Inside the Decision to Act: The Lived Experience of Moral Dilemmas

Introduction

A moral dilemma is often described as a conflict between competing obligations, values, or courses of action that each carries moral weight (McConnell, 2022). That description is useful, but it does not yet capture how a dilemma is lived. In actual experience, a moral dilemma rarely presents itself as a neat philosophical puzzle. It arrives as pressure, hesitation, conflict, bodily activation, loyalty, fear, and the awareness that any decision may involve loss.

This article focuses on one recurrent type of everyday moral conflict: a help-versus-self-cost dilemma, in which a person in the role of witness recognizes that someone else is being harmed or wronged, experiences an immediate bodily and emotional response to that recognition, and then confronts the question of whether to intervene or to remain silent, and, if so, how and at what cost to themselves. In such cases, helping the other may expose the witness to social, professional, or material risk, while protecting oneself may require tolerating another’s ongoing harm. In this sense, the same person occupies two moral positions at once: witness to a relational transgression and potential author of a relational omission. Empirical and theoretical work suggests that dilemmas of this basic structure, helping another versus safeguarding oneself, are common in ordinary life rather than confined to dramatic emergencies (McConnell, 2022; Burdick et al., 2019; Yudkin et al., 2025).

Moral decision-making in these situations cannot be understood only as a matter of conscious reasoning. A person facing a serious help-versus-self-cost dilemma is also influenced by emotional intuition, nervous system activation, attachment history, relational roles, group norms, and the moral language available in the surrounding culture (Haidt, 2001; Earp et al., 2021; Burdick et al., 2019; Waters et al., 2022). Ethical theories remain important because they clarify different visions of how a person should act, but they do not remove the complexity of the lived situation (Driver, 2022; Howard-Snyder, 2023; Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2023; Sevenhuijsen, 2018).

This article, therefore, approaches moral dilemmas from the inside out. It begins with the reflective level at which people explain their decisions, then moves more slowly into the affective, neurobiological, developmental, relational, and cultural layers that often simultaneously shape moral action. The central claim is straightforward: when a person asks, in the context of a help-versus-self-cost dilemma, “What should I do?”, more is happening than conscious reasoning alone can capture.

The reflective layer

The first layer of a moral dilemma is usually the one a person can describe most easily. It is the level of reasons, principles, and explicit justifications. In a help-versus-self-cost dilemma, a witness notices that someone is being demeaned, exploited, or otherwise harmed and asks whether to report it, challenge it, or intervene. The same witness recognizes a conflict of loyalty and asks where responsibility lies: to the vulnerable person, to the group, to an authority, or to their own dependents. They see that protecting the person being harmed may expose themselves to retaliation, loss of status, or exclusion, and must decide which obligation carries greater weight.

At this reflective level, moral philosophy offers several major traditions. Deontological ethics emphasizes duty, obligation, and moral rules. In this framework, some acts are understood to be required or forbidden regardless of their outcome (Alexander & Moore, 2023). Consequentialism evaluates actions by their outcomes and asks which choice is likely to produce the best overall consequences (Driver, 2022). Virtue ethics shifts attention from isolated acts to character, practical wisdom, and the kind of person one is becoming through action (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2023). The ethics of care emphasizes relationship, vulnerability, and responsibility within concrete human bonds rather than moral abstraction alone (Gilligan, 1982; Sevenhuijsen, 2018).

In everyday moral deliberation, one person might say, “I have to tell the truth,” invoking a deontological emphasis on duty. Another asks, “What will do the least harm?” echoing consequentialist concerns. Another wonders, “What would integrity require of me now?” speaking in virtue-ethical terms. Another asks, “What happens to these relationships if I act?” foregrounding care and relational responsibility. The language differs, but the underlying moral frameworks are recognizable.

This first layer matters because it shows that the lived inner experience of moral dilemmas is complex and internally conflicted. A single help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma may contain incompatible but intelligible claims. Duty may point toward speaking up, care may pull toward quietly protecting a vulnerable person, anticipated consequences may suggest delaying or altering the form of intervention, and character ideals may press toward visible courage. Even before deeper factors are considered, moral reasoning is already crowded with competing lines of thought.

