{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,31]],"date-time":"2026-01-31T06:39:33Z","timestamp":1769841573195,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":45,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]],"date-time":"2025-04-15T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1744675200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Psychol."],"abstract":"<jats:p>Samples of English and Chinese people judged the likelihood that they would sacrifice the life (or health) of one person to save the life (or health) of five people by performing an impersonal action (flipping a switch) or a personal one (pushing someone over a bridge). They also judged how many people out of 100 would consider their choice to be morally acceptable. Judgments by people in the two cultures were similar in two ways. First and consistently with previous work, people in both groups were more likely to sacrifice one life to save five when the action was impersonal; however, they were no more likely to make that sacrifice to save the health of five people than to save the lives of those people. Second, the likelihood of people in both cultures deciding on a sacrificial action was less than their assessments of the likelihood that such an action was morally acceptable, a result that is the opposite of what has been previously found. This contrast can be explained by recognizing the difference between asking people to assess how acceptable moral choices are to participants themselves (previous reports) and asking them to judge how acceptable those choices are to other people (this report). The two cultures also differed in two ways. Chinese participants (a) showed a larger difference between the likelihood of people acting and their assessments of the likelihood that acting would be acceptable to others, and (b) were less likely to act in impersonal dilemmas. These cross-cultural differences imply that Chinese participants were more influenced by their judgments of what other people would think about sacrificial action.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3389\/fpsyg.2025.1448153","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]],"date-time":"2025-04-15T09:58:51Z","timestamp":1744711131000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Cross-cultural differences in resolving sacrificial dilemmas: choices made and how they relate to judgments of their social acceptability"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"16","author":[{"given":"Xinyu","family":"Jiang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Nigel","family":"Harvey","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"195","DOI":"10.1163\/15685373-12342073","article-title":"Chinese and westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmas","volume":"12","author":"Ahlenius","year":"2012","journal-title":"J. Cogn. Cult."},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"388","DOI":"10.3758\/s13428-019-01237-x","article-title":"Gorilla in our midst: an online behavioral experiment builder","volume":"52","author":"Anwyl-Irvine","year":"2020","journal-title":"Behav. Res. Methods"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1037\/h0093718","article-title":"Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority","volume":"70","author":"Asch","year":"1956","journal-title":"Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl."},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"59","DOI":"10.1038\/s41586-018-0637-6","article-title":"The moral machine experiment","volume":"563","author":"Awad","year":"2018","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2332","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1911517117","article-title":"Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants","volume":"117","author":"Awad","year":"2020","journal-title":"PNAS"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"880","DOI":"10.1038\/s41562-022-01319-5","article-title":"Situational factors affect moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in eastern, southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample","volume":"6","author":"Bago","year":"2023","journal-title":"Nat. Hum. Behav."},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"536","DOI":"10.1111\/spc3.12131","article-title":"Revisiting external validity: concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology","volume":"8","author":"Bauman","year":"2014","journal-title":"Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1573","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aaf2654","article-title":"The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles","volume":"352","author":"Bonnefon","year":"2016","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"323","DOI":"10.1177\/1948550616671999","article-title":"An asymmetric moral conformity effect: subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities","volume":"8","author":"Bostyn","year":"2017","journal-title":"Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci."},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0247273","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0247273","article-title":"Trolley dilemma in the sky: context matters when civilians and cadets make remotely piloted aircraft decisions","volume":"16","author":"Christen","year":"2021","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e94842","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0094842","article-title":"Your morals depend on language","volume":"9","author":"Costa","year":"2014","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0279720","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0279720","article-title":"Data quality in online human-subjects research: comparisons beteen MTurk, Proloific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA","volume":"18","author":"Douglas","year":"2023","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"772","DOI":"10.1037\/xge0000165","article-title":"Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments","volume":"145","author":"Everett","year":"2016","journal-title":"J. Exp. Psychol. Gen."},{"key":"ref14","volume-title":"Discovering statistics using R","author":"Field","year":"2012"},{"key":"ref15","first-page":"5","article-title":"The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect","volume":"5","author":"Foot","year":"1967","journal-title":"Oxford Rev."},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"182","DOI":"10.1017\/9781009255615.011","article-title":"Cross-cultural responses to trolley problems and their implications for moral philosophy","volume-title":"The trolley problem","author":"Gold","year":"2023"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.1017\/S193029750000499X","article-title":"Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems","volume":"9","author":"Gold","year":"2014","journal-title":"Judgm. Decis. Mak."},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.1017\/S0266267113000205","article-title":"Your money or your life: comparing judgments in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury and death","volume":"29","author":"Gold","year":"2013","journal-title":"Econ. Philos."