Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 1/23

The Effects of Unpleasant and Pleasant Images on the Adolescent

and Adult Brain
Sabrina Farley
Reem Albasha
Maximo Vara
Abstract:
For decades, many studies have tried to investigate how disturbed and selfish or innocent
and unselfish a person can be. A pleasant biological reaction would result in the release of the
hormone called dopamine, causing a positive, or feel-good response. An unpleasant response
would be one that would cause the person to feel insecure or uncomfortable, initiating the
flight-or-fight response. For this experiment, we set out to discover if ones moral values
change when presented with pleasant versus unsettling images. This experiment tested three
groups of thirty adolescent and adults, one group was presented with only the question while the
other groups were presented with images to sway their judgment; one had pleasant images and
the other had unpleasant images. Both groups then answered survey questions on morality. This
survey contains ten questions, ranging from easily answered morality situations and situations
that were equally morally difficult to answer. We have begun to realize that the main difference
between the control group and the unpleasant and pleasant group was that we got the opposite
results than what we were expecting. We were anticipating more unselfish answers from the
pleasant group than the control group and more selfish answers from the unpleasant group.
Surprisingly enough, we received the opposite: we received more unselfish answers from the
unpleasant group. The p-value for the control and pleasant data is .34 and the p-value for the

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 2/23
control and the unpleasant data is .31. Since both of these are larger than the .05 number that we
need in order to reject the null hypothesis, we are unable to reject the null hypothesis. More
depth one our discoveries will be provided in the discussion section.
Introduction:
The brain is the most fundamental organ in the body that determines ones judgment,
knowledge, and decision-making skills. Changing the brains biology can affect how you feel
about your judgments from right or wrong (Buckholtz 2011). In the neuroscience field, multiple
test subjects brains were scanned to analyze perception of the brain, finding that people's
perceptions of their world were shifted to what feels morally right to themselves (Buckholtz
2011). In other words, when the brain is provided with a stimulant, the brain analyzes what it is
being asked to do and commands the body to act accordingly, or not to act. This all depends on
the situation and how the persons brain prompts the person to respond. Furthermore, dopamine,
a hormone released when a pleasurable stimulus is presented, has been theorized to play a key
role in impulsive actions. However, trait difference in thoughts without actions and its behavioral
and psycho-pathological correlations remain unclear (Buckholtz 2011). This means that there is
no clear evidence of impulsive actions playing any key role in decision-making or judgment for
humans. This proves that every action a person pursues is carefully thought out. This is relevant
to our study because this emphasis on decision-making being a thought out process reinforces the
idea that showing subjects pictures to sway the release of dopamine will influence their reactions
to the moral dilemmas we present them with.
In terms of how the brain reacts to photography, the brain interprets an image within a
fraction of a second from a special nerve circuit which locates the brains visual center to reflect
the image (Hopkins 2005). This makes the brain interpret its own information and reflect on that

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 3/23
information. Therefore, it is possible that the brain responds with some emotion from an image
that triggers a better connection with an image (Hopkins 2005). Sometimes an image captures
the attention of the subject that makes it drawn to it because it carries some form of memory for
the subject. This allows any observer to be more emotionally attached with an image. Based on
this article, and our experiment, it can be possible that an individual who observes some image
will be drawn to it.
Furthermore, its been stated that physiological responses vary with an emotional quality
of a photograph. For example, an image such as a sunny day will give the viewer an emotional
pull towards the image, causing pleasant feelings towards the image. The opposite will happen
with unpleasant images; an image like the grudge from the movie The Grudge will potentially
cause feelings of panic, or will cause an unsettling feeling, even possibly paranoia. If someone
finds an image that is deemed unpleasant then a person will have startle blink reflexes and their
muscles will contract more (Vrana, Spence, and Lang 1988). The contraction of the eye muscles
can cause the brain to react in a negative way because the muscles will be tensed instead of
relaxed. Based on a certain type of image, a person will experience their own opinions of the
subject and will create an activation of either positive or negative motivational systems. Also
when a person views hostile imagery, a person normally will feel a greater amount of intensity
and even hostility towards the image, while images that give more of a tenderhearted picture
cause people to tend to feel more capable of making morally satisfactory decisions than they
normally would.
When presented with a moral dilemma, everybody is different, yet equal. The moral
dilemmas cause a person to think more, making their choices more meaningful. One study found
that everyone perceives situations and atmospheres differently based on their own personal

