An Eastern Look at a Western Dilemma: Cross-Cultural Differences in Action-Balanced Trolley Dilemmas

Abstract

Moral judgment has been extensively studied utilizing traditional trolley-like sacrificial dilemmas. However, by building on Western philosophies and relying on WEIRD samples, this approach has potentially introduced a Western-centric bias to our understanding of the morality of sacrificial harm, by (a) assuming an inherent opposition between utilitarian and deontological morality and (b) underestimating cultural differences on the moral value of inaction. To address this bias, our study examined cross-cultural differences in moral judgment using an adapted methodology that equally weighs action/inaction framing and considers utilitarian and deontological choices separately. The findings demonstrate that Chinese participants (n = 273) embraced a more holistic moral construct with utilitarian and deontological moral approaches being positively correlated, whereas American participants (n = 240) viewed them as opposing to each other. Moreover, we also found that Chinese participants were more, rather than less utilitarian than American participants in trolley-like dilemmas when balancing action and inaction.