Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities

NCT06735989 | Completed DMC

• 1 other identifier: Moral-REA
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 86
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

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.

Conditions

Moral Development; Moral Dilemma; Healthy Controls; Moral Justification

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• 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.

  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.

  Baseline, 5 weeks

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities.

  Baseline, 5 weeks

• Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements.

  Baseline, 5 weeks

• Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention.

  Baseline, 5 weeks

Study Arms (2)

Moral

EXPERIMENTAL

The Moral group will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of moral justification, and outlining brief descriptions of six morally relevant factors. The Moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on moral reasoning.

Other: Lecture on moral reasoning

Non-moral

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The Non-moral will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of argumentation, and outlining brief descriptions of six logical and argumentative principles. The Non-moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on (non-moral) logical reasoning.

Other: Lecture on logical reasoning

Interventions

Lecture on logical reasoning OTHER

One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles

Non-moral

Lecture on moral reasoning OTHER

One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning

Moral

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 26 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• 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

You may not qualify if:

• 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).

Sponsors & Collaborators

• IRCCS San Raffaele: lead
• Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

IRCCS San Raffaele

Milan, Italy, 20132, Italy

Location

Related Publications (9)

• 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.

  PMID: 28343626 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 11557895 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 11699120 BACKGROUND

• Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.

  PMID: 19739881 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 34556899 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 19251619 BACKGROUND

• Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.

  PMID: 30956726 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 32721655 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 25981733 BACKGROUND

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: 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.
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Prof.

Model Details: Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 31, 2024
• First Posted: December 16, 2024
• Study Start: November 18, 2022
• Primary Completion: February 19, 2024
• Study Completion: October 13, 2025
• Last Updated: December 23, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-12

Locations

IT (1)