In recent years, a great deal of research has relied on hypothetical sacrificial dilemmas to investigate decision-making processes involved in pro-social utilitarian choices. Recent evidence, however, has suggested that moral sacrificial choices may actually reflect reduced harm aversion and antisocial dispositions rather than an utilitarian inclination. Here, we used moral dilemmas to confront healthy volunteers with controversial action choices. We measured impulsiveness and venturesomeness personality traits, which have been shown to influence harm aversion, to test their role in utilitarian action and evaluation of moral acceptability. The results of the present study show that, in males, venturesomeness drives engagement in actions and increases moral acceptability. In contrast, in females no effects of venturesomeness were observed on moral action and evaluation. Rather, in females empathetic concern and personal distress, elicited by the vicarious experience of the other's emotional states, exerted an inhibitory effect on action. Taken together, these findings indicate that the "harm aversion hypothesis" may contribute to explain utilitarian choices in males but not in females. In both genders, no association was observed between impulsiveness and moral action.

中文翻译：

---

危害厌恶解释了男性道德决策中的功利选择，而女性则没有。

近年来，大量研究依赖于假设的牺牲困境来调查涉及亲社会功利主义选择的决策过程。但是，最近的证据表明，道德上的牺牲​​选择实际上可能反映出减少的伤害规避和反社会倾向，而不是功利主义倾向。在这里，我们运用道德困境，以有争议的行动选择来面对健康的志愿者。我们测量了冲动性和冒险性的人格特质，这些特质被证明会影响伤害规避，以测试其在功利行为和道德可接受性评估中的作用。本研究的结果表明，在男性中，冒险行为会促使人们参与行动并提高道德接受度。相比之下，在女性中，未观察到冒险行为对道德行为和评估的影响。相反，在女性中，由于对方情感状态的替代经验而引起的移情和个人困扰，对动作产生了抑制作用。综上所述，这些发现表明“伤害厌恶假说”可能有助于解释男性的功利主义选择，而不是女性。在男女中，在冲动和道德行为之间均未发现关联。可能有助于解释男性的功利选择，而不是女性。在男女中，在冲动和道德行为之间均未发现关联。可能有助于解释男性的功利选择，而不是女性。在男女中，在冲动和道德行为之间均未发现关联。