Exogenous testosterone increases sensitivity to moral norms in moral dilemma judgements


Moral dilemma judgements frequently involve decisions where moral norms and the greater good are in conflict. The current preregistered study tested the effect of the steroid hormone testosterone on moral dilemma judgements using a double-blind administration of testosterone or placebo. Counter to predictions, testosterone administration led to increased inaction in moral dilemmas where harmful actions prohibited by moral norms increase overall well-being. Using a mathematical model to disentangle sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms and general preference for inaction versus action, analyses further revealed that testosterone administration influenced judgements by increasing sensitivity to moral norms. Exploratory analyses suggested the opposite pattern for endogenous testosterone measured at baseline, in that higher levels of endogenous testosterone were associated with lower sensitivity to moral norms. The results indicate that the role of testosterone in moral judgements is more complex than suggested by previous findings.

Protocol registration

The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 November 2017. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://osf.io/rysbe/1.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: CNI model of moral decision-making predicting action versus inaction responses in moral dilemmas with proscriptive and prescriptive norms and consequences involving benefits of action that are either greater or smaller than costs of action.
Fig. 2: Parameter estimates of sensitivity to consequences (C), sensitivity to moral norms (N) and general preference for inaction versus action (I) as a function of double-blind intranasal administration of testosterone (n = 100) versus placebo (n = 100).

Data availability

All data are available at https://osf.io/rysbe/.

Code availability

All analysis and modelling codes are available at https://osf.io/rysbe/.


  1. 1.

    Brannon, S. M., Carr, S., Jin, E. S., Josephs, R. A. & Gawronski, B. Effects of testosterone on moral dilemma judgments. OSF https://osf.io/rysbe/ (2019).

  2. 2.

    Whitlock, C. German court overturns law allowing hijacked airliners to be shot down. Washington Post Foreign Service https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021501333.html (16 February 2006).

  3. 3.

    Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 2105–2108 (2001).

  4. 4.

    Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44, 389–400 (2004).

  5. 5.

    Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen, J. D. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition 107, 1144–1154 (2008).

  6. 6.

    Kant, I. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Harknoch, 1785).

  7. 7.

    Mill, J. S. Utilitarianism 7th edn (Longman, Green, and Co. 1879).

  8. 8.

    Bartels, D. Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition 108, 381–417 (2008).

  9. 9.

    Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A. & Kane, M. J. Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychol. Sci. 19, 549–557 (2008).

  10. 10.

    Patil, I. Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgment: the mediating role of action aversion. J. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 349–366 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Suter, R. S. & Hertwig, R. Time and moral judgment. Cognition 119, 454–458 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Valdesolo, P. & DeSteno, D. Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychol. Sci. 17, 476–477 (2006).

  13. 13.

    Koenigs, M. et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature 446, 908–911 (2007).

  14. 14.

    Arnocky, S., Taylor, S. M., Olmstead, N. A. & Carré, J. M. The effects of exogenous testosterone on men’s moral decision-making. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 3, 1–13 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Bernhard, R. M. et al. Variation in the oxytocin reception gene (OXTR) is associated with differences in moral judgment. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11, 1872–1881 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Carney, D. R. & Mason, M. F. Moral decisions and testosterone: when the ends justify the means. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46, 668–671 (2010).

  17. 17.

    Chen, C., Decety, J., Huang, P.-C., Chen, C.-Y. & Cheng, Y. Testosterone administration in females modulates moral judgment and patterns of brain activation and functional connectivity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 37, 3417–3430 (2016).

  18. 18.

    Montoya, E. R. et al. Testosterone administration modulates moral judgment depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38, 1362–1369 (2013).

  19. 19.

    Terbeck, S. et al. Beta adrenergic blockade reduces utilitarian judgment. Biol. Psychol. 92, 323–328 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108, 814–834 (2001).

  21. 21.

    Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J. N. & Hugenberg, K. The adaptive utility of deontology: deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 3, 125–132 (2017).

  22. 22.

    Narvaez, D. Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom (Norton, 2014).

  23. 23.

    Haidt, J. Morality. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 65–72 (2008).

  24. 24.

    Stanley, M. L., Dougherty, A. M., Yang, B. W., Henne, P. & De Brigard, F. Reasons probably won’t change your mind: the role of reasons in revision moral decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 962–987 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R. & Hütter, M. Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: the CNI model of moral decision-making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 343–376 (2017).

  26. 26.

    Thomson, J. J. Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. Monist 59, 204–217 (1976).

  27. 27.

    Conway, P. & Gawronski, B. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision-making: a process dissociation approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 216–235 (2013).

  28. 28.

    Crone, D. L. & Laham, S. M. Utilitarian preferences or action preferences? De-confounding action and moral code in sacrificial dilemmas. Pers. Individ. Dif. 104, 476–481 (2017).

  29. 29.

    Gawronski, B. & Beer, J. S. What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Soc. Neurosci. 12, 626–632 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Cushman, F., Young, L. & Hauser, M. The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: testing three principles of harm. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1082–1089 (2006).

  31. 31.

    Spranca, M., Minsk, E. & Baron, J. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 27, 76–105 (1991).

  32. 32.

    Batchelder, W. H. & Riefer, D. M. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6, 57–86 (1999).

  33. 33.

    Hütter, M. & Klauer, K. C. Applying processing trees in social psychology. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27, 116–159 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Blair, J., Mitchell, D. & Blair, K. The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain (Blackwell, 2005).

  35. 35.

    Zioli, S. & Bird, B. M. Functional significance of men’s testosterone reactivity to social stimuli. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 47, 1–18 (2017).

  36. 36.

    Hermans, E. J., Putman, P. & Van Honk, J. Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior: a facial mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 31, 859–866 (2006).

