Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 308 Download : 323

Main Article Content

Abstract

Morality always becomes the basis for evaluating behavior in life regarding what
is acceptable and what is not. This study examined how gender and moral dilemma type
influence moral judgment (affirmative response, moral acceptability), emotional arousal,
and valence in 60 Indonesian participants (30 female, 30 male; mean age = 22.45). The
research employed an experimental method using a factorial design and a vignette-based
scenario approach. Using a mixed factorial ANOVA, the results showed a significant main
effect of moral decision type on judgment, with deontological responses rated more
affirmatively than utilitarian ones, where deontological judgments prioritize adherence to
moral rules or duties regardless of outcomes (e.g., refusing to harm one person even if it
would save many), while utilitarian judgments focus on the consequences of actions and
aim to maximize overall well-being (e.g., endorsing harm to one if it leads to a greater good),
(F(1, 56) = 13.74, p < .001, η2 = .197). Gender did not significantly affect moral acceptability
or decision type, but females reported higher emotional arousal than males (F(1, 56) =
5.93, p = .018, η2 = .096). Moral dilemma type significantly influenced both arousal (F(3,
168) = 7.18, p < .001, η2 = .114) and acceptability (F(3, 168) = 10.24, p < .001, η2 = .154).
Incidental harm was judged most acceptable, and elicited the highest arousal. Valence
ratings were consistently negative across conditions, indicating the distressing nature of
moral conflict. Theoretically, these findings support dual-process models of moral
cognition, highlighting the dominant role of emotional arousal and contextual factors—
particularly perceived intentionality and personal relevance—over stable individual traits
like gender. Practically, understanding how emotional and contextual variables shape
moral judgment can inform the development of ethics training and decision-making
interventions in emotionally charged environments where professionals must often make
morally complex decisions under emotional pressure.

Keywords

deontological moral judgment incidental moral dilemma moral dilemma utilitarian moral judgment vignette experiment

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Sabiqotul Husna

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Aurelia, M. Z., van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2025). How do people morally judge corruption? A comparison between the Netherlands and Indonesia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3130
  2. Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision- making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001
  3. Bennett, C. (2015). What is this thing called ethics? (2nd ed.). Routledge
  4. Benhabib, S. (1985). The generalized and the concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controvers and feminist theory. Praxis International, 5(4), 402-424. https://www.ceeol.com/search/journal-detail?id=615
  5. Bianchin, M. & Angrilli, A. (2012). Gender differences in emotional responses: A psychophysiological study. Physiology & Behavior, 105(4), 925–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.10.031
  6. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. Journal ofbehavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
  7. Buon, M., Habib, M., & Frey, D. (2017). Moral development: Conflicts and compromises. In J. A. Sommerville & J. Decety (Eds.), Social cognition: Development across the life span (pp. 129–150). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Pearson. https://batrachos.com/sites/default/files/pictures/1_5_HN_Books/Buss_2019_Evolutionary%20Psychology_The%20New%20Science%20of%20the%20Mind.pdf
  8. Carmona-Perera, M., Marti, C., Pérez-García, M., & Verdejo-García, A. (2013). Valence of emotions and moral decision-making: Increased pleasantness to pleasant images and decreased unpleasantness to unpleasant images are associated with utilitarian choices in healthy adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 00626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00626
  9. Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
  10. Crockett, M. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Siegel, J. Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(48), 17320–17325. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408988111
  11. Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome, and value: A dual- system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313495594
  12. Cushman, F., Young, L., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Our multi-system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view. In J. M. Doris (Ed.), Oxford handbook of moral psychology (pp. 47-71). Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.003.0003
  13. Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
  14. Domes, G., Schulze, L., Böttger, M., Grossmann, A., Hauenstein, K., Wirtz, P. H., Heinrichs, M., & Herpertz, S. C. (2010). The neural correlates of sex differences in emotional reactivity and emotion regulation. Human Brain Mapping, 31(5), 758–769. https://
  15. doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20903
  16. Do ruyol, B., Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five- factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109547
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
  18. Ellemers, N., van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & van Leeuwen, T. (2019). The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 332–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318811759
  19. Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and vices: And other essays in moral philosophy (online ed.). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.003.0011
  20. Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215575731
  21. Fumagalli, M., Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Marceglia, S., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Zago, S., Lucchiari, C., Consonni, D., Nordio, F., Pravettoni, G., Cappa, S., & Priori, A. (2010). Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing, 11(3), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2
  22. Gamez-Djokic, M., & Molden, D. (2016). Beyond affective influences on deontological moral judgment: The role of motivations for prevention in the moral condemnation of harm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1522–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665094
  23. Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1248787
  24. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjk2wr9
  25. Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PloS One, 8(4), e60418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
  26. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
  27. Greene, J. D. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment and decision making. In M. S. Gazzaniga & G. R. Mangun (Eds.) The cognitive neurosciences (5th ed., pp. 1013–1023). Boston Review. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9504.003.0110
  28. Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
  29. Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral
  30. judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
  31. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in
  32. moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
  33. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Reviewa, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
  34. Haidt, J., & Kasebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797-832). Wiley.
  35. Harenski, C. L., Antonenko, O., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2008). Gender differences in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(4), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn026
  36. Hauser, M. D., Cushman, F., Young, L., Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgment and moral action. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 8232-8237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
  37. Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251560
  38. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
  39. Ji, C. H. C., Ibrahim, Y., & Kim, S. D. (2009). Islamic personal religion and moral reasoning in social justice and equality: The evidence from indonesian college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610903143537
  40. Jin, W. Y., & Peng, M. (2021). The effects of social perception on moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 557216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.557216
  41. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Rand McNally.
  42. Labvanced. (2025). Professional experiments made easy (Apparatus & software). Labvanced. https://www.labvanced.com/
  43. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8. University of Florida.
  44. Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., & Sarlo, M. (2013). A new set of moral dilemmas: norms for moral acceptability, decision times, and emotional salience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1782
  45. Ludwig, J., Reisenzein, R., & Hiemisch, A. (2020). Effects of instrumentality and personal force on deontological and utilitarian inclinations in harm-related moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01222
  46. McDonald, K., Graves, R., Yin, S., Weese, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2021). Valence framing effects on moral judgments: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 212, 104703. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104703
  47. McLean, C. P., & Anderson, E. R. (2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.05.003
  48. McNair, S., Okan, Y., Hadjichristidis, C., & de Bruin, W. B. (2018). Age differences in moral judgment: Older adults are more deontological than younger adults. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2086
  49. Oktrivina, A., Murni, Y., & Pramesti, A. (2024). Exploring ethical decision-making in accounting: The mediating role of moral judgment among professional accountants. SEIKO: Journal of Management & Business, 7(2), 453–462. https://doi.org/https://journal.stieamkop.ac.id/index.php/seiko/ article/view/7400/5420
  50. Packer, D. J., Fujita, K., & Herman, A. D. (2021). Outgroup moral exclusion reduces reliance on moral principles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, 104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104092