},{"key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"50","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joep.2015.01.001","article-title":"Do as I say, don\u2019t do as I do: differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems","volume":"47","author":"Gold","year":"2015","journal-title":"J. Econ. Psychol."},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"364","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cognition.2009.02.001","article-title":"Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment","volume":"111","author":"Greene","year":"2009","journal-title":"Cognition"},{"key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"389","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuron.2004.09.027","article-title":"The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment","volume":"44","author":"Greene","year":"2004","journal-title":"Neuron"},{"key":"ref22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2105","DOI":"10.1126\/science.1062872","article-title":"An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment","volume":"293","author":"Greene","year":"2001","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"ref23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x","article-title":"A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications","volume":"22","author":"Hauser","year":"2007","journal-title":"Mind Lang."},{"key":"ref24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"247","DOI":"10.1006\/obhd.1996.0077","article-title":"The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives","volume":"67","author":"Hsee","year":"1996","journal-title":"Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process."},{"key":"ref25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"134","DOI":"10.1017\/9781009255615.009","article-title":"Trolley dilemmas from the philosopher's armchair to the psychologist's lab","volume-title":"The trolley problem","author":"Kahane","year":"2023"},{"key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"193","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cognition.2014.10.005","article-title":"\u2018Utilitarian\u2019 judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good","volume":"134","author":"Kahane","year":"2015","journal-title":"Cognition"},{"key":"ref27","volume-title":"Thinking, fast and slow","author":"Kahneman","year":"2011"},{"key":"ref28","volume-title":"Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals","author":"Kant","year":""},{"key":"ref29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"323","DOI":"10.1016\/j.evolhumbehav.2011.11.002","article-title":"Hamilton vs. Kant: pitting adaptations for altruism against adaptations for moral judgment","volume":"33","author":"Kurzban","year":"2012","journal-title":"Evol. Hum. Behav."},{"key":"ref30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1017\/9781009255615","volume-title":"The trolley problem","author":"Lillehammer","year":"2023"},{"key":"ref31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"224","DOI":"10.1037\/0033-295X.98.2.224","article-title":"Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation","volume":"98","author":"Markus","year":"1991","journal-title":"Psychol. Rev."},{"key":"ref32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"295","DOI":"10.1111\/risa.13178","article-title":"How should autonomous cars drive? A preference for defaults in moral judgments under risk and uncertainty","volume":"39","author":"Meder","year":"2019","journal-title":"Risk Anal."},{"key":"ref33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.1016\/S0079-7421(08)00402-7","article-title":"Moral grammar and intuitive jurisprudence: a formal model of unconscious moral and legal knowledge","volume":"50","author":"Mikhail","year":"2009","journal-title":"Psychol. Learn. Motiv."},{"key":"ref001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9780511780578","author":"Mikhail","year":"2011","journal-title":"Elements of moral cognition"},{"key":"ref34","volume-title":"Utilitarianism","author":"Mill","year":""},{"key":"ref35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3288","DOI":"10.1016\/j.vaccine.2015.05.023","article-title":"Deaths following vaccination: what does the evidence show?","volume":"33","author":"Miller","year":"2015","journal-title":"Vaccine"},{"key":"ref36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"133","DOI":"10.1007\/s12152-008-9015-7","article-title":"The actor\u2013observer bias and moral intuitions: adding fuel to Sinnott-Armstrong\u2019s fire","volume":"1","author":"Nadelhoffer","year":"2008","journal-title":"Neuroethics"},{"key":"ref37","volume-title":"The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently \u2026 and why","author":"Nisbett","year":"2003"},{"key":"ref38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"292","DOI":"10.1177\/1556264620911234","article-title":"No correlation between ethical judgment in trolley dilemmas and vaccine scenarios for nurse specialist students","volume":"15","author":"Oftedal","year":"2020","journal-title":"J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics"},{"key":"ref39","volume-title":"Person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology","author":"Ross","year":"1991"},{"key":"ref40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"250","DOI":"10.3389\/fpsyg.2013.00250","article-title":"Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas","volume":"4","author":"Tassy","year":"2013","journal-title":"Front. Psychol."},{"key":"ref41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1395","DOI":"10.2307\/796133","article-title":"The trolley problem","volume":"94","author":"Thomson","year":"1985","journal-title":"Yale Law J."},{"key":"ref42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"326","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cognition.2012.10.005","article-title":"When it takes a bad person to do the right thing","volume":"126","author":"Uhlmann","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cognition"},{"key":"ref43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"247","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-9280.2007.01884.x","article-title":"Throwing a bomb on a person versus throwing a person on a bomb: intervention myopia in moral intuitions","volume":"18","author":"Waldmann","year":"2007","journal-title":"Psychol. Sci."},{"key":"ref44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.1016\/0749-5978(89)90048-4","article-title":"Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States","volume":"43","author":"Yates","year":"1989","journal-title":"Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process."}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Psychology"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2025.1448153\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]],"date-time":"2025-04-15T09:58:54Z","timestamp":1744711134000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2025.1448153\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]]},"references-count":45,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fpsyg.2025.1448153"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2025.1448153","relation":{},"ISSN":["1664-1078"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1664-1078","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,15]]},"article-number":"1448153"}}