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 4/23
morals and experiences. Therefore, some people may be rational about the choice they make in a
situation, or they could be irrational and make a choice to do the wrong thing. Furthermore,
according to Chelini et al., human behavior tends to be automatic, instinctive, or emotional
(2009). Human behaviors change depending on the situation a person is in, causing a response
that could be a predetermined or automatic response (Chelini et al, 2009). Lastly, its been said
that decisions are made by social-emotional characteristics, meaning that when presented with a
situation, humans will act according to their best emotional interest and what social outcomes
can occur. It all depends upon how people tend to react to certain types of situations and apply
some form domain-neutral reasoning.
However, it is possible that the images provided from an unsettling or pleasant
atmosphere, or situation, could have no impact on the moral dilemma decision-making. After all,
its been reported that the average US person will watch over 100,000 violent incidents on TV
and 90% of movies depict violence (Einsiedel, Salomone,Schneider 1984). Furthermore, 75% of
perpetrators who do violent acts show no remorse, criticism, negative emotional reaction, and no
punishment (Einsiedel, Salomone, Scheider 1984). This could mean that the average person who
has witnessed many encounters with violence in the media, could already be exposed and
familiar with provocative imagery, making it near impossible for the subjects to have a clear
response to the unpleasant video without more advanced technologies.
Our hypothesis was that subjects will answer moral dilemmas a specific way when
presented with different images to sway their decision making, positively or negatively.
Meaning, when participants observed pleasant imagery, people would chose to be unselfish or
pick the unselfish answers, while participants who observed unpleasant images would chose to
be selfish. Our null hypothesis for both the control group compared to the pleasant group was there

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 5/23
would be more unselfish responses. The null hypothesis for the control and unpleasant group was
that there would be more selfish responses to the moral dilemma questions. We found by completing
our study, there was no significant impact to peoples moral decision-making when presented with
imagery to influence their behavior.

Methods:
For our experiment, and in order to get as much various results as possible, we created
three polls and two accompanying videos. These three polls consisted of 10 moral dilemma
questions, ranging from simplistic or easy dilemmas to more serious thought-provoking
dilemmas. Each poll had the same 10 questions, but the difference between the three surveys was
that two of them consisted of videos with certain kinds of images. The first poll for the control
group only contained 10 moral dilemma questions that were presented to a group of participants
with no images to influence their responses. This created a sample that was showing people how
they would normally answer. The second poll contained a video of a series of happy, calming,
and neutral images, followed by the 10 moral dilemma questions. These questions were the same
questions as the first poll, the only difference was the pleasant group was shown a positive video.
This video included images such as sunsets, smiling babies and flowers. The third and last video
consisted of a video which contained evil, scary, and unpleasant photos, followed by the same 10
moral dilemma questions previously mentioned. These images included screen stills from scary
movies, violent images, as well as historical tragedies. Again, the only difference between this
trial and the first trial is this group of participants will be shown malicious and dark images.
We did this experiment to see how different images could change a persons moral
decisions. One of the reasons we did three polls with different videos was to collect as much
varying results as possible, while we observed how exactly the images could change the

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 6/23
responses to moral decisions when their mind is clear and selfless compared to how a person
responds when their mind is stuck in the flight-or-fight response. The flight-or-fight response
could be triggered if the person watches the unpleasant and dark video, especially if one was in a
dark room while watching the video. It can make the person feel paranoid and think that things
are out to get them. When watching the video that contains the happier images, people could
potentially felt happier and could be more likely than the control group to make the unselfish
decisions when taking answering the survey questions.
Our experimental study tested whether subjects would respond differently to 10 different
moral dilemmas after being shown images that could have affect their perception of these morals
dilemmas. Our explanatory variable were the images that were shown to our subjects while our
response variable was the moral dilemma questions. Our sample size was eighth grade and
above, making it the older adolescents and adults the subjects and population of our experiment.
In order to get the word out, and to have our subjects take the survey, we posted the links to the
tests to our Facebook and email accounts. The sample size represented the population of
adolescents and adults in general, meaning everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, or social
status was able to take the survey and contribute to our study. Since our data was collected
through a random sample there werent any real confounding variables. This sample size
represented was 30 participants for each of our groups; the control group, the group that was
exposed to the pleasant images, and the group that was exposed to the unpleasant images.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 7/23
Results:
Control
Question

Pleasant

Differences

# of Unselfish Answers # of Unselfish Answers Control(total of 30 answers)

(total of 30 answers)
Pleasant

1. Should the young man kill his 23

father to receive the life insurance
money for him and his 8 siblings?