The affective layer

Yet people do not enter help-versus-self-cost dilemmas as detached reasoners. They enter them as affective beings. Research in moral psychology has challenged the older assumption that moral judgment is primarily the product of deliberate reasoning. Haidt (2001) argued that moral judgments often arise quickly and automatically, while conscious reasoning frequently functions afterward as explanation or defense. Pizarro and Bloom (2003) recognized the importance of intuition while arguing that moral emotions can involve evaluative intelligence rather than mere irrationality.

In a help-versus-self-cost situation, the first movement is often affective rather than discursive. A witness may feel alarm, anger, shame, guilt, or a surge of protective concern when they see someone being harmed. They may also feel fear, dread, or anticipatory embarrassment about intervening. These responses matter because they organize attention. They shape what the person notices, what feels urgent, and what already seems permissible or intolerable (Haidt, 2001; Earp et al., 2021).

Damasio’s (1996) somatic marker hypothesis provides one way of understanding this interface between feeling and choice: bodily sensations (e.g., tension, warmth, unease, tightening) function as “markers” that tag options with emotional significance before full conscious deliberation. In help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas, these interoceptive signals may be among the first indications that “this matters,” even when the person has not yet articulated reasons. Yet moral experience is also shaped by exteroceptive cues: the expressions and postures of others in the room, the quality of silence, the atmosphere of fear or safety in the group. Interpersonal neurobiology emphasizes that awareness involves the integration of multiple “streams” of consciousness, including sensations from inside the body and perceptions of the external relational environment (Siegel, 2012). Body‑oriented and relational clinicians describe this as working in a shared field, where resonance, transference, countertransference, and the relational space function as a kind of transpersonal barometer of what can and cannot be spoken (Rolef Ben‑Shahar, 2014). Moral experience, in this sense, is not only cognitive. It is affectively, somatically, and relationally mediated from the start.

The importance of this layer becomes clear when moral conflict is intense. If one witness feels immediate anger in response to injustice and another feels immediate fear in response to potential conflict, they are not beginning from the same moral ground even when the external situation is the same. What is later described as “my conscience” may therefore include a strong, intuitive, and emotional component, shaped by prior experience and current context. This complicates any simple appeal to “just follow your conscience.” Conscience may be informed by thought and principle, but it is also carried by feeling.

The neurobiological layer

A further complication arises when the body reads the help-versus-self-cost situation as threatening. Research on childhood adversity and traumatic stress indicates that maltreatment can affect emotional processing, reward sensitivity, stress reactivity, and the development of stress-sensitive brain regions and networks involved in attention, threat detection, memory, and decision-making (Burdick et al., 2019; Teicher & Samson, 2016). Contemporary neuroscience supports this embodied view of moral life. Moral sensitivity and judgment emerge from distributed networks that integrate affect, empathy, and higher-order reasoning rather than residing in a single “moral center” (Decety, 2011; Yoder & Decety, 2017). Structures such as the amygdala, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), temporoparietal junction, and insula contribute to emotional resonance, valuation, and perspective-taking, and lesions in these regions can shift people toward more coldly utilitarian judgments detached from empathic concern (Greene et al., 2001; Koenigs et al., 2007). This means that a person’s moral life is not independent of the nervous system.

When danger is perceived, the organism may move toward defensive states rather than toward reflective openness. Attention narrows. Risk becomes more salient. The classic repertoire of fight, flight, freeze, fawn, and flop describes patterned autonomic responses that organize behavior in the face of threat (Kozlowska et al., 2015; Porges, 2009). A fight response mobilizes the body to confront danger; in a help-versus-self-cost dilemma, this may appear as challenging an abuser or interrupting harm. A flight response activates withdrawal or escape, such as leaving the room, avoiding the situation, or mentally disengaging. When neither fight nor flight seems viable, the system may shift into freeze: a state of tonic immobility or internal paralysis in which the person feels unable to move or speak, even while recognizing that something is wrong (Porges, 2009; Levine, 2010). Fawn refers to appeasing, placating, or aligning with the perceived source of threat to reduce danger, a pattern shaped not only by individual history but also by cultural expectations around deference, gender, and hierarchy (Taylor et al., 2000; Walker, 2013). In this sense, some forms of fawning can be understood as extensions of a broader “tend‑and‑befriend” repertoire, in which maintaining connection and reducing conflict become central survival priorities under stress. Taylor and colleagues describe tend‑and‑befriend as more characteristic of women’s stress responses, yet emphasize that affiliative coping strategies are not exclusive to women and are shaped by biological, relational, and cultural factors (Taylor et al., 2000). Lastly, flop or collapse describes a more extreme shutdown or hypoarousal, in which the nervous system conserves energy and agency is markedly reduced (Kozlowska et al., 2015).

