UNASSIGNED: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system characterized by a broad and unpredictable range of symptoms, including cognitive and sociocognitive dysfunction. Among these social-cognitive functions, moral judgment has been explored in persons with MS (PwMS) using moral dilemmas, where participants must decide whether to sacrifice one person to save a greater number. Opting for such a sacrifice reflects utilitarian reasoning (sacrificing one for the benefit of many is deemed acceptable), while refusing reflects deontological reasoning (such sacrifice is considered morally wrong). Compared to controls, PwMS have been shown to make greater deontological moral choices in such dilemmas.
UNASSIGNED: While PwMS have demonstrated a higher tendency for deontological moral choices in moral dilemmas compared to controls, the underlying determinants of this reasoning pattern remain unclear. In this project, we aim to investigate cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors that may explain deontological decision-making in MS.
UNASSIGNED: We will recruit a sample of 45 PwMS and 45 controls aged 18-55 years. The type of response, deontological or utilitarian, to a series of 20 vignettes of moral dilemmas will constitute the primary outcomes. Global cognitive performance, positivity bias, alexithymia and empathy levels as well as emotional reactivity measured by electrodermal activity (EDA) during moral dilemmas will be secondary outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Ethics approval was granted by a national ethical committee (CPP Ouest III, national number 2023-A00447-38). The project is sponsored by the ARSEP Foundation. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences, as well as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explains variation in moral judgements on the basis of multiple innate, intuitive foundations and has been subject to criticism over recent years. Prior research has tended to rely on explicit self-report in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). In contrast, we seek to capture intuitive choices between foundations in a novel task - the Moral Foundations Conflict Task (MFCT). Across four studies, responses on this task reflect foundations measured by the MFQ (study 1), are not altered under cognitive load or reduced cognitive control (studies 2a and 2b); and explain unique variance in political orientation and related constructs (study 3). Furthermore, using responses and response times generated on the MFCT, we present a computationally explicit model of foundation-related intuitive judgements and show that these patterns are consistent with the theoretical claims of MFT. These findings show that the MFCT outperforms the MFQ and can contribute to the understanding of moral value conflicts, furthering debate on the nature of moral values.

BACKGROUND: In EDs, triage ensures that patients whose condition requires immediate care are prioritized while reducing overcrowding. Previous studies have described the manifestation of caregivers\' moral judgements of patients in EDs. The equal treatment of patients in clinical practice presents a major issue. Studying the impact of prejudice on clinical practice in the ED setting provides an opportunity to rethink clinical tools, organizations and future training needs. Our study sought to describe the moral judgements expressed by triage nurses during admission interviews in emergency departments and to assess their impact on patient management.
METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-method study was performed. The study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and February 18, 2018, in the EDs of three French hospitals. Five hundred and three patients and 79 triage nurses participated in the study. Audio recordings, observations and written handover reports made by nurses during admission triage interviews were analyzed with a view to discerning whether moral judgements were expressed in them. We studied the impact of moral judgements on patient management in the emergency department.
RESULTS: Abstract Moral judgements were made in 70% of the triage situations studied (n=351/503). They could be classified in seven categories. Patients were more likely to be subjected to moral judgements if they were over 75 years old, visibly disabled or if they had visible signs of alcohol intoxication. Being subjected to moral judgement was associated with differential treatment, including assignment of a triage score that differed from the theoretical triage score.
CONCLUSIONS: More than two thirds of patients admitted to EDs were triaged using moral criteria. Patients who were morally judged at the admission interview were more likely to be treated differently.

Cultured meat (also referred to as cultivated, cell-based, or cell-cultured meat) is a novel food technology that is presented as a method of meat production without reliance on large-scale industrial farming. The pro-cultured meat narrative rests, in part, on a moral foundation: cultured meat is purported to alleviate the environmental and animal welfare harms associated with farmed meat. Despite this narrative, no research has examined which moral values underpin attitudes towards cultured meat. To examine this, we surveyed 1861 participants from the United States and Germany about their moral foundations and their attitudes towards cultured meat. In line with predictions, people who more strongly endorse moral values about purity (i.e., had higher scores on the purity subscale of the moral foundations scale) held more negative attitudes towards cultured meat. However, this relationship was much more consistent among participants from the United States than participants from Germany. Against predictions, attitudes towards cultured meat were not reliably associated with the extent to which people focus on harm as a moral foundation. The latter finding was particularly surprising in light of harm-reduction narratives around cultured meat. These findings demonstrate the need for a more nuanced discussion about, and understanding of, consumer concerns around cultured meat and the values that underpin them.