26

23-26=-3

2. Should Heather allow the

injured crew member to die in
order to save the lives of the
remaining crew members?

20

19-20=-1

3. Should Ken poison this man in 13

order to prevent him from
spreading HIV?

13-7=6

4. Should Jane overheat her baby 17

in order to save herself and the
other townspeople?

18

17-18=-1

5. Should Carrie hit the switch in 23

order to save four of her patients?

21

23-21=2

6. Should you pull a chair out

from under your son to save
several other people?

12

21

12-21=-9

7. Do you save your niece or

daughter?

25

18

25-18=7

8. Do you torture a terrorist or his 18

wife in order to get information
from the terrorist?

19 (one person didn't

answer this question.
Total of 29)

18-19=-1

9. Should Joe torture and kill one 23

of his fellow hostages in order to
escape from the terrorists and
save the lives of the eight
children?

15

23-15=8

10 Do you give your old neighbor 18

an alibi, or let him be convicted
of a crime he didn't do?

21

18-21=-3

19

Table 1 shows the control and unpleasant group's data. The research shows out of the thirty
randomized experiments test that there is a correlation.
Based off of this first table, our null hypothesis of receiving more unselfish answers by
showing subjects a positive and pleasant video is wrong, there are some instances where there
are more unselfish answers with the control group rather than the pleasant group. Although they

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 8/23
were exposed to the positive and pleasant imagery, they still chose to answer the survey question
with the selfish answers.
Field

Control

Pleasant

Sample Size

30

30

Sample Mean

19.1

18.6

Standard Deviation

4.41

4.97

Difference in Sample Means

0.5

Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) 0.80

95% Margin of Error

1.61

SEM of the Difference

1.21

Confidence Interval (95%)

.91
2.79

-1.92 - 2.92

Test Statistic (Z-scores)

.41

Percentile

.66

P-Values
1-.66=-.34
Table 2: The steps to find the p-value using the Control and Pleasant Data. The sample mean is
the average amount of unselfish answers.
In Table 2 the average unselfish answers for the control was about 19 average unselfish
answers for each question and for the pleasant imagery, there was an average of 19 unselfish
answers per question, making them the same number for each question. The standard error of the
mean (SEM) for the control was higher than the pleasant standard error of the mean (SEM) by
1.21. The p-value was for this data set was .34 and based on this observation alone, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis. We as researchers cannot reject the null hypothesis unless the p-value
is greater than the known accepted p-value of 0.05 (5%). In this case, the p-value is .29 over the
accepted p-value for us to reject the null hypothesis.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 9/23
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10 MEAN
Control

23

19

13

17

23

12

25

18

23

18

19.1

Total

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

% of
unselfish
Answers

76.67 63.33 43.33 55.67 76.67 40.00 83.33 60.00

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

76.67 60.00 63.67

%
%
%

Pleasant

19

14

12

16

14

13

13

11

14

13.1

Total

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

29

30

30

29.9

% of
unselfish
Answers

86.67 66.67 23.33 60.00 70.00 70.00 60.00 65.52

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

50.00 70.00 62.00

%
%
%

Table 3: The percentages of answers for the Control and Pleasant. The Pleasant group of answers
prove to have an overall positive influence over the control group.
Table 3 contains the percentages of unselfish answers for each question overall. When
calculated, the average percentage (furthest right column) for the control is slightly higher with a
percentage of 63.67% than the average percentage for the pleasant data which is 62%. The
average percentage of the unselfish answers is about 4% decrease from the control average
percentage to the pleasant average percentage. This is interesting and rejects our null hypothesis
of there would be more unselfish answers with the pleasant data.

