Healthy Controls, Moral Development, Moral Dilemma, Moral Justification
Conditions
Brief summary
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on 1 to 4 points scale) of qualitative variables in the moral justification expressed by the subjects.
Detailed description
The aim of this study is to test wether a single intervention on moral reasoning can have short and/or mid-term effects on the justification of moral judgements about a problematic moral case. Focusing on justification allows to assess reasonable improvement by referring to a procedural standard, that is, without assuming any substantive normative view; namely, without evaluating a betterment on the basis of the content of moral judgements, but rather on the satisfaction of formal, procedural conditions in their justification. Our standard for a good moral justification consists in a set of procedural features, such as logical, empirical, and conceptual competence, openness to revision, sympathetic imagination, and bias avoidance. Once enrolled, participants will be randomized through random.org software in the two experimental groups: 1) the moral and 2) the non-moral condition. Allocation concealment will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will undergo a neuropsychological assessment and a (optional) task-based fMRI at study entry. Furthermore, during the day of the intervention (seminar: moral or logical reasoning), participants will undergo a pre-test (before the intervention) and a post-test (after the intervention) on a morally problematic case. The same test will be repeated by all participants one month after the intervention.
Interventions
OTHERLecture on moral reasoning
One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning
OTHERLecture on logical reasoning
One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles
Sponsors
Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele
IRCCS San Raffaele
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Blinding will be maintained for allocation concealment, which will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will be labelled with a numerical code to ensure anonymisation. Subjects, teachers, evaluators and statisticians will be blind to allocation. Specifically, teachers of both groups will be not informed about the aim of the study. They will be provided with specular material for the seminar (same structure and number of slides). They will be only informed to not answer to specific questions about dilemmas. Subjects of a group will be informed that the other group is attending a seminar on reasoning. They will be separated until the end of the post-test phase.
Intervention model description
Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 26 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* University students (other than Philosophy) within the first 3 years * Aged between 18 and 26 years old * Italian speakers * Oral and written informed consent to study participation
Exclusion criteria
* A current psychiatric condition * Contraindications to MRI study (cardiac pacemakers; metal splinters or fragments; metal protheses not compatible with the magnetic field; claustrophobia; women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant during the study; breastfeeding women).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Short and mid-term (one month) impact of moral vs non-moral reasoning interventions on moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects when performing a moral dilemma. | Baseline, 5 weeks | The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on a 0 to 3 points scale) in the moral justifications expressed by the subjects in six domains: empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities. | Baseline, 5 weeks | To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and changes in moral justification abilities in six domains (empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions) assessed using a 0-3 point scale. |
| Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements. | Baseline, 5 weeks | To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and agreement with moral statements assessed using a 0-3 point scale. |
| Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention. | Baseline, 5 weeks | To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and confidence post-intervention assessed by using 0-3 point scales. |
Countries
Italy
Outcome results
None listed