ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
Electrophysiological Mechanisms Underlying Time-Dependent Assessments in Moral Decision-Making.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decoding Three Different Preference Levels of Consumers Using Convolutional Neural Network: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human decision-making that involves moral dilemmas is a complex process, as individuals try to adhere to their moral values while their actual decisions can be influenced by several situational constraints. When facing a moral conflict that can bring a gain or loss for a decision-maker but a corresponding loss or gain for others, the decision-maker's choice of resolution strategy lies in its relating to gain-loss asymmetry by placing greater utility weight on his or her immediate gains and delayed losses. Although many neuroimaging studies have unveiled the neural mechanisms that underlie moral decision-making, little attention has been paid to the temporal dynamics of how a decision-maker assesses utility weights differently for a moral (or adaptive) choice that will bring loss (or gain) to himself (and others) when the outcome will be realized in the near versus distant future. This study identifies the electrophysiological mechanisms of time-dependent assessment in individuals' moral conflict resolution strategies. Twenty-two participants were given a set of moral dilemmas with time intervals that varied from the near future to the distant future. Participants chose between two conflicting options: a self-interest-seeking immoral choice (adaptive) and a principled moral choice (moral). Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded, and movement-related potentials (MRPs) were analyzed by being response-locked to individual moral choices. Behavioral results showed that participants took more time to respond and were more likely to make adaptive choices under the near-future condition. When the participants faced moral dilemmas, their brain waves manifested medial frontal negativity (MFN) at early stage ERP of 200-400 ms, possibly reflecting an internal moral conflict. Participants then exhibited larger late positive potentials (LPP) under the near-future condition. In addition, greater effort in implementing motor preparation was found under the near-future condition than under the distant future condition, as supported by the larger Bereitschaftspotential (BP) in the anterior areas. Our results illustrate the temporal dynamics of the electrophysiological mechanisms that underlie time-dependent assessments in moral decision-making, as human brains discount the decision utility of the moral outcomes that will occur in the distant future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.