Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026

Knowing What Counts: Unbiased Stereology in the Non-human Primate Brain
Published on: May 14, 2009
Comment on: Rokosz et al. (2025). Yes, many heads really are more utilitarian than one
Jonathan Baron1, Niels Skovgaard-Olsen2
1Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Abstract:
Rokosz et al. (2025) apply the CNI model of Gawronski et al. (2017) to analyze the apparent result that groups are more utilitarian than individuals in answering sacrificial moral dilemmas involving trade-offs of harm to a few against harm to many. They conclude that the difference is largely due to a change in attention to consequences, and no substantial effect on attention to deontological moral norms that (for example) prohibit harming a person even if many others would benefit. We show that their results can be explained by a second effect of groups. They reduce responses that appear nonsensical, e.g., when subjects in the group choose action even though both norms and consequences favor omission. When this effect is accounted for, the CNI model yields the conclusion that groups have both effects, increasing attention to consequences and reducing attention to deontological norms. Thus group discussion, after all, may well reduce the pull of deontological norms, which are the main impediment to utilitarian judgments.
Related Concept Videos
Reason and Intuition
The Representativeness Heuristic
Social Loafing
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Functionalism
James envisioned psychology's...
Criticisms of the Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...

