Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36878921›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Moral reasoning and moral competence as predictors of cooperative behavior in a social dilemma.

Rubén Andrés Miranda-Rodríguez, Iwin Leenen, Hyemin Han, Germán Palafox-Palafox, Georgina García-Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rubén Andrés Miranda-RodríguezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Iwin LeenenUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. iwin.leenen@unam.mx.
Hyemin HanEducational Psychology Program, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA, Alabama, 35487.
Germán Palafox-PalafoxUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Georgina García-RodríguezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The level of moral development may be crucial to understand behavior when people have to choose between prioritizing individual gains or pursuing general social benefits. This study evaluated whether two different psychological constructs, moral reasoning and moral competence, are associated with cooperative behavior in the context of the prisoner's dilemma game, a two-person social dilemma where individuals choose between cooperation or defection. One hundred and eighty-nine Mexican university students completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT-2; measuring moral reasoning) and the Moral Competence Test (MCT) and played an online version of the prisoner's dilemma game, once against each participant in a group of 6-10 players. Our results indicate that cooperative behavior is strongly affected by the outcomes in previous rounds: Except when both participants cooperated, the probability of cooperation with other participants in subsequent rounds decreased. Both the DIT-2 and MCT independently moderated this effect of previous experiences, particularly in the case of sucker-outcomes. Individuals with high scores on both tests were not affected when in previous rounds the other player defected while they cooperated. Our findings suggest that more sophisticated moral reasoning and moral competence promote the maintenance of cooperative behaviors despite facing adverse situations.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorMoralsHumansPrisoner DilemmaProbabilityProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID36878921
PMCPMC9987402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.