Clinical trial NCT06735989: Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
Official title: Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Moral Development
Moral Dilemma
Healthy Controls
Moral Justification
Lead sponsor: IRCCS San Raffaele
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele
First posted: 2024-12-16
Enrollment: 150
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 26
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.
Primary purpose: OTHER

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.

Eligibility criteria: 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).

Primary outcomes:
measure: 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.
timeFrame: Baseline, 5 weeks
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities.
timeFrame: Baseline, 5 weeks
measure: Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements.
timeFrame: Baseline, 5 weeks
measure: Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention.
timeFrame: Baseline, 5 weeks
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Milan
country: Italy
facility: IRCCS San Raffaele
Study officials:
References:
citation: Greene JD. The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:66-77. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
citation: Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872.
citation: Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814.
citation: Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.
citation: Klenk M, Sauer H. Moral Judgement and Moral Progress: The Problem of Cognitive Control. Philos Psychol. 2021 Jul 2;34(7):938-961. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2021.1931670. eCollection 2021.
citation: Rozin P, Haidt J, Fincher K. Psychology. From oral to moral. Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1179-80. doi: 10.1126/science.1170492. No abstract available.
citation: Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
citation: Schwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P. Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.
citation: Schwitzgebel E, Cushman F. Philosophers' biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition. 2015 Aug;141:127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 May 14.