Here, however, we further predicted that primary psychopathy would be associated with a marked increase in ‘utilitarian’ judgment in self-benefit dilemmas, whereas, by contrast, identification with the whole of humanity would be associated with increased ‘utilitarian’ judgment in other-benefit dilemmas. To further investigate this issue, we also included a dilemma in which, in order to save a greater number, one has the option of sacrificing oneself. Materials and Results for this measure are reported in the Supplementary material. 317 US participants were again recruited online using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk),
receiving $0.50 for their time. Participants were excluded from analysis (N = 34) if they did not complete the survey,
failed an attention check or completed the survey in too short a time (<5 min) Therefore, the number of participants included in data analysis was 283 (151 female; Mage = 36, SD = 13.07). PCI-32765 supplier Participants completed the survey online and all participants answered first the standard personal dilemmas (randomised for each participant), followed by the self-sacrifice dilemma, and then all other measures. Participants were given eight personal moral dilemmas (again drawn from Moore et al. (2008); see Supplementary material). Four of these dilemmas were other-beneficial, as in Study 1, and four were self-beneficial. An example of a self-beneficial dilemma is the Modified Crying Baby dilemma, in which the only way to save your life and that of other civilians from getting killed by murderous enemy soldiers is to smother your crying baby. Each dilemma was Selleckchem BMS 354825 followed by the same questions used in Study 1, with one addition: participants were
now also asked whether they thought that they would be able to actually perform the ‘utilitarian’ action in real life. Participants were asked to imagine that they had received a $100 bonus at work, and could anonymously choose to donate this money to charity. Participants were told that all money donated would be doubled by the employer for the charity (see Supplementary materials for full text). Participants were then asked how much of the bonus they would donate, indicating Buspirone HCl their answer on a sliding scale from $0–100. This scale was taken from McFarland et al. (2012) and consisted of 9 questions, including requiring participants to rate, for people in their community, people in their country, and people all over the world, “How close do you feel to each of the following groups?” In analyzing results, the procedure advised by McFarland et al. was used, regressing the raw scores to give a more accurate representation of the variance in identification with all of humanity, whereby higher scores indicate greater identification with all of humanity (α = .93). In this measure, participants were given three statements designed to assess their belief in psychological, rational, and ethical egoism.