Each such vignette presented a possible choice

(e.g. donating to charity that would save one life in one’s own country vs. donating to a charity that would save a greater number in a foreign country), and participants were then asked to rate the wrongness of failing to choose the more FK228 molecular weight utilitarian option. Note that in contrast to the classical personal dilemmas, in these new ‘greater good’ dilemmas higher wrongness ratings indicated a more utilitarian view (α = .77). As a behavioral measure of impartial altruism, participants were given the opportunity to actually donate to charity part of a bonus fee that they received for taking part in the study. In addition to a participation payment of $0.50, participants were offered “a bonus fee of up to $1.00, of which you can choose how much to keep and how much to donate to one out of several of the leading charities dedicated to eliminating serious disease and poverty in the third world, according to the Giving What You Can Research

Centre. According to this respected Research Centre, BMN 673 cost even small donations to these charities will actually contribute to saving lives in developing countries. Correlational analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between perceived wrongness in the sacrificial personal dilemmas, perceived wrongness in the new ‘greater good’ dilemmas, primary psychopathy, and actual altruistic donations (see Table 6): i. As in the previous studies, psychopathy was associated with reduced wrongness ratings of ‘utilitarian’ actions in the personal dilemmas (r = −.32, p < .001), but was not associated with rates of genuinely utilitarian judgment in the ‘greater good’ dilemmas (r = −.02, p = .73). We next conducted a factor analysis to explore the internal relationship

Nutlin-3 ic50 between the 4 personal and 7 ‘greater good’ dilemmas. First, the factorability of the 11 dilemmas was examined. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .75, above the recommended value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (55) = 535.69, p < .001). Given these indicators, factor analysis was conducted with all 11 items. Principle components analysis using direct oblimin rotation was used, and three significant factors were extracted: the first factor (eigenvalue = 2.67) explained 24% of the variance, the second factor explained 22% (eigenvalue = 2.37), and the third factor explained 11% (eigenvalue = 1.17). The analysis revealed that the four personal dilemmas loaded onto the first factor, with all of the ‘greater good’ dilemmas loading onto the second and third factors (see Table 7). This loading pattern indicated that the personal moral dilemmas used in the previous studies loaded well together (henceforth the personal harm factor). The second factor consisted of the new ‘greater good’ dilemmas concerning a strong component of self-sacrifice (henceforth the impartiality vs. self-interest factor).