= 0.51). Discriminatory analysis. A direct discriminant function analysis was performed using age, gender, level of education, religiosity, moral knowledge, and the 4 aspects of BQ-123 msds empathy as predictors of moral judgment profiles (i.e., UTIL, NON-UTIL or MAJORITY). Two discriminant functions were calculated, with a combined x2(18) = 132.0, p,.001, accounting for 90.7 and 9.3 of the between-group variance, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, Discriminant function 1 Fruquintinib web maximally separated UTIL (group centroid = 2.70) from both NON-UTIL (group centroid = .11) and MAJORITY (group centroid = .16) participants and was statistically significant (p,.001, canonical correlation = .30). ThePLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgEmpathic Concern Predicts Non-UtilitarianismTable 2. Mean (SD) values for moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy questionnaires for participants who responded “YES” or “NO”, independently, to each moral scenario from Experiment 1.Impersonal Scenario Utilitarian Response n = 819 MBI DSES IRI Perspective Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 61.3 (10.7) 60.2 (20.5) 20.8 (5.2) 19.3 (5.7) 23.6 (6.0) 14.9 (4.6) Non-Utilitarian Response n = 505 60.0 (12.2) 58.4 (22.6) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.8) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7)Personal Scenario Utilitarian Response n = 213 60.3 (11.8) 58.3 (22.1) 20.4 (5.6) 18.5 (5.9) 20.5 (6.4) 14.6 (4.8) Non-Utilitarian Response n = 1111 60.9 (11.2) 59.7 (21.2) 20.8 (5.2) 19.3 (5.7) 24.4 (5.5) 14.9 (4.6)MBI = Moral Behavior Inventory; DSES = Daily Spiritual Experience Scale; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.tsecond function maximally separated NON-UTIL (group centroid = 2.12) from MAJORITY (group centroid = .10), but was not statistically significant (p = .12, canonical correlation = .09). The loading matrix of correlations of predictor variables and discriminant functions, as seen in Table 3, suggests that the primary variable in distinguishing UTIL from other participants was empathic concern (EC). See also Text S2 and Table S2.ExperimentExperiment 2 served to replicate and extend the pattern observed in Experiment 1. We sought to determine whether the relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern would generalize beyond the trolley/footbridge pair of dilemmas, which differ along a number of dimensions [6]. Experiment 2 investigates the patterns observed above in an independent participant sample, using a new pair of moral scenarios, including a war-time “pareto” scenario (e.g., in which the individual person to be killed would die anyway). Experiment 2 therefore aims to Table 3. Loading matrix of correlations for discriminant analyses conducted in Experiments 1.Figure 3. Distribution of UTIL (blue), DEON (orange), and MAJORITY (green) participants with regards to the two functions generated by discriminatory analysis. Red squares represent group centroids and reveal that UTIL participants are best distinguished from the other groups on the basis of function 1, for which empathic concern had the strongest load factor (see text). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.gExperiment 1 Discriminatory Function p value for function Age Gender Education MBI DSES IRI Perspective Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 1 ,.001 2.17 2.09 .23 .08 .09 .09 .17 .84 .07 2 n.s. .26 2.29 .03 .63 .51 .28 .51 .22 .investigate whether the results of Experiment 1 transfer to different moral contexts featuring different tradeoffs.ProcedureExperiment 2 followed the same proce.= 0.51). Discriminatory analysis. A direct discriminant function analysis was performed using age, gender, level of education, religiosity, moral knowledge, and the 4 aspects of empathy as predictors of moral judgment profiles (i.e., UTIL, NON-UTIL or MAJORITY). Two discriminant functions were calculated, with a combined x2(18) = 132.0, p,.001, accounting for 90.7 and 9.3 of the between-group variance, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, Discriminant function 1 maximally separated UTIL (group centroid = 2.70) from both NON-UTIL (group centroid = .11) and MAJORITY (group centroid = .16) participants and was statistically significant (p,.001, canonical correlation = .30). ThePLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgEmpathic Concern Predicts Non-UtilitarianismTable 2. Mean (SD) values for moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy questionnaires for participants who responded “YES” or “NO”, independently, to each moral scenario from Experiment 1.Impersonal Scenario Utilitarian Response n = 819 MBI DSES IRI Perspective Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 61.3 (10.7) 60.2 (20.5) 20.8 (5.2) 19.3 (5.7) 23.6 (6.0) 14.9 (4.6) Non-Utilitarian Response n = 505 60.0 (12.2) 58.4 (22.6) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.8) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7)Personal Scenario Utilitarian Response n = 213 60.3 (11.8) 58.3 (22.1) 20.4 (5.6) 18.5 (5.9) 20.5 (6.4) 14.6 (4.8) Non-Utilitarian Response n = 1111 60.9 (11.2) 59.7 (21.2) 20.8 (5.2) 19.3 (5.7) 24.4 (5.5) 14.9 (4.6)MBI = Moral Behavior Inventory; DSES = Daily Spiritual Experience Scale; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.tsecond function maximally separated NON-UTIL (group centroid = 2.12) from MAJORITY (group centroid = .10), but was not statistically significant (p = .12, canonical correlation = .09). The loading matrix of correlations of predictor variables and discriminant functions, as seen in Table 3, suggests that the primary variable in distinguishing UTIL from other participants was empathic concern (EC). See also Text S2 and Table S2.ExperimentExperiment 2 served to replicate and extend the pattern observed in Experiment 1. We sought to determine whether the relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern would generalize beyond the trolley/footbridge pair of dilemmas, which differ along a number of dimensions [6]. Experiment 2 investigates the patterns observed above in an independent participant sample, using a new pair of moral scenarios, including a war-time “pareto” scenario (e.g., in which the individual person to be killed would die anyway). Experiment 2 therefore aims to Table 3. Loading matrix of correlations for discriminant analyses conducted in Experiments 1.Figure 3. Distribution of UTIL (blue), DEON (orange), and MAJORITY (green) participants with regards to the two functions generated by discriminatory analysis. Red squares represent group centroids and reveal that UTIL participants are best distinguished from the other groups on the basis of function 1, for which empathic concern had the strongest load factor (see text). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.gExperiment 1 Discriminatory Function p value for function Age Gender Education MBI DSES IRI Perspective Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 1 ,.001 2.17 2.09 .23 .08 .09 .09 .17 .84 .07 2 n.s. .26 2.29 .03 .63 .51 .28 .51 .22 .investigate whether the results of Experiment 1 transfer to different moral contexts featuring different tradeoffs.ProcedureExperiment 2 followed the same proce.
