Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia 8, Padua, 35131, Italy.
WFI - Ingolstadt School of Management, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Auf d. Schanz 49, 85049, Ingolstadt, Germany.
BMC Psychol. 2024 May 14;12(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01773-y.
Making timely moral decisions can save a life. However, literature on how moral decisions are made under time pressure reports conflicting results. Moreover, it is unclear whether and how moral choices under time pressure may be influenced by personality traits like impulsivity and sensitivity to reward and punishment.
To address these gaps, in this study we employed a moral dilemma task, manipulating decision time between participants: one group (N = 25) was subjected to time pressure (TP), with 8 s maximum time for response (including the reading time), the other (N = 28) was left free to take all the time to respond (noTP). We measured type of choice (utilitarian vs. non-utilitarian), decision times, self-reported unpleasantness and arousal during decision-making, and participants' impulsivity and BIS-BAS sensitivity.
We found no group effect on the type of choice, suggesting that time pressure per se did not influence moral decisions. However, impulsivity affected the impact of time pressure, in that individuals with higher cognitive instability showed slower response times under no time constraint. In addition, higher sensitivity to reward predicted a higher proportion of utilitarian choices regardless of the time available for decision.
Results are discussed within the dual-process theory of moral judgement, revealing that the impact of time pressure on moral decision-making might be more complex and multifaceted than expected, potentially interacting with a specific facet of attentional impulsivity.
及时做出道德决策可以拯救生命。然而，关于在时间压力下如何做出道德决策的文献报告结果相互矛盾。此外，尚不清楚在时间压力下的道德选择是否以及如何受到冲动性和对奖惩的敏感性等人格特质的影响。
为了解决这些差距，在这项研究中，我们采用了道德困境任务，对参与者的决策时间进行了操纵：一组（N=25）受到时间压力（TP）的影响，最大反应时间为 8 秒（包括阅读时间），另一组（N=28）则自由选择时间进行反应（无 TP）。我们测量了选择的类型（功利主义与非功利主义）、决策时间、决策过程中的自我报告不愉快和唤醒程度，以及参与者的冲动性和 BIS-BAS 敏感性。
我们没有发现组间在选择类型上的差异，这表明时间压力本身并不会影响道德决策。然而，冲动性影响了时间压力的影响，即认知不稳定性较高的个体在没有时间限制的情况下反应时间较慢。此外，较高的奖励敏感性预测了无论可用的决策时间如何，功利主义选择的比例更高。
结果在道德判断的双重过程理论框架内进行了讨论，揭示了时间压力对道德决策的影响可能比预期的更复杂和多方面，可能与注意力冲动的特定方面相互作用。
