Table 2.

Results of mixed-effect logistic regressions predicting moral choices

AllbGoodbBadbBad: privatebBad: publicb
Intercept0.63 (0.39)0.54 (0.53)2.64** (0.81)2.57** (0.84)3.26*** (0.88)
Group0.86 (0.64)1.31 (0.86)3.41* (1.42)4.16** (1.53)2.32 (1.44)
Audience0.11 (0.08)0.15 (0.10)0.27** (0.10)
Moral context0.95*** (0.08)
Group × audience−0.17 (0.13)−0.23 (0.16)−0.44* (0.22)
Group × moral context0.89*** (0.15)
Audience × moral context0.09 (0.12)
Group × Audience × Moral context−0.11 (0.21)
Payoff for oneselfa,b−0.99*** (0.04)−0.46*** (0.05)−0.39*** (0.07)−0.56*** (0.07)
Payoff for associationa,b0.83*** (0.04).33*** (0.05)0.34*** (0.06)0.35*** (0.07)
Agea0.19 (0.32)0.50 (0.43)0.26 (0.70)0.23 (0.70)0.12 (0.73)
AIC10,501.04340.73148.71649.71551.1
BIC10,574.84394.13202.21685.61587.1
N (Observation)11,8235912591129482963
N (Participant)4747474747
  • Values are the mean (SE), unless otherwise indicated. Reference levels were set as follows: Group, HCs; Audience, private; Moral context, good. The table also shows goodness-of-fit statistics. BIC, Bayesian information criterion.

  • aWe standardized these variables for the analyses.

  • bThese variables were added as covariates only when the regressor Association (and its interaction) was not in the regression model, as the regressor “payoff for oneself” qualitatively covaried with Association, which might cause the collinear issue.

  • *p < 0.05,

  • **p < 0.01,

  • ***p < 0.001.