Transforming the Unseen: Diminishing Negative Emotions Alters Implicit Moral Attitudes Without Affecting Subjective Moral Judgments or Justice Sensitivity

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4956055/v1

Download PDF

Article

Transforming the Unseen: Diminishing Negative Emotions Alters Implicit Moral Attitudes Without Affecting Subjective Moral Judgments or Justice Sensitivity

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4956055/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Moral attitudes and evaluations were once considered to emerge solely from rational thought. Nevertheless, recent neuropsychological studies show that these moral attributes are significantly influenced by emotion, particularly negative emotionality. Further psychopharmacological research has observed that GABAergic agonists are capable of influencing moral decision-making by modifying anxiety-related emotional negativity and/or through cognitive modulation. The aim of this double-blind, crossover design, placebo-controlled study is to evaluate said GABAergic modulation on moral cognition. Importantly, unlike the aforementioned research, the present study not only utilizes explicit moral evaluation measures (e.g., JSI and evaluations of moral scenarios), but also uses the morality Implicit Association Test (mIAT) to assess unacknowledged attitudes towards morally charged scenarios. Our results show that acute lorazepam administration significantly decreases mIAT D-scores in the High-D group, while having no effect on the Low-D group. Significant differences regarding the other-oriented JSI were observed between groups, with lorazepam administration exhibiting a marginal trend towards significance. These findings not only confirm GABAergic activity modulation on moral cognition (including implicit mechanisms), but also suggest such modulation promotes pro-social behavior. Altogether, this study supports the dynamic system model of moral cognition, where explicit rational deliberative operations interplay with implicit emotional processes during moral decision-making.

Biological sciences/Physiology/Neurophysiology

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive neuroscience

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Emotion

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social behaviour

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social neuroscience

Lorazepam

moral judgement

implicit moral attitudes

justice sensitivity

gender differences

Recent research has begun to challenge the traditional belief that moral judgments are based solely on rational thought. Studies now show that emotions, particularly negative ones like anxiety and neuroticism, significantly influence moral decision-making ¹. These findings reveal that moral attitudes are deeply intertwined with affective responses rather than just logical deliberation ^2,3.

Negative emotionality and neuroticism affect a person’s likelihood to avoid antisocial behaviors ⁴. Individuals who are prone to risk aversion and are strongly influenced by social pressures tend to have higher levels of neuroticism ^5,6. This is because the anxiety and negative affect they experience make them more likely to avoid uncertain situations ⁴. Furthermore, conflicts with others –a known trigger for anxiety– further amplify this tendency ^7,8. The instinctive "gut" reaction many people feel when considering harming another person, even if it might serve a greater good, is now understood as a physical manifestation of emotional negativity and anxiety ⁹.

Moral decision-making is believed to be influenced by mechanisms similar to those used in risk-based decision-making ¹⁰, as these decisions are often made without knowing their outcomes in advance ¹¹. Nevertheless, while the outcomes of deontological judgments, which are more rule-based, are easier to be inferred, those associated with utilitarian choices—decisions that prioritize the greater good independently of the means to get to it—are not, as the psychological burden (e.g., potential regret and guilt) can’t be predicted. This renders utilitarian judgments similar to a decision made under risk and uncertainty, similar to gambling ^10,11.

Moreover, research suggests that strategies to regulate emotions or reduce emotional reactivity can lead to a preference for risky and utilitarian decisions by decreasing negative affect ^3,12. Conversely, increasing negative emotionality, linked to serotonergic activity in the brain, tends to inhibit utilitarian choices ¹. Theoretical models of decision-making under uncertainty propose that people are more likely to choose risky or utilitarian options when the potential rewards outweigh the anxiety associated with uncertainty, or when they have the cognitive capacity to suppress moral and emotional responses. Enhanced cognitive ability allows for more rational navigation through moral decision-making ^13,14.

Studies using moral dilemma tasks show that low-anxiety psychopaths are more likely to approve of direct harmful actions in moral dilemmas, than either control participants or high-anxiety psychopaths. Clinical observations suggest that anxiety significantly influences the likelihood of choosing harmful actions in moral dilemmas. However, it is important to note that these findings are based on correlational data, which do not establish a direct causal link between anxiety and moral decision-making ³.

