ArticlePloS one2026
Third- and concerned-party positions in moral dilemmas: Effect of empathy on ethical judgment.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study proposes a categorization of moral dilemmas into third-party dilemmas in which a judge's choice affects only the life or death of others, and concerned-party dilemmas in which not only others' but also the judge's life or death is altered. While the former requires the judge to make only moral judgments to save others, another rational decision-making process that considers the judge's life and death may also impact the latter. We examined ethical judgments based on these two types of dilemmas with a focus on empathic concern. Participants in Experiment 1 were more ethically permissive to save the many including him/herself at the expense of one person in the concerned-party dilemma than in the third-party dilemma, but empathic concern in both types of dilemmas consistently suppressed such utilitarian choices derived from "instrumental harm" (IH), which permits sacrificing a few necessary when it saves many. In Experiment 2, we also confirmed the suppressive effect of empathic concern for utilitarian choices derived from IH in the Pareto concerned-party dilemma in which the death of one person remains fixed regardless of the judge's choice. We discuss the importance of categorizing these two types of dilemmas in moral dilemmas and demonstrates the public goods dilemma as a Pareto concerned-party dilemma in everyday life.
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.