Percentage of Selfish
Answers

Percentages of Unselfish Answers for Control and Pleasant

Data
100
80
60
40
20
0

Control
Pleasant

10

Questions

Figure 1: Bar graph of the percentages of the control and pleasant unselfish answers

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 10/23
In figure 1, the interesting things about the both of these are the farthest between the two
and the question that is the closest between the two. The question that is the farthest between the
control group and the pleasant group is question six. For this question, the control unselfish
answer percentage is 40% of answers that were unselfish. The pleasant group had an unselfish
answer percentage of 70% of answers that were unselfish answers which results in a 30%
increase in unselfish answers between the control and the pleasant data. Question six talked
about being in a concentration camp where a sadistic guard will kill your son if you dont pull
the chair out from under him and kill him, or refuse to pull the chair out from under him and not
be the one behind your sons murder. The unselfish answer between these two is to refuse to pull
the chair out from under your son because he is your own flesh and blood. That would be the last
thing your son would be seeing, therefore making it so you wont be thinking about your own
feelings towards it.
Between the both, the question with the smallest difference is question two. The control
group had an unselfish answer percentage of 63.33% of answers being unselfish. The pleasant
group had a percentage of 66.67% of unselfish answers. This question in particular brought up
the question of killing an injured group member to conserve oxygen to survive, or help the
injured group member and potentially get out of the situation alive. The unselfish answer here,
would be to help the injured group member because instead of neglecting the injured group
member, just to save yourself and three other group members, you are helping out the group
member to possibly get out of the situation together. If the injured member did not receive
medical aid, he would die which would include mourning the lost member after getting out of the
situation.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 11/23
Control
Unpleasant
Difference
Question

# of Unselfish Answers # of Unselfish Answers Control(total number is 30)

(total number is 30)
Unpleasant

1. Should the young man kill

his father to receive the life
insurance money for him and
his 8 siblings?

23

30

23-30=-7

2. Should Heather allow the

19
injured crew member to die in
order to save the lives of the
remaining crew members?

13

19-13=6

3. Should Ken poison this man 13

in order to prevent him from
spreading HIV?

19

13-19=-6

4. Should Jane overheat her

baby in order to save herself
and the other townspeople?

17

21

17-21=-4

5. Should Carrie hit the switch 23

in order to save four of her
patients?

27

23-27=-4

6. Should you pull a chair out

from under your son to save
several other people?

12

26

12-26=-14

7. Do you save your niece or

daughter?

25

17

25-17=8

8. Do you torture a terrorist or 18

his wife in order to get
information from the terrorist?

18-8=10

9. Should Joe torture and kill 23

one of his fellow hostages in
order to escape from the
terrorists and save the lives of
the eight children?

12

23-12=11

10 Do you give your old

18
neighbor an alibi, or let him be
convicted of a crime he didn't
do?

10

18-10=8

Table 4 shows the relation of the control groups data and the unpleasant groups data. This
research is out of 30 total survey answers.
Table 4 shows that more people decided to be unselfish with their moral dilemma
answers rather than selfish when exposed to the unpleasant imagery. This is an interesting

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 12/23
discovery because this proves our null hypothesis as being wrong. This proves our error theory
and the study of 1984 that subjects may have been already exposed to violence and unpleasant
images due to television.
Field

Control

Unpleasant

Sample Size

30

30

Sample Mean

19.1

18.3

Difference in Sample Means

.8

Standard Error of the Mean

.80

1.39

95% Margin of Error

1.55

1.81

Confidence Interval (95%)

2.69-(-2.09)

Standard Deviation

4.82

SEM of the difference Difference

1.61

Test Statistic (Z-Scores)

0.5

Percentile

.69

3.66

P-Value
1-.69=.31
Table 5: Step-by-step calculations to find the P-Value between the control and the unpleasant
surveys.
In Table 5, the average unselfish answers for the control was about 19 average unselfish
answers for each question and for the unpleasant imagery, there was an average of 18 unselfish
answers per question, making them one unselfish off from being the same amount of unselfish
answers. If we were to look at this piece of data alone, it would prove that we were correct with
our experiment, but just barely because of this meager one answer difference. The standard error
of the mean (SEM) for the control was higher than the pleasant standard error of the mean
(SEM) by 1.61. The p-value was for this data set was .31 and based on this observation alone, we
cannot reject the null hypothesis. We as researchers cannot reject the null hypothesis unless the
p-value is greater than the known accepted p-value of 0.05 (5%). In this case, the p-value is .26
over the accepted p-value, making it so we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 13/23
Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