Taken together, these responses are not simply “choices” in the ordinary sense. They are part of the defense repertoire of the autonomic nervous system. What trauma and chronic threat often change is the threshold for activating a particular pattern and the flexibility with which a person can move between them.

Trauma can be understood as an overwhelming experience that exceeds an individual’s capacity to cope, disrupting ordinary systems of control, connection, bodily regulation, and meaning (Herman, 1992; van der Kolk, 2014; Levine, 2010; Kalsched, 1996). When such traumatic experiences are chronic, relational, and often begin in childhood, they reshape identity, expectations of others, and the felt sense of safety in ways that characterize complex trauma or complex PTSD (CPTSD), in contrast to PTSD, which is more commonly associated with discrete, time‑limited events (Badenoch, 2017; Herman, 1992).

Walker (2013), who worked with individuals who experienced CPTSD, described how the nervous system can become organized around one dominant “4F” pattern: fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. In adulthood, the same automatic response may then be triggered repeatedly, even when circumstances have changed. Levine’s (2010) somatic work likewise emphasizes that when defensive responses could not be completed or integrated at the time of trauma, the system may remain primed to re-enter those states rapidly in later situations that echo the original danger.

In a workplace meeting where a supervisor humiliates a colleague, a witness with a history of being punished for speaking up may experience rapid autonomic arousal: racing heart, shallow breathing, a sense of freezing, or wanting to disappear. In that state, immediate safety may take priority over long-term principles, not because morality has disappeared, but because survival has become urgent (Burdick et al., 2019; Teicher & Samson, 2016). Psychophysiological work on moral decision-making suggests that moral conflict has measurable bodily correlates, such as changes in heart rate and skin conductance, rather than existing only at the level of abstract thought (Rosi et al., 2019).

This layer is especially important in morally charged settings such as abusive families, coercive workplaces, combat, medicine, or religious communities shaped by fear. In such contexts, remaining silent, appeasing a powerful person, or avoiding confrontation in a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma may appear, from the outside, to be moral weakness. From the inside, however, these responses are often organized by threat detection and survival learning rather than by indifference or cowardice. A serious account of moral life must therefore ask not only what the person believed, but also what state their body and nervous system were in when the decision was made.

The developmental and attachment layer

Moral life also develops within relationships. Attachment theory has long argued that early experiences with caregivers shape internal working models of self, others, and relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Waters et al., 2022). These representations are affectively charged and continue to guide later expectations and behavior. A person does not approach obligation, conflict, and dependence as a blank slate. They approach them through patterns formed in development.

This matters for help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas because early relationships influence how responsibility and risk are felt (Bowlby, 1988; Fairbairn, 1952; Herman, 1992). For some individuals, asserting a limit with an authority figure who was abusive or misused their power may be perceived as appropriate self‑protection (Herman, 1992). For others, the same act may be felt as betrayal, cruelty, or abandonment. Likewise, appeasing, submitting to, or siding with an authority figure may feel prudent to one person and morally intolerable to another. The present dilemma is therefore often rooted in earlier relational patterns with caregivers and other authority figures.

When caregivers are also sources of abuse, the attachment system is organized around a profound contradiction: the same person is both lifeline and threat (Bowlby, 1988; Main & Hesse, 1990). As a survival adaptation, children develop insecure attachment patterns—avoidant, anxious/ambivalent, or disorganized—that help them stay as safe and connected as possible in an unsafe relationship (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Main & Hesse, 1990). In disorganized attachment, for example, a child may crawl toward the caregiver and then suddenly freeze or retreat, visibly torn between the need for proximity and fear of the very person they depend on (Main & Hesse, 1990). ^1

Over time, such contradictions can contribute to broader patterns described in work on adverse childhood experiences (ACE) and complex trauma (CPTSD): abuse and neglect by primary caregivers are associated with disorganized attachment, fragmented self‑experience, and chronic difficulties with affect regulation, self‑worth, and trust (Felitti et al., 1998; Herman, 1992; Siegel, 2012). In such cases, children may cope by psychologically splitting off the abusive aspects of a parent in order to preserve the attachment bond, or by normalizing and minimizing abuse to remain connected to those they depend on (Fairbairn, 1952; Herman, 1992).

