Omponents of empathy. To foreshadow the results, we found across three

Omponents of empathy. To foreshadow the results, we found Procyanidin B1MedChemExpress Procyanidin B1 across three experiments that responders who were consistently utilitarian showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern, in the absence of any other cultural or demographic differences.ExperimentThe experiments in this study were approved by the ethics committee at the Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO) according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.ParticipantsVolunteer participants [n = 1339; mean age: 25.7 years (SD = 11.2), mean education: 13.4 years (SD = 3.9)] were recruited by word of mouth and directed to the present web-based study. We excluded subjects who (a) were younger than 18 years old, (b) reported a personal history of traumatic brain injury, psychiatric disease, or drug abuse, or (c) failed the “control” question at the end of the experiment, by answering “No” in response to “Did you answer all questions honestly/thoughtfully?” All participants gave informed written consent before beginning the experiment.ProcedureParticipants reported age, gender, and education on the first page of the online study, and then completed a series of tasks, the order of which was randomized across participants. Descriptions of tasks follow. Moral judgment. Participants were presented with a pair of moral dilemmas, in counterbalanced order (i.e., some participants read the impersonal scenario first, while others read the personal scenario first). Each scenario required participants to choose whether to harm one person to save five people. The “personal” dilemma featured an emotionally salient harm (e.g., pushing a man off a bridge); the “impersonal” dilemma featured a less emotionally salient harm (e.g., flipping a switch to redirect a trolley onto a man) [12,13]. In particular, participants were presented with the standard trolley dilemma (impersonal) and the footbridge dilemma (personal) (Table S1). In the trolley dilemma, the utilitarian response was to flip the switch to turn the trolley away from five people and onto one person instead, whereas the nonutilitarian response was to allow the trolley to hit the five people. In the footbridge dilemma, the utilitarian response was to push a man off a bridge so that his body would stop the trolley from hitting five people further down the tracks, whereas the nonPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgutilitarian response was to allow the trolley to allow the trolley to hit the five people. Participants’ responses to the pair of moral dilemmas were used to classify participants into four groups, for analyses below (Figure 1): (1) UTILITARIAN (UTIL) participants delivered the utilitarian response for both scenarios; (2) NON-UTILITARIAN (NON-UTIL) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response for both scenarios; (3) MAJORITY participants delivered the utilitarian response for the impersonal scenario but the nonutilitarian response for the personal scenario, a response pattern observed in the vast majority of participants across a number of prior studies using the same scenarios and therefore reflecting the “average” or modal moral judge [10,11,13,15,20,30,31]; and (4) purchase Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide (human, rat, mouse, rabbit, canine, porcine) OUTLIER participants delivered the non-utilitarian response for the impersonal scenario but the utilitarian response for the personal scenario. Of the total number of participants in this analysis, 213 (15.9 ) were classified into the UTIL group, 505 (37.7 ) into the NON-UTIL group, 606 (45.3 ) were classified into the MAJORITY group.Omponents of empathy. To foreshadow the results, we found across three experiments that responders who were consistently utilitarian showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern, in the absence of any other cultural or demographic differences.ExperimentThe experiments in this study were approved by the ethics committee at the Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO) according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.ParticipantsVolunteer participants [n = 1339; mean age: 25.7 years (SD = 11.2), mean education: 13.4 years (SD = 3.9)] were recruited by word of mouth and directed to the present web-based study. We excluded subjects who (a) were younger than 18 years old, (b) reported a personal history of traumatic brain injury, psychiatric disease, or drug abuse, or (c) failed the “control” question at the end of the experiment, by answering “No” in response to “Did you answer all questions honestly/thoughtfully?” All participants gave informed written consent before beginning the experiment.ProcedureParticipants reported age, gender, and education on the first page of the online study, and then completed a series of tasks, the order of which was randomized across participants. Descriptions of tasks follow. Moral judgment. Participants were presented with a pair of moral dilemmas, in counterbalanced order (i.e., some participants read the impersonal scenario first, while others read the personal scenario first). Each scenario required participants to choose whether to harm one person to save five people. The “personal” dilemma featured an emotionally salient harm (e.g., pushing a man off a bridge); the “impersonal” dilemma featured a less emotionally salient harm (e.g., flipping a switch to redirect a trolley onto a man) [12,13]. In particular, participants were presented with the standard trolley dilemma (impersonal) and the footbridge dilemma (personal) (Table S1). In the trolley dilemma, the utilitarian response was to flip the switch to turn the trolley away from five people and onto one person instead, whereas the nonutilitarian response was to allow the trolley to hit the five people. In the footbridge dilemma, the utilitarian response was to push a man off a bridge so that his body would stop the trolley from hitting five people further down the tracks, whereas the nonPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgutilitarian response was to allow the trolley to allow the trolley to hit the five people. Participants’ responses to the pair of moral dilemmas were used to classify participants into four groups, for analyses below (Figure 1): (1) UTILITARIAN (UTIL) participants delivered the utilitarian response for both scenarios; (2) NON-UTILITARIAN (NON-UTIL) participants delivered the non-utilitarian response for both scenarios; (3) MAJORITY participants delivered the utilitarian response for the impersonal scenario but the nonutilitarian response for the personal scenario, a response pattern observed in the vast majority of participants across a number of prior studies using the same scenarios and therefore reflecting the “average” or modal moral judge [10,11,13,15,20,30,31]; and (4) OUTLIER participants delivered the non-utilitarian response for the impersonal scenario but the utilitarian response for the personal scenario. Of the total number of participants in this analysis, 213 (15.9 ) were classified into the UTIL group, 505 (37.7 ) into the NON-UTIL group, 606 (45.3 ) were classified into the MAJORITY group.

Leave a Reply