Perceiving utilitarian gradients: Heart rate variability and self-regulatory effort in the moral dilemma task

Figures & data

Figure 1. The five scenarios build a gradient of utilitarian response in a 4-point response scale

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: Mean and SD of utilitarian response

Case		N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Shark		79	1.73	.729
Boat		80	2.18	.792
Dam		80	2.21	.882
Flames		80	2.28	.842
Grenade		80	2.93	.808

Figure 2. a) Distribution of participant slopes. The frequency represents responses to each individual dilemma, where each participant delivered 5 responses. The slope −.2 was not represented in any participant. The slope .7 was represented in a participant with no HF data. b) Mean tonic and phasic HF as a function of participant slope and high (N = 129 responses) vs. low (N = 122 responses) tonic group. Groups were based on the median split of log10 transformed tonic HF, after subtracting 105 data points from responses where participants took <6.7 sec

Figure 3. Perception of the utilitarian gradient as a function of level of tonic HF