Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108, 814–834. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Interestingly, we also did not observe gender differences in our surveys, which, on the one hand, is not uncommon for hypothetical moral dilemmas [ 43], but, on the other hand, is in sharp contrast to early moral reasoning research [ 42] and current abstract moral decision-making studies [ 7, 38– 41]. This inconsistent result could potentially be explained by the fact that our new EMCS Scale measures altruistic and egoistic response tendencies, which are behavioral measures that rather reflect outcomes of morality, but not moral attitudes itself [ 43]. Altogether, in combination with the social closeness results, our data therefore point to the idea that everyday moral decision-making with altruistic versus egoistic response options seems to be quite a different construct than abstract moral decision-making with utilitarian versus deontological response alternatives. AEVI. Anuario 2018. La Industria del Videojuego en España. 2019. Available online: http://www.aevi.org.es/web/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AEVI_Anuario_2020.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2023).

I want to sell my old car. I know that the car’s radiator actually needs to be exchanged urgently. A man who does not notice the problem with the radiator offers to pay a good price in cash right away. What do I do? Thus, current moral dilemma research comprises no longer only abstract reasoning about moral dead-or-life situations (e.g., [ 3, 4]) but also research on moral decision-making in a variety of daily life situations (e.g., [ 17, 18]). Applying ecological momentary assessment in a large study sample ( N = 1.252 participants), Hofmann et al. [ 18] repeatedly assessed moral or immoral acts and experiences in everyday life. The authors were able to confirm five areas of human morality (care/harm, fairness/unfairness, loyalty/disloyalty, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) as originally proposed by the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; [ 19, 20]). Moreover, honesty/dishonesty was the third most frequently mentioned dimension regarding morality in everyday life and, thus, emerged as another important category [ 18, 21]. Kampf, R.; Cuhadar, E. Do computer games enhance learning about conflicts? A cross-national inquiry into proximate and distant scenarios in Global Conflicts. Comput. Human Behav. 2015, 52, 541–549. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] The youngest player in the group will read the first question card. After the card is read out loud, all players will write who they think the card applies to the most After every player has written their answer, they will reveal their answer to the group. Sensitivity and protection towards people who are part of the group with the same interests and objectives.The players will then tally their points, indicating which player is the most morally good. The player with the lowest number of points is the winner! END OF GAME Pope, L. Papers, Please [Videogame]. Available online: https://papersplea.se/ (accessed on 11 April 2023).

Say nothing about seeing the couple as it is none of your business; they may even have an open relationship?Comparisons in the categories linked to Papers, Please for the four moments of the game. Cases with High Moral Cognition Allow the entry (without sanction) -> At the end of the game day the next day’s newspaper includes the following headline: Murderer seen in Arstotzka. Peña, J.; Hernández Pérez, J.F.; Khan, S.; Cano Gómez, Á.P. Game Perspective-Taking Effects on Players’ Behavioral Intention, Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Self-Efficacy to Help Immigrants: The Case of “Papers, Please”. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2018, 21, 687–693. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef]

The intention is to make a decision based on the player’s morale even if it is not conducive to success in the game. Boyle, E.; Hainey, T.; Connolly, T.M.; Gray, G.; Earp, J.; Ott, M.; Lim, T.; Ninaus, M.; Riberio, C.; Pereira, J. An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 2016, 94, 178–192. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Your neighbour leaves their dog out in all kinds of weather. The poor animal frequently looks like it is miserable. Sometimes it is out of water and seems to be fed rarely. Do you report what you think is happening or stay quiet?Belman, J.; Flanagan, M. Designing games to foster empathy. Int. J. Cogn. Technol. 2010, 15, 11–21. Available online: https://tiltfactor.org/wp-content/uploads2/cog-tech-si-g4g-article-1-belman-and-flanagan-designing-games-to-foster-empathy.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2023). Stephan, W.; Finlay, K. The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. J. Soc. Issues 1999, 55, 729–743. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Over the summer, you became friends with a person who moved to your town. You have the same interest, like the same music and movies, and have had a great deal of fun. However, your new friend is not attractive and very loud. When school starts, you are embarrassed by the way your friend acts. Do you remain friends or drop the relationship? Greenfield, S. Mind Change: How 21st-Century Technology Is Leaving Its Mark on the Brain; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar] Greitemeyer, T.; Osswald, S.; Brauer, M. Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion 2010, 10, 796–802. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [ PubMed]

Your friend has excitedly shared that she has a new love in her life. Unfortunately, you know the guy is a narcissistic player who only stays with a woman as long as he is getting what he wants from the relationship. Do you try to convince her to drop him or let her learn a lesson on her own? A friend gives you a gift for your birthday. Unfortunately, it is a type of perfume you are extremely allergic to. Do you say something and ask for a receipt to return it, or keep quiet? With regard to research in laboratory settings, several scholars (e.g., [ 16, 22, 23]) recently developed everyday moral dilemmas. Everyday moral dilemmas are short vignettes describing hypothetical everyday life situations. The vignettes require decisions between the fulfilment of a moral standard or social obligation towards another person versus a personal-oriented hedonistic behavior that would explicitly not cause serious bodily harm or legal consequences [ 16]. The given response alternatives are typically altruistic (e.g., helping an old woman who is in distress) versus egoistic (e.g., catching the waiting bus home; see [ 23] or [ 24] for further examples).In our data, we did not observe that the percentage of altruistic decisions differed depending on the social closeness of the protagonists. This is in contrast to the results of Zhan and colleagues [ 31], the only study so far that investigated the impact of social closeness on everyday moral decision-making. Contrary to Zhan et al. [ 31], we only observed a slightly, but not significantly lower percentage of altruistic decisions for the items with socially distant protagonists than for the items with socially close protagonists, and this difference only reached a very small effect size ( d = 0.12). Additionally, Rasch model analyses indicated that there was one underlying latent trait variable, which further speaks against a significant impact of social closeness on everyday moral decision-making in our surveys. This divergent finding could possibly be explained by methodological differences. Since Zhan et al. [ 31] did not provide concrete examples of their stimulus material in their manuscript, it remains unclear whether their vignettes represented everyday moral conflict situations. Furthermore, our data also appear to be in contrast to several abstract moral decision-making studies, which showed that social closeness is an important experimental design parameter in moral dilemma research ([ 5, 28– 30]; see also [ 2]). One potential explanation could be that abstract moral dilemmas describe dead-or-alive situations, whereas the consequences of the response alternatives in our everyday moral dilemmas are less grave. Therefore, one might be more willing to accept the costs of an egoistic response option not only for socially distant others, but also to some degree for socially close persons. Chen, V.H.H.; Koek, W.J.D. Understanding flow, identification with game characters and players’ attitudes. In FDG ′20, Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, Bugibba, Malta, 18 September 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef]