Is severe alcohol use disorder really associated with increased utilitarian moral judgment? Exploration using the CNI model

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
{"title":"Is severe alcohol use disorder really associated with increased utilitarian moral judgment? Exploration using the CNI model","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The psychology of moral decision-making classically contrasts utilitarianism (based on consequences) and deontology (based on moral norms). Previous studies capitalizing on this dichotomy have suggested the presence of a utilitarian bias among patients with severe alcohol use disorder (SAUD). We aimed to further disentangle the processes involved in such bias through a more validated approach, the CNI model of moral decision-making. This model allows to go further than the classical approach by distinguishing sensitivity to consequences (C), to moral norms (N), and general preference for inaction over action (I) in response to moral dilemmas.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty-four recently detoxified patients with SAUD and 34 matched control participants completed a battery of 48 dilemmas derived from the CNI model, as well as social cognition tasks.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In contrast with the utilitarian bias suggested in previous studies based on the classical approach, patients with SAUD did not show an increased sensitivity to consequences in comparison with control participants. However, they showed a reduced sensitivity to moral norms, as well as a greater action tendency. These biases were not related to social cognition deficits.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients with SAUD are not more utilitarian than healthy controls, this previously reported bias being artificially generated by the methodological limits of the classical approach. Instead, they present a reduced sensitivity to moral norms and an action bias, which might impact their interpersonal relations and contribute to the social isolation frequently reported in this population, thus identifying moral decision-making as a new therapeutic lever in SAUD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11322,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624013607","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The psychology of moral decision-making classically contrasts utilitarianism (based on consequences) and deontology (based on moral norms). Previous studies capitalizing on this dichotomy have suggested the presence of a utilitarian bias among patients with severe alcohol use disorder (SAUD). We aimed to further disentangle the processes involved in such bias through a more validated approach, the CNI model of moral decision-making. This model allows to go further than the classical approach by distinguishing sensitivity to consequences (C), to moral norms (N), and general preference for inaction over action (I) in response to moral dilemmas.

Methods

Thirty-four recently detoxified patients with SAUD and 34 matched control participants completed a battery of 48 dilemmas derived from the CNI model, as well as social cognition tasks.

Results

In contrast with the utilitarian bias suggested in previous studies based on the classical approach, patients with SAUD did not show an increased sensitivity to consequences in comparison with control participants. However, they showed a reduced sensitivity to moral norms, as well as a greater action tendency. These biases were not related to social cognition deficits.

Conclusions

Patients with SAUD are not more utilitarian than healthy controls, this previously reported bias being artificially generated by the methodological limits of the classical approach. Instead, they present a reduced sensitivity to moral norms and an action bias, which might impact their interpersonal relations and contribute to the social isolation frequently reported in this population, thus identifying moral decision-making as a new therapeutic lever in SAUD.

严重酒精使用障碍真的与功利性道德判断力增强有关吗?使用 CNI 模型进行探索
目的道德决策心理学将功利主义(基于后果)和道义论(基于道德规范)进行了经典对比。以往利用这种二分法进行的研究表明,在严重酒精使用障碍(SAUD)患者中存在功利主义偏差。我们的目标是通过一种更有效的方法,即道德决策 CNI 模型,进一步厘清这种偏差所涉及的过程。该模型通过区分对后果的敏感性(C)、对道德规范的敏感性(N)以及在道德两难情况下对不作为而非作为的普遍偏好(I),比经典方法更进一步。结果与以往基于经典方法的研究中提出的功利主义偏差不同,SAUD 患者与对照组参与者相比,对后果的敏感性并没有增加。但是,他们对道德规范的敏感度降低,行动倾向增强。这些偏差与社会认知缺陷无关。结论SAUD 患者的功利性并不比健康对照组高,之前报道的这种偏差是由于经典方法的方法限制而人为造成的。相反,他们对道德规范的敏感性降低,出现了行动偏差,这可能会影响他们的人际关系,并导致这一人群中经常出现的社会隔离现象,因此,道德决策是治疗 SAUD 的新手段。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol dependence
Drug and alcohol dependence 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
409
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international journal devoted to publishing original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. Articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies employing methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信