Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37424598›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Contrasting two models of utilitarian reasoning.

Rea Antoniou, Heather Romero-Kornblum, J Clayton Young, Michelle You, Joel H Kramer, Katherine P Rankin, Winston Chiong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Rea AntoniouMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Heather Romero-KornblumMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
J Clayton YoungMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Michelle YouMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Joel H KramerMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Katherine P RankinMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Winston ChiongMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, USA.

Funding

Mechanisms of Executive Decline in Normal AgingR01AG032289 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Kaitlin B Casaletto, JOEL H KRAMER · 2009 to 2026
$8.3M
Biological Predictors Of Brain Aging Trajectories Diversity Supplement: African American Outreach And The Intersection Between Social Determinants Of Health And Biomarkers Of Degenerative DiseaseRF1AG032289 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KRAMER, JOEL H · 2020 to 2021
$5.3M
Attention and Semantic Evaluation as Predictors of Empathy in Healthy Aging and Frontotemporal DementiaRF1AG029577 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RANKIN, KATHERINE P · 2019 to 2019
$4.0M
Measuring Altered Social Behavior in Neurodegenerative DiseaseR01AG029577 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RANKIN, KATHERINE P · 2008 to 2018
$3.6M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG029577NIA NIH HHS R01 AG032289NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG029577NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG032289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One influential framework for examining human moral cognition has been a dual process model, in which utilitarian judgment (e.g., infliction of harm for the greater good) is associated with cognitive control processes, while non-utilitarian judgment (e.g., avoiding such harms) is associated with emotional, automatic processes. Another framework of moral cognition, the two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology, posits that utilitarian choices may reflect either instrumental harm, i.e., inflicting harm on an individual for the greater good; or impartial beneficence, i.e., impartially and altruistically acting for the benefit of the overall welfare. We evaluated preregistered hypotheses (https://osf.io/m425d) derived from these models of moral cognition in a sample of 275 neurologically healthy older adults. Our results suggest that both the dual process and two-dimensional models provided insights regarding utilitarian reasoning, including three cardinal domains of conflict between utilitarianism and common-sense morality: agent-centered permissions, special obligations, and personal rights. One prediction of the dual process-based model was supported by our findings, with higher emotionality associated with decreased endorsement of utilitarian judgments (

Indexed as

Dual process modelImpartial beneficenceInstrumental harmMoral cognitionTwo-dimensional modelUtilitarianism

Identifiers

PMID37424598
PMCPMC10328838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.