Deontological morality can be experimentally enhanced by increasing disgust. A transcranial direct current stimulation study

Previous studies empirically support the existence of a distinctive association between deontological (but not altruistic) guilt and both disgust and obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms. Given that the neural substrate underlying deontological guilt comprises brain regions strictly implicated in the emotion of disgust (i.e. the insula), the present study aimed to test the hypothesis that indirect stimulation of the insula via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would enhance disgust and morality in the deontological domain. A randomized, sham-controlled, within-subject design was used. Thirty-seven healthy individuals (25 women) underwent 15-min anodal and sham tDCS over T3 in two different days, while their heart rate (HR) was recorded to derive measures of parasympathetic nervous system activity (HR variability; HRV). After the first 10-min of sham or active tDCS stimulation, participants were asked to 1) complete a series of 6-item words that could be completed with either a disgust-related word (cleaning/dirtiness) or neutral alternatives; 2) rate how much a series of vignettes, each depicting a behavior that violated a specific moral foundation, were morally wrong. Levels of trait anxiety, depression, disgust sensitivity, scrupulosity, and altruism as well as pre- and post- stimulation momentary emotional states were assessed. Compared to the sham condition, after active stimulation of T3 a) HRV significantly increased and participants b) completed more words in terms of cleaning/dirtiness and c) reported greater subjective levels of disgust, all suggesting the elicitation of the emotion of disgust. Although the results are only marginally significant, they point to the absence of difference between the two experimental conditions for moral vignettes in the altruistic domain (i.e., animal care, emotional and physical human care), but not in the deontological domain (i.e., authority, fairness, liberty, and sacrality), where vignettes were judged as more morally wrong in the active compared to the sham condition. Moreover, scores on the OCI-R correlated with how much vignettes were evaluated as morally wrong in the deontological domain only. Results preliminarily support the association between disgust and morality in the deontological domain, with important implications for OC disorder (OCD). Future studies should explore the possibility of decreasing both disgust and morality in patients with OCD by the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques

The Means/Side-Effect Distinction in Moral Cognition: A Meta-Analysis

Experimental research suggests that people draw a moral distinction between bad outcomes brought about as a means versus a side effect (or byproduct). Such findings have informed multiple psychological and philosophical debates about moral cognition, including its computational structure, its sensitivity to the famous Doctrine of Double Effect, its reliability, and its status as a universal and innate mental module akin to universal grammar. But some studies have failed to replicate the means/byproduct effect especially in the absence of other factors, such as personal contact. So we aimed to determine how robust the means/byproduct effect is by conducting a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished studies (k = 101; 24,058 participants). We found that while there is an overall small difference between moral judgments of means and byproducts (standardized mean difference = 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 – 1.06; standardized mean change = 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 – 0.69; log odds ratio = 1.59, 95% CI 1.15 – 2.02), the mean effect size is primarily moderated by whether the outcome is brought about by personal contact, which typically involves the use of personal force

Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents

Whether, and if so, how exactly gender differences are manifested in moral judgment has recently been at the center of much research on moral decision making. Previous research suggests that women are more deontological than men in personal, but not impersonal, moral dilemmas. However, typical personal and impersonal moral dilemmas differ along two dimensions: personal dilemmas are more emotionally salient than impersonal ones and involve a violation of Kant’s practical imperative that humans must never be used as a mere means, but only as ends. Thus, it remains unclear whether the reported gender difference is due to emotional salience or to the violation of the practical imperative. To answer this question, we explore gender differences in three moral dilemmas: a typical personal dilemma, a typical impersonal dilemma, and an intermediate dilemma, which is not as emotionally salient as typical personal moral dilemmas, but contains an equally strong violation of Kant’s practical imperative. While we replicate the result that women tend to embrace deontological ethics more than men in personal, but not impersonal, dilemmas, we find no gender differences in the intermediate situation. This suggests that gender differences in these type of dilemmas are driven by emotional salience, and not by the violation of the practical imperative. Additionally, we also explore whether people think that women should behave differently than men in these dilemmas. Across all three dilemmas, we find no statistically significant differences about how people think men and women should behave

Risk of Material Misstatement, Supply Chain Management and Audit Liability in Economy Development

