Will you be able to claim the moral high ground or does your moral compass need some fine-tuning? This game of moral conflict will soon show you!

Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cogn Process. 2010; 11: 219–226. 10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2 Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol Rev. 2018; 125: 131–164. 10.1037/rev0000093BuzzFeed Bring Me Obsessed with travel? Discover unique things to do, places to eat, and sights to see in the best destinations around the world with Bring Me! Friesdorf R, Conway P, Gawronski B. Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: a process dissociation analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015; 41: 696–713. 10.1177/0146167215575731 Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JA, Capraro V, Barcelo H. Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016; 145: 389–396. 10.1037/xge0000154 The results section is structured into two main parts. In the first main part, we present analyses concerning the development and validation of our new 40-items EMCS Scale as well as the development of two parallelized 20-item sets (each ten scenarios with socially close and socially distant protagonists) for future use in within-subjects design studies. For the two parallelized sets A and B, we used Wilks L mvc tests to demonstrate parallelism [ 54]. The procedure by Wilks tests the hypothesis that the means are equal, the variances are equal, and the covariances are equal. The test statistic is based on the weighted differences of the subsample means with the grand mean and the ratio of subsample and complete sample (co)variances, which are shown to be chi 2-distributed when the data meets hypothesis (see [ 54], formula 1.4). Moreover, we report the measurement qualities based on Rasch model analyses and classical test theory fit indices of the complete 40-items EMCS Scale and its two subsets A and B. Kahane G, Everett JA, Earp BD, Farias M, Savulescu J. 'Utilitarian' judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition. 2015; 134: 193–209. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005

Ask the question (for example 'Who is most likely to appear on reality TV?') on the card and write down the name of the person you think it matches. Find out what your friends really think of you in a fun and creative game of moral conflict. Bostyn DH, Sevenhant S, Roets A. Of mice, men, and trolleys: hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychol Sci. 2018; 29: 1084–1093. 10.1177/0956797617752640 Christensen JF, Gomila A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: a principled review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012; 36: 1249–1264. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008Me or you? Neural correlates of moral reasoning in everyday conflict situations in adolescents and adults. Soc Neurosci. 2014; 9: 452–470. 10.1080/17470919.2014.933714 Singer N, Sommer M, Döhnel K, Zänkert S, Wüst S, Kudielka BM. Acute psychosocial stress and everyday moral decision-making in young healthy men: the impact of cortisol. Horm Behav. 2017; 93: 72–81. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.05.002 Stress alters personal moral decision making. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012; 37: 491–498. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.017 Ask the question on the card and write down the name of the person you think it matches on your paddle whiteboard. Some questions, for example, include ‘Who is most likely to appear on reality TV?’ and ‘Who is most likely to punch a wall?’

The player with the fewest nominations at the end of the game is the winner and can claim their title as the best-behaved of the bunch. I want to sell my old car. I know that the car’s radiator actually needs to be exchanged urgently. A man who does not notice the problem with the radiator offers to pay a good price in cash right away. What do I do? I have promised my partner to go to the company party with him/her. He/she has already signed both of us up. Now I realize that I would urgently need the time to prepare for an important exam. What do I do? In the final version, the items 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 (socially close protagonists) and 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 (socially distant protagonists) were assigned to set A; the items 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 (socially close protagonists) and 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36 (socially distant protagonists) became part of set B (see last column in S1 Table).Scruples is played with other people, face-to-face or remotely. The new version has online multiplayer support with Game Center. With regard to research in laboratory settings, several scholars (e.g., [ 16, 22, 23]) recently developed everyday moral dilemmas. Everyday moral dilemmas are short vignettes describing hypothetical everyday life situations. The vignettes require decisions between the fulfilment of a moral standard or social obligation towards another person versus a personal-oriented hedonistic behavior that would explicitly not cause serious bodily harm or legal consequences [ 16]. The given response alternatives are typically altruistic (e.g., helping an old woman who is in distress) versus egoistic (e.g., catching the waiting bus home; see [ 23] or [ 24] for further examples). For humans and most animals, the social interaction with conspecifics is a common everyday life activity [ 1]. Thereby, we humans are often confronted with morally conflicting social interaction situations. According to Christensen and colleagues [ 2], moral conflicts are situations in which someone is pulled in contrary directions by rival moral reasons. They can, amongst others, occur when deciding between a personal interest versus an accepted moral value. S2 Table: Item statistics and results of Rasch model analyses. S2 Table shows the item statistics and results of Rasch model analyses on single item basis for the final 40 items of the EMCS Scale. In our data, we did not observe that the percentage of altruistic decisions differed depending on the social closeness of the protagonists. This is in contrast to the results of Zhan and colleagues [ 31], the only study so far that investigated the impact of social closeness on everyday moral decision-making. Contrary to Zhan et al. [ 31], we only observed a slightly, but not significantly lower percentage of altruistic decisions for the items with socially distant protagonists than for the items with socially close protagonists, and this difference only reached a very small effect size ( d = 0.12). Additionally, Rasch model analyses indicated that there was one underlying latent trait variable, which further speaks against a significant impact of social closeness on everyday moral decision-making in our surveys. This divergent finding could possibly be explained by methodological differences. Since Zhan et al. [ 31] did not provide concrete examples of their stimulus material in their manuscript, it remains unclear whether their vignettes represented everyday moral conflict situations. Furthermore, our data also appear to be in contrast to several abstract moral decision-making studies, which showed that social closeness is an important experimental design parameter in moral dilemma research ([ 5, 28– 30]; see also [ 2]). One potential explanation could be that abstract moral dilemmas describe dead-or-alive situations, whereas the consequences of the response alternatives in our everyday moral dilemmas are less grave. Therefore, one might be more willing to accept the costs of an egoistic response option not only for socially distant others, but also to some degree for socially close persons.