Luded participants in the OUTLIER group (i.e., including only participants

Luded participants in the OUTLIER group (i.e., including only participants in the UTIL, NON-UTIL, and MAJORITY groups; n = 1324), see Text S1. Therefore, OUTLIER participants were excluded from further analyses. Personal vs. impersonal scenarios. Next, we investigated the relationship between empathy and moral judgment in response to the impersonal and personal scenarios, separately (Table 2).Figure 2. Empathic concern values for participants in the UTIL, NON-UTIL, and MAJORITY groups on the pairs of moral scenarios for Experiments 1 and 2. In both cases, UTIL participants had significantly lower empathic concern scores than participants in the Litronesib solubility NON-UTIL and MAJORITY groups. Error bars represent S.E.M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.gTable 1. Mean (SD) values for demographic variables and data obtained from Experiment 1 with questionnaires measuring moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy.UTIL n = 213 Age (years) Gender (M : F) Education (years) MBI DSES 26.8 (13.3) 100:113 13.3 (4.6) 60.3 (11.8) 58.3 (22.1)NON-UTIL n = 505 25.8 (10.3) 228:277 13.6 (3.7) 60.0 (12.2) 58.4 (22.6) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.7) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7)MAJORITY n = 606 25.3 (11.2) 253:353 13.4 (4.2) 61.6 (10.3) 60.9 (19.9) 21.0 (5.2) 19.5(5.6) 24.7 (5.5) 14.9 (4.5)OUTLIER n = 15 24.7 (10.3) 6: 9 13.5 (3.4) 56.1 (17.8) 57.0 (20.1) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.8) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7) **IRI Perspective 20.5 (5.6) Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 18.5 (5.9) 20.5 (6.4) 14.6 (4.8)**F3,1335 = 30.64, p,.001; MBI = Moral Behavior Inventory; DSES = Daily Spiritual Experience Scale; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.tImpersonal scenario. 819 (61.9 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, flip the switch), and 505 (38.1 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t flip the switch) to the standard trolley dilemma. The groups were comparable on their levels of religiosity/spirituality (t1322 = 1.49, p = .14, Cohen’s d = .08). Utilitarian responders scored higher on the Moral Behavior Inventory (MBI) than the non-utilitarian responders (t1322 = 1.94, p = .05, Cohen’s d = .11). This effect was small (d = .11) and did not replicate in Experiment 2, so it will not be discussed further. No significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on any of the empathy subscales (perspective taking: t1322 = 0.70, p = .49, Cohen’s d = .04; fantasy: t1322 = 1.08, p = .28, Cohen’s d = .06; empathic concern: t1322 = -1.73, p = .08, Cohen’s d = .10; personal distress: t1322 = 0.06, p = .95, Cohen’s d ,.01). Personal scenario. 213 (16.1 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, push the man), and 1111 (83.9 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t push the man). The groups were comparable on their religiosity (t1322 = 20.91, p = .36, Cohen’s d = .05) and moral knowledge (t1322 = 20.70, p = .49, Cohen’s d = .04). No significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on the perspective taking (t1322 = 20.93, p = .35, Cohen’s d = .05), fantasy (t1322 = 21.75, p = .08, Cohen’s d = .10), or personal distress (t1322 = 20.77, p = .44, Cohen’s d = .04). However, consistent with the prior analyses over the HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2MedChemExpress HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 scenario pair, utilitarian participants who endorsed pushing the man showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern than non-utilitarian responders (t1322 = 29.27, p,.001, Cohen’s d.Luded participants in the OUTLIER group (i.e., including only participants in the UTIL, NON-UTIL, and MAJORITY groups; n = 1324), see Text S1. Therefore, OUTLIER participants were excluded from further analyses. Personal vs. impersonal scenarios. Next, we investigated the relationship between empathy and moral judgment in response to the impersonal and personal scenarios, separately (Table 2).Figure 2. Empathic concern values for participants in the UTIL, NON-UTIL, and MAJORITY groups on the pairs of moral scenarios for Experiments 1 and 2. In both cases, UTIL participants had significantly lower empathic concern scores than participants in the NON-UTIL and MAJORITY groups. Error bars represent S.E.M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.gTable 1. Mean (SD) values for demographic variables and data obtained from Experiment 1 with questionnaires measuring moral knowledge, religiosity, and empathy.UTIL n = 213 Age (years) Gender (M : F) Education (years) MBI DSES 26.8 (13.3) 100:113 13.3 (4.6) 60.3 (11.8) 58.3 (22.1)NON-UTIL n = 505 25.8 (10.3) 228:277 13.6 (3.7) 60.0 (12.2) 58.4 (22.6) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.7) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7)MAJORITY n = 606 25.3 (11.2) 253:353 13.4 (4.2) 61.6 (10.3) 60.9 (19.9) 21.0 (5.2) 19.5(5.6) 24.7 (5.5) 14.9 (4.5)OUTLIER n = 15 24.7 (10.3) 6: 9 13.5 (3.4) 56.1 (17.8) 57.0 (20.1) 20.6 (5.2) 18.9 (5.8) 24.2 (5.5) 14.8 (4.7) **IRI Perspective 20.5 (5.6) Taking Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress 18.5 (5.9) 20.5 (6.4) 14.6 (4.8)**F3,1335 = 30.64, p,.001; MBI = Moral Behavior Inventory; DSES = Daily Spiritual Experience Scale; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418.tImpersonal scenario. 819 (61.9 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, flip the switch), and 505 (38.1 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t flip the switch) to the standard trolley dilemma. The groups were comparable on their levels of religiosity/spirituality (t1322 = 1.49, p = .14, Cohen’s d = .08). Utilitarian responders scored higher on the Moral Behavior Inventory (MBI) than the non-utilitarian responders (t1322 = 1.94, p = .05, Cohen’s d = .11). This effect was small (d = .11) and did not replicate in Experiment 2, so it will not be discussed further. No significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on any of the empathy subscales (perspective taking: t1322 = 0.70, p = .49, Cohen’s d = .04; fantasy: t1322 = 1.08, p = .28, Cohen’s d = .06; empathic concern: t1322 = -1.73, p = .08, Cohen’s d = .10; personal distress: t1322 = 0.06, p = .95, Cohen’s d ,.01). Personal scenario. 213 (16.1 ) participants delivered the utilitarian response (e.g., yes, push the man), and 1111 (83.9 ) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response (e.g., no, don’t push the man). The groups were comparable on their religiosity (t1322 = 20.91, p = .36, Cohen’s d = .05) and moral knowledge (t1322 = 20.70, p = .49, Cohen’s d = .04). No significant differences between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian responders were found on the perspective taking (t1322 = 20.93, p = .35, Cohen’s d = .05), fantasy (t1322 = 21.75, p = .08, Cohen’s d = .10), or personal distress (t1322 = 20.77, p = .44, Cohen’s d = .04). However, consistent with the prior analyses over the scenario pair, utilitarian participants who endorsed pushing the man showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern than non-utilitarian responders (t1322 = 29.27, p,.001, Cohen’s d.