Lorazepam, a high-potency benzodiazepine, is commonly prescribed to relieve anxiety symptoms ¹⁵. It enhances GABA activity in the brain, a neurotransmitter that inhibits neural activity, through binding to GABA receptors. Research shows that lorazepam increases participants' willingness to endorse harmful actions in moral dilemmas, whether for selfish or utilitarian reasons ³. This suggests that anxiolytic drugs like lorazepam may affect moral decision-making by reducing the emotional negativity associated with anxiety and modulating cognitive processes ^16,17.

This double-blind, crossover design, placebo-controlled study aims to evaluate how lorazepam influences moral evaluation and attitudes, addressing limitations in previous research. Earlier studies, like the one by Perkins and colleagues ³, found that lorazepam reduced participants' inhibitions in moral dilemmas, leading to increased ruthlessness. However, that study did not clarify whether this increased tendency toward harmful behavior was motivated by selfishness, utilitarian considerations, or a combination of both.

In the current research, explicit measures of moral attitudes, such as the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI), are used. The JSI distinguishes between self-oriented and other-oriented (utilitarian) justice sensitivities and moral attitudes. Additionally, the study incorporates the morality version of the Implicit Association Test (mIAT) to assess individuals' involuntary attitudes toward morally charged scenarios ^18,19. The mIAT measures the speed and accuracy with which participants categorize concepts, like associating “moral” versus “immoral” actions with evaluative attributes. Faster and more accurate associations suggest a stronger link between these concepts in memory, while slower associations suggest a weaker connection. This test is designed to uncover automatic and unconscious attitudes that may not be consciously accessible to participants ¹⁸.

Building on previous findings demonstrating that lorazepam reduces inhibitions in moral dilemmas, thereby increasing the likelihood of utilitarian decisions, the study hypothesizes that lorazepam will influence both explicit and implicit moral attitudes. It is expected that lorazepam will have a more significant impact on implicit attitudes, driven by automatic emotional processes ^3,12. Additionally, lorazepam is anticipated to enhance moral sensitivity, as seen in changes in reaction times on the mIAT, increased other-oriented justice sensitivity, and altered moral judgments.

Participants

Eighty-one healthy volunteers (40 men), aged between 21 and 31 years (mean ± SD: 23.556 ± 2.29), participated in the study after providing written informed consent. All participants were Han Chinese and right-handed. They underwent screening for major psychiatric illnesses (e.g., general anxiety disorder) using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) and were excluded if they showed evidence of comorbid neurological disorders (e.g., dementia, seizures), had a history of head injury, or had alcohol or substance abuse or dependence within the past five years. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were not taking any medication at the time of the study. None of the female participants were using oral contraceptives. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of National Yang-Ming University (YM104041E) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

General Procedures

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, participants received a single 0.5-mg dose of lorazepam (ATIVAN) on one day, and a single dose of placebo (i.e., vitamin C) on another day. Participants underwent the same experimental procedure for both the placebo and lorazepam administrations, with at least a two-week washout period between sessions. Both lorazepam and placebo were administered orally. The sequence of lorazepam and placebo administration was counterbalanced between participants through a Latin square design, which ensures an equal number of AB (lorazepam-placebo) and BA (placebo-lorazepam) sequences. To align with the pharmacokinetics of lorazepam ²⁰, the behavioral assessment took place approximately 2 hours after treatment administration. After drug or placebo administration, participants completed the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI) and the subjective evaluation of morally laden scenarios task to assess their explicit moral attitudes, and performed the moral Implicit Association Task (mIAT) to measure their implicit moral attitudes.

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT)

The mIAT was adapted with animations and words as stimuli. The verbal stimuli comprised 26 extremely pleasant and 26 extremely unpleasant words, selected from commonly used Chinese words ^21–23. The animated stimuli included 47 clips depicting everyday dyadic interactions, where each action was characterized as moral or immoral based on outcomes of personal assistance or harm, respectively ^24,25. The mIAT followed the experimental design outlined by Greenwald et al. ¹⁸, consisting of five discrimination blocks:

Block 1, 'initial target-concept discrimination,' has participants categorizing clips as moral (right response key) or immoral (left response key).

Block 2, 'attribute discrimination,' involves categorizing words as negative (right response key) or positive (left response key).

