Emotion-Driven Moral Evaluation: A Mechanistic Study Based on the Drift-Diffusion Model.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Brain Sciences Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.3390/brainsci14101005
Junfei Lin, Xinlu Zhao, Nian Zhao, Tour Liu
{"title":"Emotion-Driven Moral Evaluation: A Mechanistic Study Based on the Drift-Diffusion Model.","authors":"Junfei Lin, Xinlu Zhao, Nian Zhao, Tour Liu","doi":"10.3390/brainsci14101005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Moral evaluation is identified as the first stage in the theory of moral judgment, and academics believe that it may align with the social intuitionist model. This study aims to prove that the model's emotional dominance hypothesis applies to moral evaluation by presenting a computational decision-making model that mathematically formalizes this emotional dominance decision-making process. We also compared different types of valence evaluation tasks to test the emotional priority hypothesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a convenience sampling method to randomly recruit 30 enrolled college students. The drift-diffusion model was employed to analyze reaction times for words with various emotional and moral valences Additionally, we designed different valence evaluation tasks based on the response relevance hypothesis and evaluated the processing order through reaction time comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed that the emotional mechanism of immoral evaluation differs from moral evaluation. An increase in emotional valence accelerates the speed of evidence accumulation (v) for moral evaluation (<i>M</i> = 1.21, 0.2% < 0 < 99.8%) but lowers decision caution (a) in immoral evaluation (<i>M</i> = -0.64, 96.1% < 0 < 3.9%). In contrast, moral valence does not have a significant influence on evaluation processes (v, <i>M</i> = -0.28, 72.1% < 0 < 27.9%; a, <i>M</i> = -0.32, 79.3% < 0 < 20.7%). Furthermore, We found no significant difference in reaction times between moral and immoral words in the emotional evaluation task (<i>F</i>(1,29) = 0.55, <i>p</i> = 0.464, partial <i>η</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.02), but a significant difference existed in the moral evaluation task (<i>F</i>(1,29) = 17.99, <i>p</i> < 0.001, partial <i>η</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.38), indicating that the tendency of relatively fast immoral evaluation in emotional evaluation tasks may be caused by emotional priority.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support the intuitive model's emotional dominance hypothesis and introduce a new emotional mechanism into moral evaluation. This study clarifies the distinct emotional processes in moral and immoral evaluations, fills a gap in the research on moral evaluation, and offers insights into human decision-making in moral contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506016/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14101005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Moral evaluation is identified as the first stage in the theory of moral judgment, and academics believe that it may align with the social intuitionist model. This study aims to prove that the model's emotional dominance hypothesis applies to moral evaluation by presenting a computational decision-making model that mathematically formalizes this emotional dominance decision-making process. We also compared different types of valence evaluation tasks to test the emotional priority hypothesis.

Methods: We used a convenience sampling method to randomly recruit 30 enrolled college students. The drift-diffusion model was employed to analyze reaction times for words with various emotional and moral valences Additionally, we designed different valence evaluation tasks based on the response relevance hypothesis and evaluated the processing order through reaction time comparisons.

Results: The analysis revealed that the emotional mechanism of immoral evaluation differs from moral evaluation. An increase in emotional valence accelerates the speed of evidence accumulation (v) for moral evaluation (M = 1.21, 0.2% < 0 < 99.8%) but lowers decision caution (a) in immoral evaluation (M = -0.64, 96.1% < 0 < 3.9%). In contrast, moral valence does not have a significant influence on evaluation processes (v, M = -0.28, 72.1% < 0 < 27.9%; a, M = -0.32, 79.3% < 0 < 20.7%). Furthermore, We found no significant difference in reaction times between moral and immoral words in the emotional evaluation task (F(1,29) = 0.55, p = 0.464, partial η2 = 0.02), but a significant difference existed in the moral evaluation task (F(1,29) = 17.99, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.38), indicating that the tendency of relatively fast immoral evaluation in emotional evaluation tasks may be caused by emotional priority.

Conclusions: Our findings support the intuitive model's emotional dominance hypothesis and introduce a new emotional mechanism into moral evaluation. This study clarifies the distinct emotional processes in moral and immoral evaluations, fills a gap in the research on moral evaluation, and offers insights into human decision-making in moral contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情感驱动的道德评价:基于漂移-扩散模型的机制研究
背景:道德评价被认为是道德判断理论的第一阶段,学术界认为它可能与社会直觉主义模型一致。本研究旨在通过提出一个计算决策模型来证明该模型的情感主导假说适用于道德评价,该模型用数学形式化了这一情感主导决策过程。我们还比较了不同类型的情感评价任务,以检验情感优先假说:我们采用便利抽样法随机招募了 30 名在校大学生。此外,我们还根据反应相关性假说设计了不同的情绪评价任务,并通过反应时间比较评估了处理顺序:结果:分析表明,不道德评价的情绪机制与道德评价不同。情感价位的增加会加快道德评价的证据积累速度(v)(M = 1.21,0.2% < 0 < 99.8%),但会降低不道德评价的决策谨慎度(a)(M = -0.64,96.1% < 0 < 3.9%)。相反,道德价值对评价过程没有显著影响(v,M = -0.28,72.1% < 0 < 27.9%;a,M = -0.32,79.3% < 0 < 20.7%)。此外,我们发现在情感评价任务中,道德词语和不道德词语的反应时间没有显著差异(F(1,29) = 0.55, p = 0.464, partial η2 = 0.02),但在道德评价任务中存在显著差异(F(1,29) = 17.99, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.38),这表明在情感评价任务中,不道德评价相对较快的倾向可能是由情感优先性引起的:我们的研究结果支持直觉模型的情感优势假说,并为道德评价引入了一种新的情感机制。本研究澄清了道德评价和不道德评价中不同的情感过程,填补了道德评价研究的空白,并为道德情境中的人类决策提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
期刊介绍: Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
期刊最新文献
Beta-Amyloid and Its Asp7 Isoform: Morphological and Aggregation Properties and Effects of Intracerebroventricular Administration. Metacognition-Associated Factors in Physical and Occupational Therapy Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Blunted Cortisol Awakening Response Is Associated with External Attribution Bias Among Individuals with Personality Disorders. Exploring Gender Differences in Internet Addiction and Psychological Factors: A Study in a Spanish Sample. Heterogeneous Nuclear Ribonucleoprotein A1 Knockdown Alters Constituents of Nucleocytoplasmic Transport.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1