MEANS

Control

23

19

13

17

23

12

25

18

23

18

19.1

Total

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

76.67
%

40.00
%

83.33
%

% of unselfish 76.67
answers
%

63.33 43.33 56.67

%
%
%

60.00 76.67 50.00 63.67%

%
%
%

Unpleasant

30

13

19

21

27

26

17

12

10

18.3

Total

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

90.00
%

86.67
%

56.67
%

% of unselfish 100.00 43.33

answers
%
%

63.33 70.00
%
%

26.67 40.00 33.33 61.00%

%
%
%

Table 6: Percentages of People that answered the survey Questions.

Table 6 contains the percentages of unselfish answers for each question overall. When
calculated, the average percentage (furthest right column) for the control is slightly higher with a
percentage of 63.67% than the average percentage for the pleasant data which is 61%. The
average percentage of the unselfish answers is about 3% decrease from the control average
percentage to the pleasant average percentage. This is interesting and rejects our null hypothesis
of there would be more selfish answers with the pleasant data.

Percentages of Unpleasant and Control answers

100
80
60
Percentage of
Unselfish Answers 40

Control

20

Unpleasant

0
1

10

Question Number

Figure 2: Column Graph of percentages of Unpleasant and Control Answers

For figure 2 the most noteworthy data is how question four five and six were the three
closest percentage of unselfish answers. The two question that had the closest percentages were

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 14/23
question four and question five with the same different percentage of 13.33%. Specifically
speaking, question four for the control group had 56.67% of unselfish answers compared to the
unpleasant group having a total of 70% of unselfish answers. This question was the question
about whether to save your baby at the expense of killing yourself and killing your baby to save
yourself. The unselfish answer would be to kill your child, but only because you would be saving
more people than you would be losing. Question five was similar because the control group had
a total of 76.67% of unselfish answers while the unpleasant group had a total of 90% of unselfish
answers. Question five was a question that referred to redirecting a poisonous gas into a room of
either four patients or a single patient. The unselfish answer here was hitting the switch to save
the four patients and killing a single patient rather than four.
The largest difference between the control group and the unpleasant group was question
six with a percentage increase of 46.67% from the control group to the unpleasant group. The
control group had an unselfish answer percentage of 40% and the unpleasant group had an
unselfish percentage of 86.67%. This question was one about a sadistic guard that is about to kill
your son if you dont pull the chair out from under him. For a possible obvious reason, the
unselfish answer is to refuse to pull the chair out from under your son because killing your son
would not only weigh heavily on a persons mind, it would leave your son forever haunting you
because thats the last thing he would remember.
Sample Means and MOE
Field
Sample Mean Margin of Error (95%)
Control-Pleasant
.3
2.39
Control-Unpleasant
.8
3.21
Table 7: Summary Table of the Sample Means and Margin of Errors for the 95% confidence
intervals

