Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31012802›Full record

ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics

Addiction, Identity, Morality.

Brian D Earp, Joshua August Skorburg, Jim A C Everett, Julian Savulescu

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brian D Earpa Departments of Philosophy and Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9691-2888
Joshua August Skorburgd Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3779-5076
Jim A C Everettc Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-5426
Julian Savulescuc Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1691-6403

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848Wellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent literature on addiction and judgments about the characteristics of agents has focused on the implications of adopting a "brain disease" versus "moral weakness" model of addiction. Typically, such judgments have to do with what capacities an agent has (e.g., the ability to abstain from substance use). Much less work, however, has been conducted on the relationship between addiction and judgments about an agent's identity, including whether or to what extent an individual is seen as the same person after becoming addicted.

methodsWe conducted a series of vignette-based experiments (total N = 3,620) to assess lay attitudes concerning addiction and identity persistence, systematically manipulating key characteristics of agents and their drug of addiction.

conclusionsIn Study 1, we found that U.S. participants judged an agent who became addicted to drugs as being closer to "a completely different person" than "completely the same person" as the agent who existed prior to the addiction. In Studies 2-6, we investigated the intuitive basis for this result, finding that lay judgments of altered identity as a consequence of drug use and addiction are driven primarily by perceived negative changes in the moral character of drug users, who are seen as having deviated from their good true selves.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthMoralsSocial PerceptionAdultBehavior, AddictiveHumansJudgmentMaleSubstance-Related Disordersaddictionessential moral selfpersonal identityPhineas Gage effecttrue self

Identifiers

PMID31012802
PMCPMC6506907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.