Everyday moral decision-making after acute stress exposure: do social closeness and timing matter?

There is increasing empirical evidence that social distance and timing affect prosocial behavior after acute stress exposure. The present study focused on everyday moral decision-making after acute psychosocial stress and how it is influenced by effects of social closeness and timing. We exposed 40 young healthy men to the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST, n = 20) or its non-stressful placebo version (PTSST, n = 20). Moral decision-making was assessed early (+10 until +30 min) and late (+75 until +95 min) after (P)TSST exposure by the Everyday Moral Conflict Situations (EMCS) Scale. The EMCS Scale requests altruistic versus egoistic responses to everyday moral conflict situations with varying closeness of target persons. Results revealed significantly higher total percentages of altruistic decisions in the stress than in the control condition and for scenarios involving socially close (e.g., mother) versus socially distant (e.g., stranger) protagonists, while the main effect of timing was nonsignificant. Only secondary analyses showed increased altruistic decision-making after acute stress exposure toward socially close but not toward distant protagonists at the early but not at the late point of measurement. Moreover, psychological stress responses and personality traits were significantly associated with EMCS scores. Positive correlations between cortisol levels and altruistic decision-making were descriptively observable, but did not reach statistical significance. In sum, our findings suggest increased altruistic decision-making toward socially close compared to socially distant protagonists and provide further evidence that acute stress influences decision-making in everyday moral conflict scenarios in a prosocial manner.Lay summaryIn order to investigate the effects of acute stress on everyday moral decision-making, 40 young healthy men were exposed to moderate psychosocial stress by the use of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) or its non-stressful placebo version and then completed a hypothetical everyday moral decision-making paradigm. Our findings provide evidence that acute stress exposure influences decision-making in everyday moral conflict situations in a prosocial manner. Furthermore, participants decided more altruistically in scenarios involving socially close (e.g., mother) versus socially distant (e.g., stranger) protagonists.

Acute psychosocial stress and everyday moral decision-making in young healthy men: The impact of cortisol.

In everyday life, moral decisions must frequently be made under acute stress. Although there is increasing evidence that both stress and cortisol affect moral judgment and behavior as well as decision-making in various domains unrelated to morality, surprisingly few attempts have been made to explore the effects of stress on everyday moral decision-making. Therefore, in the present study, we exposed 50 young healthy men to the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) or its non-stressful placebo version (PTSST). We investigated the impact of acute stress exposure and stress-related cortisol levels on decision-making, decision certainty, and emotions in 28 everyday moral conflict situations with altruistic versus egoistic response alternatives. Results showed that the TSST-exposed group made more altruistic decisions than the non-stress control group, while groups did not differ in decision certainty and emotion ratings. Moreover, in correlational as well as regression analyses, additionally controlling for confounding variables, we observed significant positive associations between cortisol levels and altruistic decision-making. Further analyses revealed that altruistic decisions came along with significantly higher decision certainty and significantly more positive emotion ratings than egoistic decisions. Notably, our data also raise the idea that the personality trait agreeableness plays an important role in everyday moral decision-making. In sum, our findings provide initial evidence that both acute stress exposure and cortisol levels have prosocial effects on everyday moral decision-making in young healthy men.

Effects of gender and personality on everyday moral decision-making after acute stress exposure.

Exposure to acute psychosocial stress has been shown to affect moral decision-making, though little is known about potential gender differences or effects of personality. In two within-subjects design studies, 179 healthy men and women (N = 99 in Study 1, N = 80 in Study 2) were exposed to the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) and a non-stress control condition (resting period) on two testing days in random order. After stress/resting, moral decision-making was assessed by the Everyday Moral Conflict Situations (EMCS) Scale (Singer et al., 2019), which requests altruistic versus egoistic responses to everyday moral conflict scenarios with varying closeness of target persons. We investigated effects of acute stress, social closeness, participants' gender, and the a priori selected personality traits agreeableness, empathy, and social desirability on everyday moral decision-making. Despite high statistical power, we could neither confirm the hypothesized effects of acute stress nor social closeness on EMCS scores in both samples. However, our data revealed a prosocial impact of acute stress on everyday moral decisions rather in females than males as well as effects of agreeableness and social desirability. Salivary alpha-amylase (sAA) levels in Study 1 and cortisol levels in females in Study 2 were significantly correlated with higher EMCS scores after acute stress exposure. Additionally, lower anticipatory subjective stress responses were associated with more altruistic decisions. Moreover, we found positive relationships between hypothetical moral decision-making and real prosocial behavior (opportunity for a charitable donation). In sum, due to methodological differences compared to previous between-subjects design studies, it might not be justified to rule out effects of acute stress on everyday moral decision-making based on the current within-subjects results. Nevertheless, the present data suggest that specific personality traits like agreeableness might have a stronger impact on everyday moral decision-making than short term-exposure to acute stress.

Decision-making in everyday moral conflict situations: Development and validation of a new measure.

In everyday life, we are often confronted with morally conflicting social interaction situations. Therefore, the main objective of the present set of studies was the development and validation of a new measure to assess decision-making in everyday moral conflict situations. All vignettes required a decision between an altruistic versus an egoistic behavioral response alternative. In three independent surveys (N = 200), we developed a 40-items measure with preferable mean rates of altruistic decisions (Study 1), clear representation of altruistic and egoistic response classes (Study 2), unambiguousness of social closeness classifications (socially close vs. socially distant protagonists; Studies 1 and 2), and high similarity to reality ratings (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, we developed two parallelized item sets for future use in within-subjects design studies and investigated the measurement properties of our new scale (Studies 1 and 3). Results of Rasch model analyses and classical test theory fit indices showed unidimensionality and confirmed the appropriateness of the fragmentation into two parallelized item sets. Notably, in our data, there were neither effects of social closeness nor gender on the percentage of altruistic decisions. In sum, we propose the Everyday Moral Conflict Situations (EMCS) Scale as a promising new measurement tool that may facilitate further research in different research areas due to its broad applicability.