make the morality of an action salient. Here we review experimental and theoretical work dedicated to this rapidly growing field of research, and in doing so we outline mathematical foundations for moral preferences that can be used in future models to better understand selfless human actions and to adjust policies accordingly. These foundations can also be used by artificial intelligence to better navigate the complex landscape of human morality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.