Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses.

How do people make judgments about actions that violate moral norms yet maximize the greater good (e.g., sacrificing the well-being of a small number of people for the well-being of a larger number of people)? Research on this question has been criticized for relying on highly artificial scenarios and for conflating multiple distinct factors underlying responses in moral dilemmas.

Thinking About Reasons for One's Choices Increases Sensitivity to Moral Norms in Moral-Dilemma Judgments.

Whereas norm-conforming (deontological) judgments have been claimed to be rooted in automatic emotional responses, outcome-maximizing (utilitarian) judgments are assumed to require reflective reasoning. Using the CNI model to disentangle factors underlying moral-dilemma judgments, the current research investigated effects of thinking about reasons on sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general action preferences. Three experiments (two preregistered) found that thinking about reasons (vs.

Truth sensitivity and partisan bias in responses to misinformation.

Misinformation represents one of the greatest challenges for the functioning of societies in the information age. Drawing on a signal-detection framework, the current research investigated two distinct aspects of misinformation susceptibility: conceptualized as accurate discrimination between true and false information, and conceptualized as lower acceptance threshold for ideology-congruent information compared to ideology-incongruent information. Four preregistered experiments ( = 2,423) examined (a) truth sensitivity and partisan bias in veracity judgments and decisions to share information and (b) determinants and correlates of truth sensitivity and partisan bias in responses to misinformation.