The role of contextual information in a virtual trolly problem: A psychophysiological investigation

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Social Neuroscience Pub Date : 2022-05-04 DOI:10.1080/17470919.2022.2076733
Matthew T. Richesin, D. Baldwin, Lahai A M Wicks
{"title":"The role of contextual information in a virtual trolly problem: A psychophysiological investigation","authors":"Matthew T. Richesin, D. Baldwin, Lahai A M Wicks","doi":"10.1080/17470919.2022.2076733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Trolley problems have persisted as a popular method to examine moral decision-making in the face of many criticisms. One such criticism is that thought experiments provide unrealistically abundant contextual information, leading to mental simulation. Recent work utilizing virtual reality technology has reduced contextual information with mixed results. However, this work has not departed entirely from the thought experiment tradition, often providing written or verbal descriptions of the trolley problem before or during the simulation. This approach may still allow for mental simulation prior to decision-making. The goal of the current study is to examine whether or not this criticism is relevant for the classic version of the trolley problem. One hundred and nineteen participants were randomly assigned to either receive prior contextual information about the trolley problem or receive no information. All participants then entered a virtual reality simulation of the classic trolley problem. We examined decision-making from an affective and autonomic nervous system perspective. We found no effect on any measure in response to the reduction of contextual information. There were, however, surprising gender differences in decision-making and autonomic response. Further, we discuss how these findings relate to competing dual-process models of moral decision-making.","PeriodicalId":49511,"journal":{"name":"Social Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2022.2076733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Trolley problems have persisted as a popular method to examine moral decision-making in the face of many criticisms. One such criticism is that thought experiments provide unrealistically abundant contextual information, leading to mental simulation. Recent work utilizing virtual reality technology has reduced contextual information with mixed results. However, this work has not departed entirely from the thought experiment tradition, often providing written or verbal descriptions of the trolley problem before or during the simulation. This approach may still allow for mental simulation prior to decision-making. The goal of the current study is to examine whether or not this criticism is relevant for the classic version of the trolley problem. One hundred and nineteen participants were randomly assigned to either receive prior contextual information about the trolley problem or receive no information. All participants then entered a virtual reality simulation of the classic trolley problem. We examined decision-making from an affective and autonomic nervous system perspective. We found no effect on any measure in response to the reduction of contextual information. There were, however, surprising gender differences in decision-making and autonomic response. Further, we discuss how these findings relate to competing dual-process models of moral decision-making.
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
情境信息在虚拟巨魔问题中的作用:一项心理生理学研究
摘要电车问题一直是研究道德决策的一种流行方法,面对许多批评。其中一种批评是,思维实验提供了不切实际的丰富上下文信息,导致了心理模拟。最近利用虚拟现实技术的工作减少了上下文信息,结果喜忧参半。然而,这项工作并没有完全脱离思想实验的传统,经常在模拟之前或模拟过程中对电车问题进行书面或口头描述。这种方法仍然可以允许在决策之前进行心理模拟。当前研究的目标是检验这种批评是否与电车问题的经典版本有关。119名参与者被随机分配到先前收到关于手推车问题的上下文信息或没有收到任何信息。然后,所有参与者都进入了经典电车问题的虚拟现实模拟。我们从情感和自主神经系统的角度研究了决策。我们发现,对任何应对上下文信息减少的措施都没有影响。然而,在决策和自主反应方面存在着令人惊讶的性别差异。此外,我们还讨论了这些发现与道德决策的竞争性双过程模型之间的关系。
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
Social Neuroscience
Social Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Neuroscience features original empirical Research Papers as well as targeted Reviews, Commentaries and Fast Track Brief Reports that examine how the brain mediates social behavior, social cognition, social interactions and relationships, group social dynamics, and related topics that deal with social/interpersonal psychology and neurobiology. Multi-paper symposia and special topic issues are organized and presented regularly as well. The goal of Social Neuroscience is to provide a place to publish empirical articles that intend to further our understanding of the neural mechanisms contributing to the development and maintenance of social behaviors, or to understanding how these mechanisms are disrupted in clinical disorders.
期刊最新文献
Emotional engagement with close friends in adolescence predicts neural correlates of empathy in adulthood. Social-touch and self-touch differ in hemodynamic response in the prefrontal cortex - a fNIRS study conducted during the coronavirus pandemic. Distinct neural correlates of accuracy and bias in the perception of facial emotion expressions. The neural representation of self, close, and famous others: An electrophysiological investigation on the social brain. Testosterone, cortisol, and psychopathy: Further evidence with the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale and the inventory of callous unemotional traits.
×
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