  37. 37.

    Stanton, S. J., Wirth, M. M., Waugh, C. E. & Schultheiss, O. C. Endogenous testosterone levels are associated with amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex responses to anger faces in men but not women. Biol. Psychol. 81, 118–122 (2009).

  38. 38.

    Glenn, A. L., Raine, A., Schug, R. A., Gao, Y. & Granger, D. A. Increased testosterone-to-cortisol ratio in psychopathy. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 120, 389–399 (2011).

  39. 39.

    Gleichgerrcht, E. & Young, L. Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS ONE 8, e60418 (2013).

  40. 40.

    Bartels, D. M. & Pizarro, D. A. The mismeasure of morals: antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition 121, 154–161 (2011).

  41. 41.

    Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. & Savulescu, J. ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition 134, 193–209 (2015).

  42. 42.

    Mehta, P. H. & Beer, J. S. Neural mechanisms of the testosterone-aggression relation: the role of orbitofrontal cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2357–2368 (2010).

  43. 43.

    Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y. & Howard, G. S. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? Am. Psychol. 70, 487–498 (2015).

  44. 44.

    Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 1–12 (2013).

  45. 45.

    Campbell, B. C. et al. Testosterone exposure, dopaminergic reward, and sensation-seeking in young men. Physiol. Behav. 99, 451–456 (2010).

  46. 46.

    Hermans, E. J. et al. Effects of exogenous testosterone on the ventral striatal BOLD response during reward anticipation in healthy women. Neuroimage 52, 277–283 (2010).

  47. 47.

    van Honk, J. et al. Testosterone shifts the balance between sensitivity for punishment and reward in healthy young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29, 937–943 (2004).

  48. 48.

    Coates, J. M. & Herbert, J. Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6167–6172 (2008).

  49. 49.

    Enter, D., Spinhoven, P. & Roelofs, K. Alleviating social avoidance: effects of single dose testosterone administration on approach–avoidance action. Horm. Behav. 65, 351–354 (2014).

  50. 50.

    Andrew, R. J. & Rogers, L. J. Testosterone, search behavior and persistence. Nature 237, 343–345 (1972).

  51. 51.

    Phoenix, C. H., Goy, R. W., Gerall, A. A. & Young, W. C. Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology 65, 369–382 (1959).

  52. 52.

    Liening, S. H., Stanton, S. J., Saini, E. K. & Schultheiss, O. C. Salivary testosterone, cortisol, and progesterone: two-week stability, interhormone correlations, and effects of time of day, menstrual cycle, and oral contraceptive use on steroid hormone levels. Physiol. Behav. 99, 8–16 (2010).

  53. 53.

    Sellers, J. G., Mehl, M. R. & Josephs, R. A. Hormones and personality: testosterone as a marker of individual differences. J. Res. Pers. 41, 126–138 (2007).

  54. 54.

    Travison, T. G. et al. The heritability of circulating testosterone, oestradiol, oestrone and sex hormone binding globulin concentrations in men: the Framingham Heart Study. Clin. Endocrinol. 80, 277–282 (2014).

  55. 55.

    Welker, K. M., Lozoya, E., Campbell, J. A., Neumann, C. S. & Carré, J. M. Testosterone, cortisol, and psychopathic traits in men and women. Physiol. Behav. 129, 230–236 (2014).

  56. 56.

    Eisenegger, C., Haushofer, J. & Fehr, E. The role of testosterone in social interaction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 263–271 (2011).

  57. 57.

    Everett, J. A. C., Pizzaro, D. A. & Crockett, M. J. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 772–787 (2016).

  58. 58.

    Rom, S. C. & Conway, P. The strategic moral self: self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 74, 24–37 (2018).

  59. 59.

    Jin, E. S. & Josephs, R. A. Pharmacokinetics of exogenous intranasal testosterone spray. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/86Y3N (2018).

  60. 60.

    Van Honk, J. in Methods in Social Neuroscience (eds Harmon-Jones, E. & Beer, J. S.) 45–69 (Guilford Press, 2009).

  61. 61.

    Moshagen, M. multiTree: a computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 42–54 (2010).

  62. 62.

    DRG International DRG Salivary Testosterone ELISA SLV-3013. DRG Diagnostics https://osf.io/p7gzy/ (2017).

  63. 63.

    Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M. & Warren, C. Revisiting external validity: concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 8, 536–554 (2014).

  64. 64.

    Blinder, A. & Grady, D. American doctor with Ebola arrives in US for treatment. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/us/kent-brantley-nancy-writebol-ebola-treatment-atlanta.html (2 August, 2014).

  65. 65.

    Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R. & Hütter, M. Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: an analysis using the CNI model. Emotion 18, 989–1008 (2018).

  66. 66.

    Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. S. Practical Meta-analysis (Sage, 2001).

  67. 67.

    McDonald, J. H. Handbook of Biological Statistics 3rd edn (Sparky House Publishing, 2014).

Download references


This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. 1449620, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant No. 10.13039/100000071 R01HD084772 and a Preregistered Research Grant from the European Association of Social Psychology. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Preparation of the manuscript was supported in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant no. 10.13039/100000071 R01HD084772) to R.A.J. We thank M. Hütter for her help with the simulation to estimate the statistical power for the CNI model analyses.

Author information

S.M.B., R.A.J. and B.G. designed the study. S.M.B. and S.C. collected the data. S.M.B., S.C. and E.S.J. immuno-assayed the saliva samples. S.M.B. and B.G. analysed the data. S.M.B. and B.G. wrote the manuscript. S.C., E.S.J. and R.A.J. provided comments on the manuscript.

Correspondence to Bertram Gawronski.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1 and 2 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading