↓ Skip to main content

Cold-hearted or cool-headed: physical coldness promotes utilitarian moral judgment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cold-hearted or cool-headed: physical coldness promotes utilitarian moral judgment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroko Nakamura, Yuichi Ito, Yoshiko Honma, Takuya Mori, Jun Kawaguchi

Abstract

In the current study, we examine the effect of physical coldness on personal moral dilemma judgment. Previous studies have indicated that utilitarian moral judgment-sacrificing a few people to achieve the greater good for others-was facilitated when: (1) participants suppressed an initial emotional response and deliberately thought about the utility of outcomes; (2) participants had a high-level construal mindset and focused on abstract goals (e.g., save many); or (3) there was a decreasing emotional response to sacrificing a few. In two experiments, we exposed participants to extreme cold or typical room temperature and then asked them to make personal moral dilemma judgments. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that coldness prompted utilitarian judgment, but the effect of coldness was independent from deliberate thought or abstract high-level construal mindset. As Experiment 2 revealed, coldness facilitated utilitarian judgment via reduced empathic feelings. Therefore, physical coldness did not affect the "cool-headed" deliberate process or the abstract high-level construal mindset. Rather, coldness biased people toward being "cold-hearted," reduced empathetic concern, and facilitated utilitarian moral judgments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Professor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 52%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 13 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,340,332
of 25,199,971 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,777
of 34,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,453
of 260,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#55
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,199,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.