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 15/23

Figure 3: Sample Means and the Confidence intervals for both the control/pleasant group and the
control/unpleasant group. This shows how there was a slightly higher average
Figure 3 states that the difference in sample means between the control and the pleasant
data is a difference of .3 while the margin of error for the 95% confidence interval is 2.39. The
2.39 margin of error is shown in the error bars for the difference between the control and the
pleasant data. For the control and the unpleasant data, the difference in sample mean is a bit
higher at .8 while the margin of error at the 95% confidence interval is 3.21. This is shown
within the error bars on the chart above. The most interesting thing about this find is how the
control and the pleasant data lies within the control and unpleasant data.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 16/23
Summary Table
Control/Pleasant
Control/Unpleasant
Null hypothesis
More unselfish responses
More selfish responses
Research Hypothesis
A person will be unable to answer moral dilemma questions
when being presented with images to sway their answers.
Difference in Sample means
.3
0.8
SEM of the Difference
1.19
Test Statistic (Z-Score)
.25
1.42
Percentile
.4
.92
P-Value (1-sided)
1-.4=.6
1-.92=.08
What is the probability that
Unlikely
Unlikely
the observed difference was
due to chance?
Can we reject the null
No; the p-value is too high
No; the P-value is too high
hypothesis?
Table 8: Concluding Results. It was found that the p-values were too high, therefore we cannot
reject the null hypothesis for either one of these null hypotheses. All in all, there were
confounding variables we did not control for with the data we have collected.
Discussion:
Based on the data given for both the pleasant imagery and the unpleasant imagery, the
null hypothesis cant be rejected for both groups. The two different p-values that were calculated
during the experiment was greater than the accepted p-value of 0.05 which means the results
shown could have been done by chance alone. Based on our results alone, the group who viewed
unpleasant imagery were more likely to choose the morally righteous answers than the group
who viewed soothing imagery. In an essence, our null hypothesis for the pleasant imagery group
was incorrect because it was believed that watching a video that made the persons mind release
a feel-good hormone would affect their decision-making when presented with moral dilemmas.
Therefore, they would chose to best answer to only inflict the minimal amount of harm, in other
words, unselfishly. However, based on this research, the opposite occurred where people who
observed the pleasant imagery chose to be more selfish while people who viewed the unpleasant
imagery chose to do the morally right choice based on the situations they were presented.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 17/23
Perhaps an explanation for these findings could have been that subjects are already
exposed to violence in everyday lives. After all, we had no control as to when the subjects took
the survey or where they took the survey because the survey was posted online for anyone to
take with no requirement on when to take the survey. This means that the outside world could
have had an influence on their decision-making process on their moral and ethical reasoning. In
an essence, Einsiedel, Salomone, and Schneider could provide the logical explanation that many
individuals have been exposed and familiar with grisly images that it has little impact on the
morality. In fact, one could say that because participants have been exposed to so many grisly
images in the past that it made them to choose to be unselfish because there are many tragedies
that occur in the world that makes people want to do the right moral choice. It also highlights,
based on previous research with Chelini et al., that people will act based on their own personal
interest. Meaning, when participants observed pleasant and unpleasant images, it could have a
minimal impact because it all depends upon the individual for different interest, intent, and
interpretation of the moral dilemma questions that made them want to answer based on their own
reasoning.
One of the ways we could have improved upon this experiment is to have participants
take the survey in a computer lab at the same location at the same time that way it minimizes the
risk of outside forces influencing their decision-making. We could have also made sure that there
would be covers and dividers for each computer. This would make it harder for participants to
observe other participant's responses as an influence on their decision-making.
Conclusion:
Our original hypothesis states that when a person is presented with pleasant and
unpleasant images, (such as rainbows, happy children, vs. bloody acts, historical tragedies, and

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 18/23
horror movie scenes), it will sway how they answer ten moral dilemma questions. The final
conclusion based off of the data was that there was no difference in the influence of the images
on our subjects. We were interested in doing this type of experiment because morality and how a
persons morality is different from person to person is interesting to the three of us. It was relatively
interesting how the video did not affect the participants like we thought it would. This study would
advance study in this field because it could prompt a more widespread study in the sense of morality
and psychological stimulants. This would prompt more research with a wider variety of people, and
ages as well. If there was more research like this in the field of morality studies, not only would this
study not have been needed, but it would have been needed on a wider sample size, maybe even an
entire population.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 19/23

References
Bernat, E., Patrick, C., Benning, S., & Tellegan, A. (2006). Effects of picture content and
intensity on affective physiological responses. Psychophysiology, 43(1), 93-103. Retrieved
January 23, 2015, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Buckholtz, J., Treadway, M. 2010, 23 April. Dopaminergic Network Differences in Human
Impulsivity. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from nih.gov/pdx.edu
Chelini C., Lanteri A., Rizzello S. 2009. Moral Dilemmas and Decision-Making: An
Experimental Trolley Problem. International Journal of Social Sciences. Retrieved from
http://academia.edu
Einsiedel, E., Salomone, K., Schneider, F. (1984) Crime: Effects of Media Exposure and
Personal Experience on Issue Salience. Journalism Quarterly, 61(1), 131-136.
Goldberg, C. 2014. Beyond Good and Evil: New Science Casts Light On Morality In The Brain.
Commonhealth: Reform and Reality. Retrieved from wbur.org
Google Images. 2015. images.google.com.
Hajcak, G., Nieuwenhuis, S. 2006. Reappraisal Modulates the Electrocortical Response to
Unpleasant Pictures. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience. Volume 6, Issue 4.
Retrieved from springer.com
Johns Hopkins University. (2005, August 10). How The Brain Understands Pictures.
ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 23, 2015 from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050810130507.htm
Roth, E. (2012, December 9). How evil are you? [Web Video]. Retrieved from
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvqbvk_curiosity-how-evil-are-you_lifestyle

