Target: Groups of men and women were asked whether they would kill a young Hitler (pictured above aged 25) to prevent WWII . It is a classic question of morality - if you could travel back in time and prevent the Second World War by killing a young Hitler, would you? You could hypothetically save millions of lives - but at the cost of personally murdering someone who had yet to do anything wrong. The answer, according to a recent scientific study, has a lot to do with your gender; and women are far more reluctant to cause any harm in the short term in order to get a better result in the long run. Researchers from Germany, Canada and the United States analysed answers to the Hitler question, and others like it, from 6,100 people. They found that significantly more men than women would kill to save lives further down the line, while women were more troubled by the act itself and would often decide to do nothing. Other dilemmas tested included a scenario where a group of people were hiding from soldiers trying to kill them, but were about to be given away by a baby crying. The choice is whether to smother the child and save the group, or keep it alive and be caught. A third imagined a farming family who had fallen on hard times and had no food to eat. Their only way to avoid starvation would be to have their young daughter carry out sex work for money. The study, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, grouped the responses into two groups. Those who chose short-term harm to get an overall better result were termed utilitarians. The other group, for whom the ends could not justify the means, were called deontologists. Differences: The study revealed that women are more reluctant than men to do something harmful in the short-term to secure a better result in the long term (file photo) Hard times: Another question imagined that the only way out of poverty and stavation was making a young girl do sex work for money (file photo) The scientists found that men were moderately more likely to fall into the utilitarian camp, while in women there was a very pronounced trend to go the opposite way. Other data also suggested that women found the decisions more agonizing than the men, who had relatively straightforward time coming to their conclusion. Rebecca Friesdorf, one of the researchers, who is based at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, said that the results seem to show women employ more emotion making their decisions, while men go more on logic alone. As the women had stronger, competing urges in each scenario, they found the dilemmas more difficult. Explaining her study to NPR, she said: 'Women seem to be feeling more equal levels of both emotion and cognition. They seem to be experiencing similar levels of both, so it's more difficult for them to make their choice.'
Researchers in USA, Canada and Germany analyzed 6,100 responses . Found men were more likely than women to say ends justify the means . Whichever way they decided, women also found the decisions harder . Scientists speculated it is because women's reasoning is more emotional .