These early adaptations can reverberate in adulthood. Studies of the intergenerational transmission of abuse and victimization suggest that insecure and disorganized attachment patterns are associated with increased vulnerability to later interpersonal abuse, including intimate partner violence and other forms of coercive control (Mathews & MacLeod, 2005; Testa et al., 2011). Clinically, many survivors describe later abusive workplaces as a repetition or “second chapter” of earlier relational trauma. In this light, help-versus-self-cost dilemmas at work are not experienced in isolation but against the background of earlier experiences in which speaking up was dangerous, loyalty to an abusive caregiver felt necessary for survival, or no one intervened on their behalf.

Research on childhood trauma and adult moral decision-making supports this developmental view. Burdick et al. (2019) reported that childhood maltreatment, and in some findings, particularly neglect, was associated with measurable differences in adult moral decision-making, including a tendency toward more utilitarian responding in moral dilemmas. The significance of that finding is not that development determines fate. The significance is that moral judgment is developmentally embedded. A person may therefore encounter a present-day help-versus-self-cost dilemma while implicitly encountering earlier relational templates. The current question may be ethical, but the emotional meaning of the situation may be older: safety, abandonment, shame, loyalty, danger, or the fear of exclusion. In this sense, moral dilemmas are often shaped by attachment history as much as by explicit principle.

From an interpersonal neurobiology perspective, these developmental patterns are not merely cognitive schemas but embodied, relationally shaped forms of organization that influence affect regulation, perception of threat, and the integration of memory and meaning (Schore, 2012; Siegel, 2012). Disruptions in caregiver attunement, especially in abusive or frightening caregiving environments, alter the developing right-brain systems involved in stress regulation and social engagement, which can make later relational conflict and moral threat feel overwhelmingly dysregulating (Main & Hesse, 1990; Schore, 2012). A help-versus-self-cost dilemma may therefore resonate not only as a present-day ethical conflict, but as an implicit question about whether it is finally safe to see, name, or resist what was once unthinkable to acknowledge in the family of origin.

The relational and systemic layer

No one makes moral decisions alone, even when the final act is solitary. Families, organizations, and communities distribute roles, authority, and permission, and they establish implicit rules about who may question whom, whose suffering counts, and what kinds of truth may be spoken (Janis, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Systemic perspectives are useful here because they show that moral action in help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas takes place within patterned relationships and hierarchies rather than in isolation (Earp et al., 2021; Tajfel & Turner, 2004).

This layer highlights that the costs of acting in a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma are asymmetrically distributed, tracking existing hierarchies of power, status, and precarity within the system. A senior, securely employed person with social capital may risk discomfort, strained relationships, or slower advancement, whereas a junior, precarious, or marginalized person may risk job loss, intensified targeting, or reputational harm for the same intervention (Earp et al., 2021; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Put differently, it is about power, status, and asymmetrical risk in speaking up: those lower in a hierarchy routinely face greater relational and material costs for the same act of resistance than those higher in that hierarchy (Earp et al., 2021; Janis, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Structurally, they share the same dilemma—whether to help at personal cost or remain silent—but materially, the stakes differ. This asymmetry means that exhortations to “speak up” can land very differently depending on where a person sits in the system (Janis, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 2004).

