Induced guilt and more self-disciplined moral standards in moral dilemma judgment

ABSTRACT Objective The current study attempts to adopt more comprehensive and rigorous methods to deconstruct and confirm the association between guilt and moral dilemma judgements, with the expectation of providing new insights for related research. Methods A total of 170 college participants were employed in separate batches for the experiment, including 53 males and 117 females, ranging from 17 to 28 years old (M = 20.88, SD = 2.29). We first induced guilt in the subjects using recalling and writing tasks and then asked the participants to complete the moral dilemma judgement tasks. Results Results of the analysis using traditional methods showed no association between induced guilt and moral dilemma judgements. However, the results of the process dissociation analysis indicated that induced guilt is related to higher deontological inclination. Moreover, the CNI model analysis revealed that induced guilt has a stronger sensitivity to moral norms. Conclusion Induced guilt was associated with a stronger sensitivity to moral norms, which is reflected in less violation and more compliance with moral norms. There was no direct relation between induced guilt and the sensitivity to consequences and a general preference for action in moral decision-making. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: Previous findings on the relation of guilt in moral decision-making were not consistent. The traditional approach treats utilitarianism and deontology as bipolar opposites, which may further confound the relation between guilt and moral decision-making. Numerous studies imply that guilt increases other-oriented empathy and emotional concern for the victims. What this topic adds: Induced Guilt is associated with higher sensitivity to moral norms and will discipline one’s behaviour to be more in line with ethical standards. Induced Guilt is unrelated to utilitarian decisions about the well-being of the majority and is not involved in the inhibition and activation of action. The current study used more comprehensive and rigorous methods to clarify the potential confounding factors.