Block 3, 'combined target-concept discrimination,' presents clips and words in alternating trials, with moral clips paired with negative words (right response key) and immoral clips with positive words (left response key).

Block 4, 'reversed target-concept discrimination,' reverses the response assignment from Block 1, with moral clips (left response key) and immoral clips (right response key).

Block 5, 'combined reversed target-concept discrimination,' pairs immoral clips with negative words (right response key) and moral clips with positive words (left response key).

The sequences of the blocks (12345/42513) were counterbalanced to mitigate sequential effects. Half of the participants first encountered the incongruent block, and the other half started with the congruent block. Blocks 1, 2, and 4 consisted of 20 trials each, while Blocks 3 and 5 contained 40 trials each, with words and/or clips randomized within each block. Each trial began with a 1000-ms fixation cross, followed by a stimulus, presented on a computer using E-Prime version 2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools). Participants were instructed to categorize each word or clip as quickly and accurately as possible, with ten practice trials preceding Blocks 3 and 5. Accuracy rates and reaction times (RT) for Blocks 3 and 5 were recorded.

The mIAT performance is quantified by D scores, calculated by subtracting the mean RT of congruent (moral-negative) blocks from that of incongruent (moral-positive) blocks, then dividing this by the pooled standard deviation of the two blocks ²⁶. Higher D scores indicate stronger implicit moral attitudes, reflected by longer RTs for incongruent blocks or shorter RTs for congruent blocks.

To account for the sensitivity of RT differentials to outliers and extreme values, reaction times more than two standard deviations from the mean were excluded as outliers (comprising less than 3% of all responses). Additionally, RTs faster than 300 ms or slower than 6000 ms were deemed extreme and indicative of inattention, and thus were excluded from analysis (accounting for less than 1% of all responses) ²⁶.

Explicit Measure of Justice Sensitivity: The Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI)

The Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI) is a self-report psychometric tool designed to assess an individual's sensitivity to unjust situations ²⁷. The inventory encompasses four distinct perspectives—beneficiary, observer, perpetrator, and victim—with each perspective comprising 10 items. Respondents rate these items on a six-point scale ranging from 0 ('Do not agree at all') to 5 ('Strongly agree'). The resultant scores reflect an individual’s sensitivity to moral norm violations and perceptions of injustice. Scores from the beneficiary, observer, and perpetrator perspectives are often aggregated to form a composite measure of other-oriented sensitivity ²⁸. This dimension of justice sensitivity is associated with traits such as high agreeableness, conscientiousness, and empathy. In contrast, a self-oriented justice sensitivity tends to correlate with higher levels of neuroticism and lower levels of agreeableness.

Subjective Evaluations on Morally Laden Scenarios

A set of 45 validated animations from previous fMRI studies, depicting ecologically valid dyadic social interactions, was presented ^23,25,29. Each animation comprised three images, set to durations of 1000 milliseconds for the first image, 200 milliseconds for the second, and 1000 milliseconds for the third, portraying scenarios of: [1] a person alleviating another's physical pain (helping), [2] a person inflicting physical harm on another (harming), and [3] baseline stimuli depicting an action irrelevant to another person (neutral). The protagonists' faces were obscured to prevent any emotional reactions from being visible to participants. The order of scenarios was randomized for each participant. In each animation trial, participants were asked to assess moral reasoning via a computer-based visual analogue scale. They rated each scenario on a Likert scale from “very much blameworthy (− 7)”, through “neutral (0)”, to “very much praiseworthy (7).

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT) results

D scores ranged from − 1.29 to 1.69, with mean and standard deviation of 0.68 ± 0.43 in the placebo condition, and from − 0.19 to 1.36, with mean and standard deviation of 0.63 ± 0.35 in the lorazepam condition (Table 1). Mean D scores in the placebo condition (i.e., a baseline condition relative to the lorazepam condition) represent the average baseline implicit moral attitude among individuals. Due to previous studies finding a modulating effect of baseline D on moral behaviors ^23,25, we divided the groups into relatively High (n = 42) and Low (n = 39) D scores based on a median split of baseline D to further examine its interaction with lorazepam administration.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics in placebo and lorazepam conditions. Notes: SE = standard error; JSI: justice sensitivity inventory.
	Placebo	Lorazepam
Measurements	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	T value	df	P value
JSI total score	17.2111 ± 0.3548	17.5346 ± 0.34088	-1.832	80	.071
Self-oriented JSI	4.5074 ± 0.1054	4.5246 ± 0.1019	-0.272	80	.787
Other-oriented JSI	4.2345 ± 0.0979	4.3367 ± 0.0947	-1.943	80	.056
Implicit moral attitude (mIAT)	0.6789 ± 0.0476	0.6344 ± 0.0385	0.779	80	.438
Blameworthy for harming	-5.0592 ± 0.1291	-5.1506 ± 0.1399	0.768	80	.445
Praiseworthy for helping	4.4988 ± 0.1412	4.507 ± 0.1482	-0.078	80	.938

