D moral knowledge (t883 = 0. 81, p = .42, Cohen’s d = .05). Replicating Experiment 1, no

D moral knowledge (t883 = 0. 81, p = .42, Cohen’s d = .05). Replicating Experiment 1, no significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on any of the empathy subscales (perspective taking: t883 = 0.51, p = .61, Cohen’s d = .03; fantasy: t883 = 0.94, p = .35, Cohen’s d = .06; empathic concern: t883 = 21.26, p = .21, Cohen’s d = .08; personal distress: t883 = 20.44, p = .66, Cohen’s d = .03). Personal scenario. 138 (15.6 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, smother the baby), and 747 (84.4 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t smother the baby). The groups were comparable on religiosity (t883 = 0.67, p = .50) and moral knowledge (t883 = 20.83, p = .41). No significant differences between the utilitarian and nonutilitarian responders were found on perspective taking (t883 = 21.33, p = .19, Cohen’s d = .07), fantasy (t883 = 21.82, p = .07, Cohen’s d = .10), or personal distress (t883 = 20.74, p = .46, Cohen’s d = .04). Crucially, though, replicating the key pattern in Experiment 1, participants who endorsed smothering the baby showed significantly lower levels of empathic JC-1MedChemExpress JC-1 concern (20.866.2) than non-utilitarian responders (24.565.7; t883 = 26.79, p,.001, Cohen’s d = 0.46). See also Text S3 and Table S2.ExperimentLike Experiments 1 and 2, Experiment 3 also presented a pair of moral scenarios. This scenario pair included not only a moral dilemma, as in the prior experiments, but also a prudential dilemma featuring the choice to commit a moral transgression for one’s own selfish benefit (rather than for the greater good). The primary aim of Experiment 3 was to replicate the effects observed in Experiments 1 and 2, but a secondary aim was to explore whether low empathic concern is uniquely associated with utilitarian responses (i.e., harming one to save many), or whether low empathic concern is also associated with endorsing harmful acts across the board, Pyrvinium pamoate site including impersonal selfish acts (e.g., cheating on one’s taxes)?response (e.g., yes, redirect the fumes), and 339 (38.3 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, do not redirect the fumes). The groups were comparable on their levels of religiosity/spirituality (t883 = 0. 94, p = .35, Cohen’s Table 4. Mean (SD) values for demographic variables and data obtained with the moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy questionnaires for Experiment 2.ProcedureAn independent group of participants [n = 513; mean age: 25.7 (SD = 12.9); mean education: 13.5 (SD = 4.3)] responded to two new scenarios. The impersonal taxes scenario asked whether it was permissible to report personal expenses as business expenses in order to save money. Crucially, the taxes scenario [12,13] is not a moral dilemma of the kind tested in Experiments 1 and 2, insofar as there is no clear utilitarian or non-utilitarian response. Instead, one response was to report personal expenses as business expenses – the execution of a plainly immoral, antisocial act for selfish benefit, whereas the other response was to report only the real business expenses – the morally right thing to do. In this sense, the taxes dilemma might be considered a prudential dilemma ?should one act immorally for one’s own sake? A unique benefit of including the taxes scenario in Experiment 3 was to obtain a preliminary sense of whether utilitarian responders and plainly immoral agents alike are lower in empathic concern. Do utilitarians e.D moral knowledge (t883 = 0. 81, p = .42, Cohen’s d = .05). Replicating Experiment 1, no significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on any of the empathy subscales (perspective taking: t883 = 0.51, p = .61, Cohen’s d = .03; fantasy: t883 = 0.94, p = .35, Cohen’s d = .06; empathic concern: t883 = 21.26, p = .21, Cohen’s d = .08; personal distress: t883 = 20.44, p = .66, Cohen’s d = .03). Personal scenario. 138 (15.6 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, smother the baby), and 747 (84.4 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t smother the baby). The groups were comparable on religiosity (t883 = 0.67, p = .50) and moral knowledge (t883 = 20.83, p = .41). No significant differences between the utilitarian and nonutilitarian responders were found on perspective taking (t883 = 21.33, p = .19, Cohen’s d = .07), fantasy (t883 = 21.82, p = .07, Cohen’s d = .10), or personal distress (t883 = 20.74, p = .46, Cohen’s d = .04). Crucially, though, replicating the key pattern in Experiment 1, participants who endorsed smothering the baby showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern (20.866.2) than non-utilitarian responders (24.565.7; t883 = 26.79, p,.001, Cohen’s d = 0.46). See also Text S3 and Table S2.ExperimentLike Experiments 1 and 2, Experiment 3 also presented a pair of moral scenarios. This scenario pair included not only a moral dilemma, as in the prior experiments, but also a prudential dilemma featuring the choice to commit a moral transgression for one’s own selfish benefit (rather than for the greater good). The primary aim of Experiment 3 was to replicate the effects observed in Experiments 1 and 2, but a secondary aim was to explore whether low empathic concern is uniquely associated with utilitarian responses (i.e., harming one to save many), or whether low empathic concern is also associated with endorsing harmful acts across the board, including impersonal selfish acts (e.g., cheating on one’s taxes)?response (e.g., yes, redirect the fumes), and 339 (38.3 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, do not redirect the fumes). The groups were comparable on their levels of religiosity/spirituality (t883 = 0. 94, p = .35, Cohen’s Table 4. Mean (SD) values for demographic variables and data obtained with the moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy questionnaires for Experiment 2.ProcedureAn independent group of participants [n = 513; mean age: 25.7 (SD = 12.9); mean education: 13.5 (SD = 4.3)] responded to two new scenarios. The impersonal taxes scenario asked whether it was permissible to report personal expenses as business expenses in order to save money. Crucially, the taxes scenario [12,13] is not a moral dilemma of the kind tested in Experiments 1 and 2, insofar as there is no clear utilitarian or non-utilitarian response. Instead, one response was to report personal expenses as business expenses – the execution of a plainly immoral, antisocial act for selfish benefit, whereas the other response was to report only the real business expenses – the morally right thing to do. In this sense, the taxes dilemma might be considered a prudential dilemma ?should one act immorally for one’s own sake? A unique benefit of including the taxes scenario in Experiment 3 was to obtain a preliminary sense of whether utilitarian responders and plainly immoral agents alike are lower in empathic concern. Do utilitarians e.