Aims ---- This pilot study aimed at testing whether the fraud scenario developed for Study 2 was perceived as intended. In particular, we wanted to know if the participants perceived the described situation as immoral. Procedure ---- *N* = 63 participants were recruited from a subject-panel of the University of Bonn in April and May 2017. All participants had the chance to win one out of five 50 Euros in cash or as voucher. First, participants' demograhics (age, sex, major, semester) was assessed. Second, the participants read a description of our fraud scenario. Third, they were asked to rate their feelings towards the described scenario. Fourth, they were asked if they perceived the situation as severe and immoral. Fifth, we asked which particular norms the situation potentially violated. Sixth, we asked how difficult and risky they would experience it to intervene in such a situation. Seventh, they rated how likely they would show different kinds of behaviors to stop the fraud. Research questions ---- RQ1: Which emotional reactions follow from reading about our scenario? RQ2: Is the described scenario perceived as immoral? RQ3: Which (moral) norms are perceived to be at stake in our described scenario? RQ4: How difficult is it perceived to intervene in the described scenario? RQ5: How risky is it perceived to intervene in the described scenario? RQ6: How strongly would a person intend to intervene against the described behavior? Findings ---- Results regarding our research questions RQ1: Which emotional reactions follow from reading about our scenario? Our results indicate that the participants would experience feelings of anger, but no guilt, empathy, anxiety, or pride if they were confronted with the described scenario. RQ2: Is the described scenario perceived as immoral? According to our data, the scenario is perceived as highly immoral and severe violation of moral norms. From all participants, n = 59 gave additional information in an open question about their reasons why they judged the described scenario in a certain way. RQ3: Which (moral) norms are perceived to be at stake in our described scenario? Our participants stated that the described scenario in particular violated norms related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, and authority/respect, and freedom. Within these norms, only freedom was perceived as violated to a lesser extent than the others. All other norms were perceived to be violated equally. Norms that are related to purity/sanctity were not perceived to be at stake in the described scenario. RQ4: How difficult is it perceived to intervene in the described scenario? RQ5: How risky is it perceived to intervene in the described scenario? On average most participants stated that it would be difficult to intervene against the described behavior. However, the participants would not be afraid of negative consequences or personal risks when intervening. RQ6: How strongly would a person intend to intervene against the described behavior? The majority of all participants (59.0%) stated that they would directly intervene against the fraud, for example by telling the experimenters that their behavior is wrong. In addition to our items, 11 participants gave further information about their potential behavior in an open question. Eight of these participants wrote that they would rather not directly intervene against the fraud, but report the incident to the project leader. One person stated that he/she would confront the experimenters, another that he/she would talk to the other participant about the case, and one person wrote that one could also join the fraud. Further findings The results of bivariate correlation between emotions, perceptions, and behavior intention variables suggest: • All negative emotions (anger, guilt, anxiety) were positively interrelated. • Feelings of anger were positively related to the perceived severity and immorality of the situation. • Guilt feelings were positively related to the perceived severity and risk of intervening. • Empathy was positively related to the perceived difficulty and risk of intervening. • Anxiety feelings were positively related to the perceived risk of intervening. • Pride was negatively related to the perceived severity and immorality of the situation. • The perceived severity and the perceived immorality were positively related. • The perceived difficulty and the perceived risk of intervening were positively related. • The perceived severity and immorality of the situation were both unrelated to the perceived difficulty and risk of intervening. • Feelings of anger increase, whereas feelings of empathy decrease the intention to intervene against the behavior of the experimenters. All other emotions were unrelated to the intervention intention. • The perceived severity and the perceived immorality of the scenario were unrelated to participants’ behavior intentions. • The more the participants perceived the situation as difficult and risky, the less likely would they intervene against the experimenters’ behavior. Interpretation and Conclusions ---- The participants perceived the experimenters’ behavior as immoral and severe. According to them, a broad range of moral norms is violated. Although the participants did not perceive the situation to be risky, they stated that it would be difficult to intervene. Still, the majority of all participants expressed their willingness to intervene in such a situation. Most important, the core characteristics of a moral courage situation are met.