Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities

Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Healthy Controls; Moral Development; Moral Dilemma; Moral Justification
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Lecture on moral reasoning; Other: Lecture on logical reasoning

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.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 86
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Italy
  • Italy
    • Milan, Italy, Italy, 20132
      • IRCCS San Raffaele

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

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).

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Double

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Moral; 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; One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning
Active Comparator: Non-moral; 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; One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
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 Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities.	To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and changes in moral justification abilities in six domains (empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions) assessed using a 0-3 point scale.	Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements.	To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and agreement with moral statements assessed using a 0-3 point scale.	Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention.	To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and confidence post-intervention assessed by using 0-3 point scales.	Baseline, 5 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: IRCCS San Raffaele
• Collaborators: Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.
• 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.
• 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.
• Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
• 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.
• 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.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): November 18, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): February 19, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): October 13, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: July 31, 2024
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 13, 2024
• First Posted (Actual): December 16, 2024

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): December 23, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 16, 2025
• Last Verified: December 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: Moral-REA

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No