Recent work on relational norms and moral judgment underscores this point. Earp et al. (2021) show that judgments of moral wrongness depend not only on the action itself but also on the type of social relationship involved and the cooperative expectations attached to that relationship. In help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas, the meaning of intervening or remaining silent is therefore partly determined by the roles and relationships that bind the witness to the person harmed, the person causing harm, and the wider group (Earp et al., 2021). Neurobiological research suggests that group‑protective and conforming behaviors in help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas are shaped not only by social norms and roles but also by neuroendocrine systems involved in attachment and threat, such as oxytocin (De Dreu et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2000). ²

Social identity and group‑decision research help clarify how these dynamics play out at the collective level. People adopt group identities to belong and then conform to the norms and behaviors of those groups, often amplifying in‑group cohesion and out‑group derogation (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Some studies have found that women conform more to group norms than men in particular situations, especially under conditions of social evaluation and threat, but these effects are modest and shaped by context and stereotype expectations (Björkqvist, 1994; Björkqvist et al., 1993). When individuals infer “what the group thinks” by averaging the perceived positions of others, they can develop an illusion of broad consent, which in turn fosters conformity and suppresses dissent (Janis, 1972). ³

This relational and positional layer helps explain why some morally serious decisions feel costly even before any action is taken. The anticipated loss is not only practical; it is relational. To resist may mean stepping outside a familiar role, challenging a hierarchy, or exposing a truth the system depends on not seeing (Janis, 1972). In a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma, the witness is not only weighing principles but also anticipating relational consequences, such as losing belonging, status, or access to resources (Earp et al., 2021; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). The dilemma is therefore not simply “What is right?” but also “What happens to me, and to these relationships, if I act on what I know?”

Image via Unsplash by Annie Spratt @anniespratt

The cultural and spiritual layer

Moral conflicts are also shaped by the broader language of the culture. People inherit moral narratives about obedience, sacrifice, justice, loyalty, suffering, and responsibility. These narratives are reinforced by institutions, professional norms, laws, and faith communities. In some contexts, help-versus-self-cost dilemmas are framed as tests of faithfulness, loyalty, or submission. In others, they are framed as opportunities for whistleblowing, resistance, or prophetic speech.

This wider layer matters because it can either support moral clarity or distort it. In settings marked by moral injury, institutional betrayal, or spiritual abuse, the very frameworks that should guide action may become part of the harm. A person may be told that endurance is holiness, silence is maturity, submission is love, or that exposing wrongdoing is itself the deeper sin (Ames et al., 2019; Nieuwsma et al., 2024). Work on betrayal trauma and institutional betrayal adds an important dimension here: harm is often compounded when the institution on which a person depends fails to prevent wrongdoing, respond supportively, or acknowledge what has occurred (Freyd & Birrell, 2013; Smith & Freyd, 2014).
In this sense, help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas may involve not only fear of interpersonal retaliation but also fear that the institution itself will respond in a betraying way. When this occurs, the witness may face a double bind: speak and risk abandonment or punishment by the institution, or remain silent and participate in the moral injury of omission. In settings where spiritual language is used to sanctify endurance, obedience, or silence, such dilemmas are further complicated by a felt fear of divine disapproval, community exclusion, or inner condemnation.

Work on moral injury is relevant here because it shows the depth of distress that can follow when persons perpetrate, witness, fail to prevent, or are subjected to acts that violate deeply held moral beliefs (Ames et al., 2019). The harm is not only psychological; it may also be existential and spiritual (Ames et al., 2019; Nieuwsma et al., 2024). Recent work on betrayal‑based moral injury suggests that betrayal by trusted institutions or authorities can become central to the wound itself, linking Freyd’s framework of institutional betrayal with contemporary moral injury research. Moral dilemmas are not only about choosing rightly in the present, but also about whether one can continue to live with oneself, with others, and sometimes with God after the fact.

The place of ethical theory

At this point, ethical theory can be reconsidered more carefully in light of the help‑versus‑self‑cost structure. Normative theories do not remove the complexity of lived moral experience, but they clarify the different standards people draw upon when they ask what they ought to do. A moral dilemma becomes especially difficult when several legitimate moral claims are present at once and when something important is at stake in each possible response.

A deontological approach emphasizes duty, principle, and the inherent dignity of persons. In a workplace meeting where a manager humiliates a younger colleague, a deontological perspective on the help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma asks whether such treatment violates a basic obligation to respect persons and not use them merely as means (Alexander & Moore, 2023). The stake here is moral integrity: even when intervention carries professional risk for the witness, silence may be judged as permitting a wrong that should not be normalized.

A consequentialist approach shifts the focus to outcomes. The question becomes which response in the help‑versus‑self‑cost situation is likely to reduce harm and produce the best overall consequences for those affected (Driver, 2022). In the same meeting, speaking up immediately may interrupt the humiliation but might also intensify retaliation against the target or the witness, whereas waiting and acting afterward—by documenting the incident, approaching the target privately, or using formal channels—may sometimes appear more effective. The stake here is the distribution of harm and protection across the whole field of persons involved.