Abstract— In today’s complex connected world, supply chain is more and more recognised as a key source of competitive advantage and differentiation. Companies strive to build powerful supply chains that will enable them to get their products to market faster, more efficiently and more economically than their competition. The auditor should provide judgment with professionals, but empirical findings indicate the auditor is influenced by supply chain managements that can the determination of risk of material misstatement. With the fraud found in several large companies in Indonesia that have received reasonable opinions without exceptions, the auditor is accused of not professionally determining risk of material misstatement. The purpose of this study is to investigate the auditor's views on the allegations of failure of audit judgment when the client receives a reasonable opinion without exception but later it is proven that the client is cheating financial statements. This research also aims to explore supply chain managements that have the potential to influence the determination of the auditor's risk of material misstatement in the auditor's legal obligations related to fraud detection. The novelty of this research is in the search for factors that influence auditor judgment in the form of risk of material misstatement. Previous research in behavioral aspects in the context of the audit examined the auditor's judgment in terms of audit opinion as well as fraud risk assessment. Risk of material misstatement is relevant in explaining the various phenomena that accuse auditors when fraud is found in companies that have been given a fair opinion without exception. The study design was employed Qualitative methods using interview techniques with several key informants. Resource persons who act as informants are CPA firm partners who are partners in the big ten in Indonesia. The results showed that the supply chain managements that caused the auditor not to determine professional judgment in the form of risk of material misstatement were auditor's lack of skepticism, individual bias, lack of training and lack of supervision from the audit manager during fieldwork. The results of this research can be used by the Indonesian Institute of Certified Public Accountants in conducting training that is able to improve the quality and capability of auditors to improve the ability to formulate risk of material misstatement

Behavioral Indices of Neuropsychological Processing Implicated in Moral Domain Reasoning amongst Children and Adolescents

Moral domain theory posits that moral knowledge is organized in separate domains related to moral and socio-conventional rules, with the latter being reliant on a statement made by authority. Domains may be contingent on different neuropsychological processing that may vary with age. Behavioral indices were measured in three age groups, to detect differences in the neuropsychological processing allegedly involved in the evaluation of rule transgressions in different domains. Acceptance of the transgressions was also investigated. Twenty-four children, 32 early adolescents, and 31 adolescents judged acceptability of rule transgressions when an authority figure allowed the transgression. Across age, moral-rule transgressions were less accepted and took significantly longer to be evaluated. In evaluating moral rule scenarios, children had the longest reaction times. Older adolescents took the least amount of time evaluating socio-conventional rule scenarios. Results suggest differences in the neuropsychological processing underlying decision making for moral and socio-conventional domains and that rule comprehension and distinction amongst domains increase by age

Gender differences in the trade-off between objective equality and efficiency

Gender differences in human behaviour have attracted generations of social scientists, who have explored whether males and females act differently in domains involving competition, risk taking, cooperation, altruism, honesty, as well as many others. Yet, little is known about gender differences in the equity-efficiency trade-off. It has been suggested that females are more equitable than males, but the empirical evidence is weak and inconclusive. This gap is particularly important, because people in power of redistributing resources often face a conflict between equity and efficiency, to the point that this trade-off has been named as “the central problem in distributive justice”. The recently introduced Trade-Off Game (TOG) – in which a decision-maker has to unilaterally choose between being equitable or being efficient – offers a unique opportunity to fill this gap. To this end, I analyse gender differences on a large dataset including all N=5,056 TOG decisions collected by my research group since we introduced this game. The results show that females prefer equity over efficiency to a greater extent than males do. These findings suggest that males and females have different preferences for resource distribution, and point to new avenues for future research

Gender differences in the trade-off between objective equality and efficiency

Gender differences in human behaviour have attracted generations of social scientists, who have explored whether males and females act differently in domains involving competition, risk taking, cooperation, altruism, honesty, as well as many others. Yet, little is known about gender differences in the equity-efficiency trade-off. It has been suggested that females are more equitable than males, but the empirical evidence is weak and inconclusive. This gap is particularly important, because people in power of redistributing resources often face a conflict between equity and efficiency, to the point that this trade-off has been named as “the central problem in distributive justice”. The recently introduced Trade-Off Game (TOG) – in which a decision-maker has to unilaterally choose between being equitable or being efficient – offers a unique opportunity to fill this gap. To this end, I analyse gender differences on a large dataset including all N=5,056 TOG decisions collected by my research group since we introduced this game. The results show that females prefer equity over efficiency to a greater extent than males do. These findings suggest that males and females have different preferences for resource distribution, and point to new avenues for future research

Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral judgment in college students

Purpose: Although psychopathy is characterized by amoral behavior, literature on the association between psychopathy and moral judgment pattern is mixed. Recent evidence suggests that this may be due to the moderation effect of anxiety (Koenigs, Kruepke, Zeier, & Newman, 2011). The current study aims to examine the psychopathy-utilitarian judgment association in college students. Method: In this study, a group of 302 college students completed a moral judgment test involving hypothetical dilemmas. Their psychopathic traits were assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Short Form (PPI-SF) (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Results: Individuals with higher psychopathic traits were more likely to make utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Furthermore, the association between utilitarian responses and psychopathy was more salient for the behavioral factor of psychopathy (PPI-II), and this association was mediated by self-reported aggression. However, the moderating effect of anxiety was not found. Conclusions: These results build upon work on utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathic individuals in a non-incarcerated, non-institutionalized sample, and have important implications for the behavioral correc- tion system