Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 24;41(8):1699–1715. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1237-20.2020

Table 2.

Results of mixed-effect logistic regressions predicting moral choices

Allb Goodb Badb Bad: privateb Bad: publicb
Intercept 0.63 (0.39) 0.54 (0.53) 2.64** (0.81) 2.57** (0.84) 3.26*** (0.88)
Group 0.86 (0.64) 1.31 (0.86) 3.41* (1.42) 4.16** (1.53) 2.32 (1.44)
Audience 0.11 (0.08) 0.15 (0.10) 0.27** (0.10)
Moral context 0.95*** (0.08)
Group × audience −0.17 (0.13) −0.23 (0.16) −0.44* (0.22)
Group × moral context 0.89*** (0.15)
Audience × moral context 0.09 (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,b 0.83*** (0.04) .33*** (0.05) 0.34*** (0.06) 0.35*** (0.07)
Agea 0.19 (0.32) 0.50 (0.43) 0.26 (0.70) 0.23 (0.70) 0.12 (0.73)
AIC 10,501.0 4340.7 3148.7 1649.7 1551.1
BIC 10,574.8 4394.1 3202.2 1685.6 1587.1
N (Observation) 11,823 5912 5911 2948 2963
N (Participant) 47 47 47 47 47

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.