Virtue ethics approaches the same scene from the standpoint of character and practical wisdom. Drawing on Aristotle and contemporary interpreters, it asks not only what rule applies or what outcome is best, but what kind of person one is becoming through one’s response (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2023). In this framework, courage, justice, and compassion are not abstract ideals; they are qualities enacted or weakened in concrete help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas. The stake here is character. Repeated silence in the face of humiliation may protect status in the short term, but it can also train the person to accommodate the misuse of power.

An ethics of care shifts attention again. Rather than beginning with abstract rules, it begins with relationship, vulnerability, and responsibility in a concrete human setting (Gilligan, 1982; Sevenhuijsen, 2018). The younger colleague is not simply an instance of a rights violation. She is a person in a position of lesser power, exposed to shame in a relational field she cannot easily leave. The bystander is not simply weighing principles. The bystander is also a participant in a web of dependence and responsibility. The stake here is the protection of the vulnerable and the quality of the relational world being sustained or abandoned.

Frankl belongs within this wider conversation rather than above it. Frankl (2006, 2017) emphasized conscience, meaning, and responsibility. His question is not only what rule applies or what consequence follows, but what life is asking of the person in this moment and whether the person can take a meaningful stance toward it. In a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma, this perspective remains morally powerful because it refuses to reduce the individual to circumstance alone. At the same time, Frankl is one voice among several. His emphasis on meaning and freedom under constraint deepens ethical reflection, but it does not replace the insights of duty, consequence, character, or care.

Taken together, these theories explain why help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemmas are difficult, even when a person recognizes that something is wrong. Duty may be at stake. Consequences for others may be at stake. One’s character may be at stake. A vulnerable person’s dignity and the fabric of the relationship may be at stake. Meaning, conscience, and the ability to live with one’s own actions may also be at stake. Ethical theory helps not by collapsing these tensions into a single formula, but by naming them more clearly.

Conclusion

A moral dilemma, and specifically a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma, is not only a conflict of principles. It is a lived event in which reflective judgment, emotion, survival responses, developmental history, relational systems, and cultural meanings converge. To understand how a person acts in such a moment, it is not enough to ask which principle they endorsed. It is also necessary to ask what they felt when they perceived another’s harm, what they feared might happen if they intervened, what relationships were at stake, what their nervous system perceived, what history was activated, and what moral world they inhabited.

This broader view does not weaken ethics. It makes ethics more realistic. It allows moral reflection to remain normatively serious while also psychologically, developmentally, and relationally informed. It also clarifies what is at stake for the witness: integrity, consequences for others, character, relationship, and meaning. Only then can the question “What should a person do?” in a help‑versus‑self‑cost dilemma be asked in a way that is both intellectually rigorous and faithful to actual human experience. Such an account can also guide how we form, support, and accompany people who find themselves in these dilemmas, whether in clinical work, communities, or institutions.

Notes

[^1] On theoretical grounds, one might therefore expect that attachment‑anxious individuals would be more likely, and dismissive‑avoidant individuals less likely, to raise concerns, while disorganized individuals might experience a strong internal conflict about speaking up; however, current empirical work does not yet directly test these possibilities and they are best regarded as hypotheses extending from attachment research rather than settled findings (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

[^2] Neurobiological research extends this relational picture. Oxytocin, a neuropeptide involved in attachment and bonding, has been implicated in increased in‑group favoritism, conformity to group opinions, and defensive aggression toward perceived out‑groups, especially when social pressure is implicit, supporting “tend‑and‑befriend” as well as group‑protective responses (De Dreu et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor, 2012). Socialization further channels these tendencies through gendered norms and stereotypes about how girls, boys, and gender‑diverse youth “should” express anger and manage conflict, even though empirical gender differences in relational versus physical aggression are generally small, context‑dependent, and far from universal (Björkqvist, 1994; Björkqvist et al., 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al., 2006; Card et al., 2008).

