Don’t be rash: how effort, religion, and decision-type influence judgments of morality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explored how knowledge (Study 1) and inferences (Study 2) about religiosity influence impressions of morality depending on whether effort is exerted to reach a morally controversial decision. In Study 1, undergraduates judged a [religious/nonreligious] doctor who exerted [little/great] effort into their decision to euthanize a patient. Results indicated that when the doctor was nonreligious or exerted low effort, they were considered less moral compared to when they were religious or exerted high effort. In Study 2, Turk Prime participants evaluated a doctor who decided in favor or against euthanizing a patient, with the same effort manipulation as Study 1. Results indicated that the doctor who favored euthanasia was considered less religious than the doctor who did not. As in Study 1, greater morality was associated with the doctor who exerted greater effort, particularly when they favored euthanasia. When the doctor favored euthanasia, they were rated as more moral when their background was inferred to be more religious; however, the opposite pattern of results emerged when the doctor decided against euthanasia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".