Fig 1.
Pictorial representation of the relationship between intrinsic properties, attributions of intrinsic value, and moral decision making.
Table 1.
Twenty-two entities presented to participants in Studies 1, 2, and 3.
Table 2.
Sixty exemplars selected to represent the twelve characteristics associated with high vs. low intrinsic value (Study 4).
Table 3.
Correlations between average ratings for Study 4.
Fig 2.
Mediation models for wrongness to destroys Study 4.
Notes: Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors (in Study 4) for effects of Beauty (Panel A), Rarity (Panel B), Age (Panel C), Personal (Panel D), Sacredness (Panel E) and Mind Possession (Panel F), on “How wrong would it be to destroy…”, via the Mediator of Intrinsic Value. In each panel, the top model represents the total effect, and the bottom model represents the direct/indirect effects.
Fig 3.
Mediation models for value tradeoffs Study 4.
Notes: Unstandardized Coefficients and Standard Errors (in Study 4) for effects of Beauty (Panel A), Rarity (Panel B), Age (Panel C), Personal (Panel D), Sacredness (Panel E) and Mind Possession (Panel F), on “How much money it would take for them to destroy each entity …”, via the Mediator of Intrinsic Value. In each panel, the top model represents the total effect, and the bottom model represents the direct/indirect effects.
Fig 4.
Destruction and punishment ratings intrinsic value vs. high extrinsic value entities (Study 5).