A 2 (GROUP: High-D vs. Low-D; a between-subject factor) x 2 (DRUG: placebo vs. lorazepam; a within-subject factor) x 2 (GENDER: male vs. female; a between-subject factor) mixed ANOVA on D scores for implicit moral attitudes revealed a main effect of group (F(1, 77) = 76.99, p < 0.001, partial eta squared (pη²) = 0.5; High-D vs. Low-D: 0.03 ± 0.43 vs. 0.46 ± 0.03, mean ± standard error) and an interaction effect between group and drug administration (F(1, 77) = 16.71, p < 0.001, pη² = 0.18). However, neither the main effect of gender (F(1, 77) = 0.87, p = 0.353, pη² = 0.011) nor its interaction with drug (F(1, 77) = 0.38, p = 0.54, pη² = 0.005) or group (F(1, 77) = 0.75, p = 0.391, pη² = 0.01) was significant. Post-hoc tests revealed that acute lorazepam administration significantly reduced D scores in the High-D group (placebo vs. lorazepam: 1 ± 0.03 vs. 0.74 ± 0.05, mean ± standard error, p < 0.001), but not in the Low-D group (0.38 ± 0.06 vs. 0.54 ± 0.06, p > 0.05) (Fig. 1).

Justice sensitivity (JSI) results

In this cohort, total JSI scores ranged from 8.8 to 26.4 with a mean and standard deviation of 17.21 ± 3.19 in the placebo condition, whereas in the lorazepam condition, scores ranged from 8.5 to 26.8 with a mean and standard deviation of 17.53 ± 3.07. The mean total JSI scores (JSI-sum) in the placebo condition, serving as a baseline relative to the lorazepam condition, represented the average explicit moral attitude among individuals ²⁵. We divided participants into groups with relatively High (n = 40) and Low (n = 41) total JSI scores based on a median split of the baseline JSI-sum to further explore its interaction with lorazepam administration. Both self- and other-oriented justice sensitivity indices underwent a 2 (GROUP: High-JSI vs. Low-JSI; a between-subject factor) x 2 (DRUG: placebo vs. lorazepam; a within-subject factor) x 2 (GENDER: male vs. female; a between-subject factor) mixed ANOVA, respectively.

For the self-oriented JSI, significant differences were observed between group means (F(1, 77) = 43.604, p < 0.001, pη²) = 0.354; High-JSI vs. Low-JSI: 5.05 ± 0.12 vs. 4 ± 0.11, mean ± standard error) and by gender (F(1, 77) = 6.98, p = 0.01, pη² = 0.083; Male vs. Female: 4.74 ± 0.11 vs. 4.31 ± 0.12). Neither the main effect of the drug (F(1, 77) = 0.09, p = 0.768, pη² = 0.001) nor any interactions with the drug reached significance (all p > 0.3) (Fig. 2A).

For the other-oriented JSI, the analysis revealed significant differences between group means (F(1, 77) = 68.4, p < 0.001, pη²) = 0.47; High-D vs. Low-D: 4.88 ± 0.097 vs. 3.75 ± 0.096, mean ± standard error), while the main effect of the drug exhibited a marginal trend toward significance (F(1, 77) = 3.858, p = 0.053, pη² = 0.048; Placebo vs. Lorazepam: 4.265 ± 0.071 vs. 4.369 ± 0.075) (Fig. 2B). The interaction between group and gender was significant (F(1, 77) = 5.028, p = 0.028, pη² = 0.061). Post-hoc analyses indicated that the effect of gender varied by group, with men in the High-JSI group showing a greater influence on other-oriented JSI scores (Male vs. Female: 5.05 ± 0.14 vs. 4.71 ± 0.12, p = 0.068) compared to those in the Low-JSI group (Male vs. Female: 3.62 ± 0.13 vs. 3.89 ± 0.16, p = 0.191).