Appendix: Attached is the survey we had our subjects take after the videos were shown..1

1.Sources used for the survey questions: http://psychopixi.com/misc/25-moral-dilemmas/

http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 20/23

Appendix
Survey Questions and Answers
1.) It is 10 pm and a young man is at a hospital sitting in the lounge when a girl named Miranda
comes and sits beside him. The young man starts explaining to Miranda how his father is very
sick and he only has 10 days left to live. His fathers life insurance ends at 12 am. If his father
dies before 12 am, then the young man will gain a large amount of money.
Later on, the young man tells Miranda that him and his seven younger siblings are in deep need
for the money. They are very desperate for food, clothes, and other necessities. So, his father
living for about 10 more days will do no good.
She tells him to go into his fathers room, and smother his face with the pillow until hes dead.
Should he do what Miranda tells him to do?
A.) Yes (selfish)
B.) No (unselfish)
2.) Heather is part of a four-person mining expedition. There is a cave-in and the four of them are
trapped in the mine. A rock has crushed the legs of one of her crew members and he will die
without medical attention. Shes established radio contact with the rescue team and learned it
will be 36 hours before the first drill can reach the space she is trapped in.
She is able to calculate that this space has just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36
hours, but definitely not enough for four people. The only way to save the other crew members is
to refuse medical aid to the injured crew member so that there will be just enough oxygen for the
rest of the crew to survive.
Should Heather allow the injured crew member to die in order to save the lives of the remaining
crew members?
A.) Let the injured member die. (Selfish)
B.) Help the injured worker (Unselfish)
3.) Ken is a doctor. One of his patients, whom he has diagnosed as HIV positive, is about to
receive a blood transfusion prior to being released from the hospital. He has told Ken, in the
confidence of their doctor-patient relationship, that after he gets his transfusion, and his medicine
from Ken, he intends to infect as many people as possible with HIV starting that evening.
Because Ken is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, there is no legal way to stop this man
from carrying out his plan. Even if Ken warned the police, they would not be able to arrest him,
since his medical information is protected.
It occurs to Ken that he could contaminate his medication by putting an untraceable poison in it
that will kill him before he gets a chance to infect others.
Should Ken poison this man in order to prevent him from spreading HIV?
A.) Yes. (unselfish)
B.) No. (selfish)
4.) Enemy soldiers have taken over Janes village. They have orders to kill all remaining
civilians over the age of two. Jane and some of the townspeople have sought refuge in two rooms
of the cellar of a large house. Outside Jane hears the voices of soldiers who have come to search
the house for valuables. Janes baby begins to cry loudly in the other room.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 21/23
His crying will summon the attention of the soldiers who will spare Janes babys life, but will
kill Jane and the others hiding in both rooms.
If Jane turns on the noisy furnace to block the sound, the other room will become uncomfortably
hot for adults and children, but deadly for infants.
To save her and the others Jane must activate the furnace, which will kill her baby.
Should Jane overheat her baby in order to save herself and the other townspeople?
A.) No. (selfish)
B.) Yes. (unselfish)
5.) Carrie is a doctor working in a hospital. Due to an accident in the building next door, there
are deadly fumes rising up through the hospitals ventilation system. In a certain room of the
hospital are four of her patients. In another room there is one of her patients. If she does nothing
the fumes will rise up into the room containing the four patients and cause their deaths.
The only way to avoid the deaths of these patients is to hit a switch that will cause the fumes to
bypass the room containing the four patients. As a result of doing this, the fumes will enter the
room containing the single patient (against her will). If she does this, the woman will die, but the
other four patients will live.
Should Carrie hit the switch in order to save four of her patients?
A.) Yes. (unselfish)
B.) No. (selfish)
6.) You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who
tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him, killing only him. He says
that if you dont, he will kill you, your son and five other innocent inmates as well. You dont
have any doubt that he means what he says.
What should you do?
A.) Pull the chair out from under him. (Selfish)
B.) Refuse to pull the chair out from under him. (Unselfish)
7.) You and your family are going away for the weekend. Your daughter is 7 and is best friends
with your niece, who is also 7. Your families are very close and your daughter asks if your niece
can come with you on your holiday. You have been on holidays together before and dont see
any problem, so you agree.
You arrive at your holiday destination and the house you are staying at backs onto a beach. The
girls ask if they can go for a swim. You tell them that they have to wait until you have unpacked
the car, but they can play on the sand directly in front of the beach. They run down to the sand,
and you begin to unpack the car. After about 5 minutes, you hear screaming coming from the
direction of the beach and it sounds like the girls.
You run down to see what the matter is, and you discover that they hadnt listened to you and
have gone for a swim. There is no one else on the beach and the girls are caught in a rip tide.
The girls are really struggling, particularly your niece who isnt as strong a swimmer as your
daughter is. You swim out quickly, but when you get there, you realize that there is no way you
will be able to get both the girls back to the shore on your own.
You need to decide which of the girls you will rescue first, you have enough strength and energy
to rescue them both, but you can only do it one at a time. You look at the two girls, and your