ABSTRACTThe affect-as-information (AAI) model proposes that emotions influence the accessibility and value of information (Avramova & Inbar, 2013). Furthermore, according to the dual-process model of moral judgement, emotions and cognition influence moral judgement (Greene, 2007; Greene et al., 2001, 2008); however, there is no direct evidence of a causal chain to support this model\'s proposition. By using a 3 (emotions: positive vs. neutral vs. negative) × 2 (primed rule: save lives vs. do not kill) between-participants design, we examined two hypotheses in two experiments: supraliminal (Experiment 1) and subliminal (Experiment 2) priming. Our results partially supported the AAI model and confirmed that emotions and cognition independently influence moral judgement. Specifically, the positive emotions group made more utilitarian decisions after being primed with the \"save lives\" rule and more deontological decisions after being primed with the do not kill rule. However, priming did not affect moral judgement in the negative emotion condition. Further, irrespective of whether priming was done, the negative emotion group mostly made utilitarian decisions. Accordingly, we propose a dynamic dual-process model of moral judgement, that can help clarify how emotion and cognition influence moral judgement.

Are we ever morally permitted to do what is morally wrong? It seems intuitive that we are, but evidence for dissociations among judgement of permissibility and wrongness is relatively scarce. Across four experiments (N = 1438), we show that people judge that some behaviours can be morally wrong and permissible. The dissociations arise because these judgements track different morally relevant aspects of everyday moral encounters. Judgements of individual rights predicted permissibility but not wrongness, while character assessment predicted wrongness but not permissibility. These findings suggest a picture in which moral evaluation is granular enough to express reasoning about different types of normative considerations, notably the possibility that people can exercise their rights in morally problematic ways.

Differences in moral sentiments are widespread. Increasingly, their biological correlates are investigated to elucidate potential sources of divergent moral attitudes and choices. Serotonin is one such potential modulator. We investigated the effects of a functional serotonergic polymorphism, 5-HTTLPR, which was previously linked to moral choices albeit with inconsistent findings. N = 157 healthy young adults completed a set of congruent and incongruent moral dilemmas. In addition to the traditional moral response score, this set allows by using a process dissociation (PD) approach an estimation a deontological and a utilitarian parameter. While there was no main effect of 5-HTTLPR on any of the three moral judgement parameters, there was an interaction effect between 5-HTTLPR and endocrine status on PD parameters, which was mainly due to the deontological but not the utilitarian parameter. In men and free cycling women, LL homozygotes showed reduced deontological tendencies compared to S allele carriers. Contrariwise, in women using oral contraceptives, LL homozygotes had increased deontology parameter scores. Furthermore, LL genotypes in general reported less difficulty in making harmful choices, which were in addition associated with less negative emotions. The findings suggest that 5-HTTLPR might be involved in modulating cognitive and emotional processes contributing to moral decisions.

Background: The aim of this study was to identify moral judgement at the preconventional level, the conventional level, and the postconventional level in university students in the tenth semester in Ica, in 2022. Method: The research methodology was descriptive-observational, quantitative and cross-sectional. The population consisted of university students in the tenth semester and the sample consisted of 157 university students. A survey was used as a data collection tool and a questionnaire was used to measure the stages of moral judgement according to Lawrence Kholberg.   Results: It was found that 12.75% of the study sample was in the instructional relativism stage, 23.10% were in interpersonal agreement, 35.76% were in social order and authority, 11.95% were in social contract and finally 3.80% were in universal ethical principles. Conclusion: It was concluded and identified that the stages of moral judgement among the study sample indicate that interpersonal agreement, social order and authority are the most developed among university students.

The Movement Control Order (MCO) enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly altered the social life and behaviour of the Malaysian population. Because the society is facing huge social and economic challenges that need individuals to work together to solve, prosocial behaviour is regarded as one of the most important social determinants. Because it is related with individual and societal benefits, participating in prosocial activities may be a major protective factor during times of global crisis. Rather than focusing only on medical and psychiatric paradigms, perhaps all that is necessary to overcome the COVID-19 risks is for individuals to make personal sacrifices for the sake of others. In reality, a large number of initiatives proven to be beneficial in decreasing viral transmission include a trade-off between individual and collective interests. Given its crucial importance, the purpose of this concept paper is to provide some insight into prosocial behaviour during the COVID-19 period. Understanding prosocial behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial because it may assist in the establishment of a post-COVID society and provide useful strategies for coping with future crises.

This article presents an analysis of personal diaries kept by health-care staff within a specialist NHS Trust in England during the initial 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. It adopts a moral sensemaking perspective to explore how NHS employees mobilised and reframed ideas of right and wrong in order to make sense of unprecedented uncertainty and displacement. By focussing on how the macro and micro politics of the pandemic were played out in the organisation, the study finds that polarised moral judgements were invoked in order to justify and rationalise a broad array of associated emergent emotions, intuitions, behaviours and practices. This polarisation of moral responses could be seen as a desire to bring order out of chaos and put matters back into place following displacement. This is inevitably an ongoing, complex and variegated enterprise whose results can be as often discomforting as they can be reassuring. Indeed, while moral sensemaking was partly beneficial for staff in that it promoted a greater sense of camaraderie and support for others, it also appeared to have darker consequences in terms of staff wellbeing and the development of more impermeable social boundaries across the organisation through processes of moral \'othering\'.