Статья: Игра в мораль: связана ли оценка инструментальной пригодности моральных дилемм с их решением (2023)

Найссер У. Познание и реальность. Смысл и принципы когнитивной пси-
хологии. М.: Прогресс, 1981.
Bannister D. Psychology as an exercise in paradox // Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 1966. Vol. 19. № 63. P. 21–26.
Bauman C. W., McGraw A. P. et al. Revisiting External Validity: Concerns about Trolley Problems and Other Sacrificial Dilemmas in Moral Psychology // Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2014. Vol. 8. № 9. P. 536–554.
Bostyn D. H., Roets A. Sequential decision-making impacts moral judgment: How iterative dilemmas can expand our perspective on sacrificial harm // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2022. Vol. 98. P. 104244.
Bostyn D. H., Sevenhant S. et al. Of Mice, Men, and Trolleys: Hypothetical Life Behavior in Trolley-Style Moral Dilemmas // Psychological Science. 2018. Vol. 29. № 7. P. 1084–1093.
Capraro V., Sippel J. et al. People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are // PLoS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. № 10. P. e0205066.
Chen K., Zhang H. et al. The authentic catch-22: Following the true self promotes decision satisfaction in moral dilemmas // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2022. Vol. 102. P. 104376.
Chorus C. G. Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis // Journal of Choice Modelling. 2015. Vol. 16. P. 69–85.
Christensen J. F., Gomila A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2012. Vol. 36. № 4. P. 1249–1264.
Crone D. L., Laham S. M. Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? Deconfounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas // Personality and Individual Differences. 2017. Vol. 104. P. 476–481.
Dunlosky J., Bottiroli S. et al. Sins committed in the name of ecological validity: A call for representative design in education science // Handbook of metacognition in education The educational psychology series. New York, NY, US: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. PP. 430–440.
FeldmanHall O., Mobbs D. et al. What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices // Cognition. 2012. Vol. 123. № 3. P. 434–441.
Friesdorf R., Conway P. et al. Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas: A Process Dissociation Analysis // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015. Vol. 41. № 5. P. 696–713.
Holleman G. A., Hooge I. T. C. et al. The ‘Real-World Approach’ and Its Problems: A Critique of the Term Ecological Validity // Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. Vol. 11 Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Kahane G. Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment // Social Neuroscience. 2015. Vol. 10. № 5. P. 551–560.
Keshmirian A., Deroy O. et al. Many heads are more utilitarian than one // P. 104965.
Körner A., Deutsch R. Deontology and Utilitarianism in Real Life: A Set of Moral Dilemmas Based on Historic Events // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2023. Vol. 49. № 10. P. 1511–1528.
Körner A., Joffe S. et al. When skeptical, stick with the norm: Low dilemmaplausibility increases deontological moral judgments // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 84. P. 103834.
Lee M., Sul S. et al. Social observation increases deontological judgments in moral dilemmas // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2018. Vol. 39. № 6. P. 611–621.
Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Lucas B. J., Livingston R. W. Feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in moral dilemmas // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014. Vol. 53. P. 1–4.
McNair S., Okan Y. et al. Age differences in moral judgment: Older adults are more deontological than younger adults // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2019. Vol. 32. № 1. P. 47–60.
Mills Wesley. The nature of animal intelligence and the methods of investigating it // Psychological Review. 1899. Vol. 6. № 3. P. 262–274.
Mook D. G. In defense of external invalidity // American Psychologist. 1983. Vol. 38. № 4. P. 379–387.
Reynolds C. J., Knighten K. R. et al. Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is deontological? Completing moral dilemmas in front of mirrors increases deontological but not utilitarian response tendencies // Cognition. 2019. Т. 192. P. 103993.
Rom S. C., Conway P. The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 74. P. 24–37.
Schein C. The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 207–215.
Schmuckler M. A. What Is Ecological Validity? A Dimensional Analysis // Infancy. 2001. Vol. 2. № 4. P. 419–436.
Thorndike E. A reply to «The nature of animal intelligence and the methods of investigating it» // Psychological Review. 1899. Vol. 6. № 4. P. 412–420.
Weber S. J., Cook T. D. Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference // Psychological 295.
Wilcox R. R. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing. Philadelphia: Academic Press, 2021.