Title |
Deontological Dilemma Response Tendencies and Sensorimotor Representations of Harm to Others
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fnint.2017.00034 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Leonardo Christov-Moore, Paul Conway, Marco Iacoboni |
Abstract |
The dual process model of moral decision-making suggests that decisions to reject causing harm on moral dilemmas (where causing harm saves lives) reflect concern for others. Recently, some theorists have suggested such decisions actually reflect self-focused concern about causing harm, rather than witnessing others suffering. We examined brain activity while participants witnessed needles pierce another person's hand, versus similar non-painful stimuli. More than a month later, participants completed moral dilemmas where causing harm either did or did not maximize outcomes. We employed process dissociation to independently assess harm-rejection (deontological) and outcome-maximization (utilitarian) response tendencies. Activity in the posterior inferior frontal cortex (pIFC) while participants witnessed others in pain predicted deontological, but not utilitarian, response tendencies. Previous brain stimulation studies have shown that the pIFC seems crucial for sensorimotor representations of observed harm. Hence, these findings suggest that deontological response tendencies reflect genuine other-oriented concern grounded in sensorimotor representations of harm. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 11% |
Argentina | 3 | 11% |
Switzerland | 2 | 7% |
Netherlands | 2 | 7% |
Germany | 2 | 7% |
India | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 14 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 23 | 85% |
Scientists | 4 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
Researcher | 7 | 9% |
Professor | 5 | 6% |
Other | 18 | 23% |
Unknown | 12 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 25 | 32% |
Neuroscience | 13 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 11 | 14% |
Unknown | 16 | 21% |