References

Contact Sara Konrath: skonrath@umich.edu

Sara Konrath gratefully acknowledges the Institute for Research on Women & Gender at the University of Michigan for supporting this work. Arbuthnot, J. & Gordon, D.A. (1986) Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning intervention for high-risk behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 208-216. Armon, C. (1998). Adult moral development, experience, and education. Journal of Moral Education, 27, 345-370. Bredemeier, B.J.L, (1994) Children’s moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive tendencies in sport and daily life. Journal of Sport & Exercise Physiology, 16, 1-14. Brown, S.L., Fredrickson, B.L., Wirth, M.M., Poulin, M.J., Meier, E.A., Heaphy, E.D., Cohen, M.D., & Schultheiss, O.C. (2009) Social closeness increases salivary progesterone in humans. Hormones and Behavior, 56, 108-111. Colby, A, & Kohlberg, L. (1987a). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Colby, A, & Kohlberg, L. (1987b). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 2. Standard issue scoring manual. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Eisenberg, N., Boehnke, K., Schuhler, P., & Silbereisen, R.K. (1985). The development of prosocial behavior and cognitions in German children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 69-82. Schultheiss, O.C., Dargel, A., & Rhode, W. (2003) Implicit motives and gonadal steroid hormones: effects of menstrual cycle phase, oral contraceptive use, and relationship status. Hormones and Behavior, 43, 293-301. Wirth, M.M. & Schultheiss, O.C. (2006) Effects of affiliation arousal (hope of closenss) and affiliation stress on progesterone and cortisol. Hormones and Behavior, 50, 786-795.

Summary

Progesterone plays a role in human bonding behavior. We investigate how salivary PROG is related to bond-centered moral reasoning. We find that higher PROG is associated with an increased use of bond-centered moral justifications.

Background & Theory

Progesterone: • A steroid hormone present in both males and females • PROG increases after randomly assigned close social interactions (Brown et al., 2009) • There is a positive correlation between PROG and the need for affiliation (Schultheiss, Dargel, & Rhode, 2003; Wirth & Schultheiss, 2006)

Moral reasoning • Involves analyzing moral dilemmas with no obvious right or wrong course of action • Moral reasoning increases during childhood but is stable in adulthood (Armon 1998) • Moral reasoning scores linked with higher prosocial behaviors and lower aggression and delinquency (Arbuthnot et al, 1986; Bredemeier, 1994 ; Eisenberg et al., 1989) Research question • Is there a possible relationship between bond-centered moral reasoning and baseline salivary PROG?

Methods Progesterone • Two salivary PROG levels were averaged (α=0.88) to create a basal PROG score • Saliva samples were analyzed via enzyme immunoassay

Classic Moral Dilemma Participants were asked whether a man (Heinz) should steal a drug to save his wife or abide by the law, accepting his unfortunate circumstance (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987)

Participants were asked 5 questions about the dilemma, and the questions were coded by research assistants blind to participants’ progesterone levels. 1) Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not? 2) Is it right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why is it right or wrong? 3) Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger? Why or why not? 4) It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong? Why or why not? 5) In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do? Why?

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Two Types of Coding:

1) Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning 2) Bond-centered moral reasoning

Discussion

Interpretations & Implications •  An increased use of bond-centered moral

justifications was associated with higher basal PROG levels

•  Kohlberg’s moral stages were unrelated to PROG levels

•  These effects especially apply to females, and exist even when controlling for word count

•  The results may imply that moral reasoning may not be a stable trait, but may vary with changes in hormone levels

Limitations & Future Directions •  Study is limited by relatively small and

homogenous sample •  In addition, we did not collect information on

hormonal birth control usage or timing of menstrual cycle

•  Finally, the correlational nature of the design makes it impossible to determine the direction of causality or the role of third variables

•  Future studies should be conducted to determine causal direction

•  Other future studies could examine whether moral reasoning changes with predictable hormonal changes (e.g. menstrual cycle)

Males (N=24) Females (N=68) Overall (N=94) Kohlberg stages (“traditional coding”)

Level 1: 8.3% Level 2: 50.0% Level 3: 20.8% Level 4: 20.8%

Level 1: 5.9% Level 2: 29.4% Level 3: 48.5% Level 4: 16.2%

Level 1: 6.4% Level 2: 34.0% Level 3: 41.5% Level 4: 18.1%

Bond-centered moral reasoning 1.50 (0.22) 2.03 (0.13) 1.76 (0.13) Progesterone Time 1 84.84 (21.01) 147.91 (12.57) 116.38 (12.24) Progesterone Time 2 73.88 (19.78) 129.47 (11.59) 101.68 (11.46) Average PROG 77.93 (18.99) 136.71 (11.28) 107.32 (11.04)

0 50 100 150 200

Stage 4: Society at large (N=17)

Stage 3: Community / Interpersonal (N=39)

Stage 2: Individualism (N=32)

Stage 1: Punishment / obedience (N=6)

Male Female Bond-centered moral reasoning (Scored as +1) “Heinz is saving a loved one, his wife, and people should help others in times of need.”

Not bond-centered (Scored as 0) "Ultimately, when it comes down to survival, the law becomes secondary to life.”

Bond-centered responses summed à Scores could range from 0-5

progesterone (pg/ml)

prog

este

rone

(pg/

ml)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lowest (0 to 1) Middle (2 to 3) Highest (4 to 5)

Male Female

n/a

Gender: F(1,84)=7.59, p=.007 Kohlberg Stage: F(3,84)=0.39, p=.76 Interaction: F(3,84)=0.55, p=.65

Gender: F(1,87)=4.48, p=.037 Bond-centered reasoning: F(2,87)=3.25, p=.043 Interaction: F(1,84)=0.09, p=.77