IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0025148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Abigail A Marsh
  • Samantha L Crowe
  • Henry H Yu
  • Elena K Gorodetsky
  • David Goldman
  • R J R Blair

Abstract

Background: The psychological and neurobiological processes underlying moral judgment have been the focus of extensive recent research. Here we show that serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) genotype predicts responses to moral dilemmas featuring foreseen harm to an innocent. Methodology/Principal Findings: Participants in this study judged the acceptability of actions that would unintentionally or intentionally harm an innocent victim in order to save others' lives. An analysis of variance revealed a genotype × scenario interaction, F(2, 63) = 4.52, p = .02. Results showed that, relative to long allele homozygotes (LL), carriers of the short (S) allele showed particular reluctance to endorse utilitarian actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual. LL genotype participants rated perpetrating unintentional harm as more acceptable (M = 4.98, SEM = 0.20) than did SL genotype participants (M = 4.65, SEM = 0.20) or SS genotype participants (M = 4.29, SEM = 0.30). No group differences in moral judgments were observed in response to scenarios featuring intentional harm. Conclusions/Significance: The results indicate that inherited variants in a genetic polymorphism that influences serotonin neurotransmission influence utilitarian moral judgments as well. This finding is interpreted in light of evidence that the S allele is associated with elevated emotional responsiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Abigail A Marsh & Samantha L Crowe & Henry H Yu & Elena K Gorodetsky & David Goldman & R J R Blair, 2011. "Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-5, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025148
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0025148?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bernardo Nardi & Alessandra Marini & Chiara Turchi & Emidio Arimatea & Adriano Tagliabracci & Cesario Bellantuono, 2013. "Role of 5-HTTLPR Polymorphism in the Development of the Inward/Outward Personality Organization: A Genetic Association Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Armstrong, Todd A. & Boisvert, Danielle & Flores, Shahida & Symonds, Mary & Gangitano, David, 2017. "Heart rate, serotonin transporter linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) genotype, and violence in an incarcerated sample," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    2. Christopher Boyce & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend & Steve Tucker, 2015. "The effects of emotions on preferences and choices for public goods," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-08, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    3. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    4. Naomi Aoki, 2018. "Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post‐Fukushima Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 535-547, March.
    5. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Eyal Gamliel & Eyal Pe'er, 2021. "When two wrongs make a right: The efficiency-consumption gap under separate vs. joint evaluations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 94-113, January.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:94-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Danijela Vuletic, 2015. "How Effective are Reminders and Frames in Incentivizing Blood Donations," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp554, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    10. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2007. ""One of us": Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 150-157, November.
    11. Qian Weng & Haoran He, 2018. "Geographic Distance, Income And Charitable Giving: Evidence From China," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(05), pages 1145-1169, May.
    12. Fehérová, Martina & Heger, Stephanie & Péliová, Jana & Servátka, Maroš & Slonim, Robert, 2022. "Increasing autonomy in charitable giving: The effect of choosing the number of recipients on donations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    13. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:4:p:303-315 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    16. Li, Meng-Ran & Yin, Cheng-Yue, 2022. "Facial expressions of beneficiaries and donation intentions of potential donors: Effects of the number of beneficiaries in charity advertising," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Katherine Burson & David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2013. "Multiple-Unit Holdings Yield Attenuated Endowment Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 545-555, November.
    19. Nick Hanley & Christopher Boyce & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Steve Tucker & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend, 2017. "Sad or Happy? The Effects of Emotions on Stated Preferences for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 821-846, December.
    20. Heiner Schumacher & Iris Kesternich & Michael Kosfeld & Joachim Winter, 2014. "Us and Them: Distributional Preferences in Small and Large Groups," CESifo Working Paper Series 4657, CESifo.
    21. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    22. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    23. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.