The Perspective-Simulating Mind: How Internal Representations Shape Moral Judgment and Action

Abstract Mental imagery is a simulation process, yet its representational format is rarely measured in moral cognition. We tested whether spontaneously adopted imagery perspective (first- vs third-person) and imagery vividness relate to moral evaluation in trolley dilemmas. In an online sample (N = 156), participants read either a switch or footbridge scenario, judged moral acceptability and willingness to act (order randomized), and after each judgment reported imagery vividness (1–6; including a “no imagery” option) and perspective. We replicated the classic asymmetry: acceptability and willingness were far higher in the switch than the footbridge dilemma. Imagery perspective was largely consistent within persons across the two judgments, indicating a stable simulation stance. In the footbridge dilemma, third-person simulation was associated with higher moral acceptability than first-person simulation, whereas no association emerged in the switch dilemma; perspective did not meaningfully alter willingness to act. Vividness showed no robust scenario differences, but action-related imagery was more vivid than judgment-related imagery, and some participants reported no visual imagery for at least one judgment. These findings identify representational perspective as a parameter of mental simulation that can shape moral evaluation under high emotional load, linking imagery research to questions of conscious experience and choice.