[^3] When shielded from opposing views, such groups may drift toward more extreme and harmful decisions; in contemporary political contexts, this process has been described as affective polarization, in which partisan in‑group attachment coexists with intensified out‑group hostility (Janis, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 2004).

© 2026 Dr. Kerstin Hecker. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any form without prior written permission from the author, except for brief quotations with proper citation.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.

Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2023). Deontological ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.).

Ames, D., Nieuwsma, J. A., & Koenig, H. G. (2019). Moral injury and spirituality in veterans. UCLA/Duke Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health.

Badenoch, B. (2017). The heart of trauma: Healing the embodied brain in the context of relationships (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). W. W. Norton & Company.

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1993). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20(1), 27–33.

Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 177-188.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Burdick, K. E., et al. (2019). Effects of childhood trauma on adult moral decision-making: Clinical correlates and insights from bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 244, 180–186.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Kawabata, Y. (2006). Relational aggression and gender: Developmental and social psychological perspectives. In R. K. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 199–218). American Psychological Association.

Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413–1420.

Decety, J. (2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion Review, 3(1), 92–108.

De Dreu et al. (2011). Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(4), 1262–1266

Driver, J. (2022). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 ed.).

Earp, B. D., McLoughlin, K. L., Monrad, J. T., Clark, M. S., Da Silva, S., Hannikainen, I. R., & Willer, R. (2021). How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments. Nature Communications, 12, 5776.

Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. Routledge.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. E. (2017). The unconscious God: Psychotherapy and theology. Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 1955)

Freyd, J. J., & Birrell, P. J. (2013). Blind to betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren’t being fooled. John Wiley & Sons.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Basic Books.

Howard-Snyder, F. (2023). Doing and allowing harm. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.).

Huang, Y., Kendrick, K. M., Zheng, H., & Yu, R. (2015). Oxytocin enhances implicit social conformity to both in-group and out-group opinions. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 60, 114–119.

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2023). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.).

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton-Mifflin.

Kalsched, D. (1996). The inner world of trauma: Archetypal defenses of the personal spirit. Routledge.

Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446(7138), 908–911.

Kozlowska, K., Walker, P., McLean, L., & Carrive, P. (2015). Fear and the defense cascade: Clinical implications and management. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23(4), 263–287.

Levine, P. A. (2010). In an unspoken voice: How the body releases trauma and restores goodness. North Atlantic Books.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161–182). University of Chicago Press.

Mathews, B., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 167–195.

McConnell, T. (2022). Moral dilemmas. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 ed.).

Nieuwsma, J. A., Koenig, H. G., Vogt, D., Currier, J. M., & Ames, D. (2024). A theoretical framework on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and moral injury. Duke Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health.

Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2003). The intelligence of the moral intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001). Psychological Review, 110(1), 193–196.

Porges, S. W. (2009). The polyvagal theory: New insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 76(Suppl 2), S86–S90.

Rolef Ben‑Shahar, A. (2014). Touching the relational edge: Body psychotherapy. Routledge.

Rosi, A., Buri, M., Roos, E., & others. (2019). Physiological correlates of moral decision-making in the workplace. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 849–861.

Schore, A. N. (2012). The science of the art of psychotherapy. W. W. Norton.

Sevenhuijsen, S. (2018). Care ethics. In J. M. Fritzman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of political thought. Wiley.

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

Taylor, S. E. (2012). Tend and befriend theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology 1, 32–49. SAGE.

Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend‑and‑befriend, not fight‑or‑flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411

Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A. (2016). Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241–266.

Testa, M., Hoffman, J. H., & Leonard, K. E. (2011). Female intimate partner violence perpetration: Stability and predictors of mutual and nonmutual aggression across the first year of college. Aggressive Behavior, 37(4), 362–373.

Walker, P. (2013). Complex PTSD: From surviving to thriving. Azure Coyote.

Waters, T. E. A., Facompré, C. R., Van de Walle, M., Dujardin, A., Bosmans, G., & Waters, H. S. (2022). Taking perspective on attachment theory and research: Nine fundamental questions. Attachment & Human Development, 24(6), 663–691.

Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2017). The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(3), 279–295.

Yudkin, D. A., Goodwin, G. P., Reece, A., Gray, K., & Bhatia, S. (2025). A large-scale investigation of everyday moral dilemmas. PNAS Nexus, 4(5), pgaf119.