Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40338369›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

Moral decision-making 'on the fly'.

Petko Kusev, Rose Martin, Paul van Schaik, Joseph Teal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Petko KusevLSBU Business School, London South Bank University, London, UK. kusevp@lsbu.ac.uk.
Rose MartinLSBU Business School, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Paul van SchaikDepartment of Psychology, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Joseph TealLSBU Business School, London South Bank University, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over a century of research has focused on the consistency and inconsistency of human moral decision preferences. We proposed and found that moral decision preferences are flexible and shift towards newly learned moral rules when their application leads to utilitarian choices. Hence, decision-makers' psychological concept of morality is continually under construction (on the fly); based on learning, informed by changes in moral rules and specific moral contexts. Accordingly, in two experiments we developed and employed a two-stage supervised learning task, where participants learned novel moral rules based on corrective feedback of their moral decisions. Our empirical findings revealed that participants learn new moral rules, transfer these rules to tasks where no feedback is provided. However, participants make decisions based on the principle of maximizing utility rather than a learned rule when the rule conflicts with this principle, demonstrating further the flexibility of moral decision-making. In light of our proposal and findings that decision-makers' psychological concept of morality is continually under construction, moral decision-making researchers should integrate learning into their respective models and predictions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningMoralsAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40338369
PMCPMC12062067

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.