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 22/23
niece is really struggling to hold her head above water and you know if you take your daughter
back first, there will be little or no chance that she will survive.
Your daughter is struggling also, but is much stronger in the water and you estimate that if you
take your niece back to shore first, theres probably a 50% chance that your daughter will be able
to stay afloat long enough for you return, but you simply dont know how long she will hold on
for.
Who should you save first?
A.) My daughter. (Selfish)
B.) My niece. (Unselfish)
8.) A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been
apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off
in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him
divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and
requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation,
some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, but the official is sure that it will
make him tell the truth in time for you to find and defuse the bombs.
What should you do?
What if you know that the bomber can withstand torture himself, but would talk if you were to
torture his innocent wife instead?
A.) Torture the bomber. (Unselfish)
B.) Torture the bomber's wife. (Selfish
9. Joe is part of a group of ecologists who live in a remote stretch of jungle. The entire group,
which includes eight children, has been taken hostage by a group of paramilitary terrorists. One
of the terrorists takes a liking to Joe. He informs Joe that his leader intends to kill him and the
rest of the hostages the following morning.
He is willing to help Joe and the children escape, but as an act of good faith he wants Joe to
torture and kill one of his fellow hostages whom he does not like. If Joe refuses his offer, all the
hostages including the children and Joe will die. If he accepts his offer, then the others will die in
the morning but Joe and the eight children will escape.
Should Joe torture and kill one of his fellow hostages in order to escape from the terrorists and
save the lives of the eight children?
A.) Yes. (Unselfish)
B.) No.
10.) You have a wonderful daughter. She is 8 years old and has always been a happy outgoing
child. But a while ago something terrible happened, she was raped. You are quite sure that the
person who raped her is your neighbor. Your daughter is so traumatized she has stopped
speaking, but she in other ways been able to convince you that he is the one. Unfortunately not
enough evidence can be found to convict him.
You try to put your life back together. You move to another house and try to help your daughter
in any way you can, but it is clear that the experience has ruined her life and that of your family.

Sabrina Farley, Reem Albasha, Maximo Vara, Ways of Knowing, Research Paper, Page 23/23
One evening you have taken your wife out to dinner at a restaurant when you spot your former
neighbor at another table. He is eating alone and looks unhappy. You quickly finish eating and
leave. The next day you find out that your former neighbors wife has been murdered. Enough
evidence to convict him of the murder is soon found, and at first you are very happy, finally his
will get what he deserves.
But then you remember that you saw him in the restaurant at the time of the murder. you know
he did not murder his wife. Maybe he paid someone else to do it You remember that the police
said that it had been made it look like a burglary, maybe it was
You sit down to think. If you keep quiet he will be convicted for the murder, and the real
murderer will go free If you give him an alibi, he will go free, but you cant be sure the real
murderer will be found, and it is possible that the neighbor paid someone to do it What do you
do?
A.) Let him be convicted of a crime he didn't do.
B.) Report an alibi for him (Unselfish)
Control (Sabrina):
http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/sabrina5/control/
Pleasant (Max):
http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/sabrina5/pleasant-imagery/
Unpleasant (Reem):
http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/sabrina5/unpleasant-imagery/