Subjective Moral Evaluations

The 2 (DRUG: placebo vs. lorazepam; a within-subject factor) x 2 (GENDER: male vs. female; a between-subject factor) x 2 (SCENARIO: harming vs. neutral vs. helping; a within-subject factor) mixed ANOVA on subjective moral evaluations showed a main effect of scenario (F(2, 158) = 1324.759, p < 0.001, pη²) = 0.944; Harming vs. Neutral vs. Helping: -5.103 ± 0.12 vs. 1.208 ± 0.096 vs. 4.502 ± 0.135, mean ± standard error), while the main effects of drug (F(1, 79) = 0.656, p = 0.42, pη² = 0.008) and gender (F(1, 79) = 2.951, p = 0.09, pη² = 0.036) did not reach significance, nor did any interactions with drug or gender (all p > 0.2). The harming scenario was rated significantly more blameworthy than the neutral scenario (-5.103 ± 0.12 vs. 1.208 ± 0.096, p < 0.001), while the helping scenario was evaluated as significantly more praiseworthy compared to the neutral scenario (4.502 ± 0.135 vs. 1.208 ± 0.096, p < 0.001).

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT), justice sensitivity (JSI), and Subjective Moral Evaluations

Parallel to previous findings ^23,24, participants who scored higher on the other-oriented Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI) assigned significantly more praise for helping (in the placebo condition: r = 0.321, P = .003; in the lorazepam condition: r = 0.355, P = .001) as well as more blame for harming (in the placebo condition: r = -0.355, P = .001; in the lorazepam condition: r = -0.312, P = .005), regardless of being in the placebo or lorazepam condition. However, neither blame nor praise ratings were associated with self-oriented JSI scores in either the placebo (blame: r = -0.141, P = .21; praise: r = 0.211, P = .059) or lorazepam condition (blame: r = -0.182, P = .104; praise: r = 0.187, P = .095). The relationship between justice sensitivity and moral evaluation was influenced by gender, with only men showing a significant association between other-oriented JSI and praise (in the placebo condition: r = 0.461, P = .002; in the lorazepam condition: r = 0.463, P = .002), and between other-oriented JSI and blame (in the placebo condition: r = -0.536, P < .001; in the lorazepam condition: r = -0.524, P < .001). In contrast, women did not demonstrate this pattern of association between justice sensitivity and moral evaluation (all P > 0.2). Fisher's r-to-z transformation tests further confirmed the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between justice sensitivity and moral evaluation (Δz = 1.91, P = 0.028, one-tailed) (Fig. 3A). Implicit moral attitude (measured by the mIAT) did not significantly predict moral evaluation in any condition (i.e., placebo/lorazepam, male/female, and harming/helping) (all P > 0.2).

Regarding the effect of lorazepam on implicit moral attitude (mIAT) and justice sensitivity (JSI), while the total JSI score demonstrated a strong test-retest reliability between conditions (placebo and lorazepam) with a correlation of r = 0.872 (P < .001), the mIAT did not exhibit a similar pattern of correlation between the placebo and lorazepam conditions (r = 0.135, P = .231). Fisher's r-to-z transformation tests further confirmed the distinct roles of implicit (mIAT) versus explicit (JSI) moral attitudes in influencing the test-retest relationship between the placebo and lorazepam conditions (Δz = 7.51, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3B). This finding aligns with previous ANOVA results, indicating that lorazepam had an overall effect in individuals with both low and high JSI scores (Fig. 2B), whereas its impact was only observed in participants with high baseline mIAT D scores. This differential effect of lorazepam on explicit and implicit moral attitudes was not influenced by the gender factor, as indicated by the correlation scores in female (JSI: r = 0.81, P < .001; mIAT: r = 0.098, P = .546) and male participants (JSI: r = 0.904, P < .001; mIAT: r = 0.202, P = .206).

This research, a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study, explored the effects of lorazepam on moral judgment and attitudes, with a particular focus on the modulation of GABAergic potential. The research aimed to differentiate between self-interested and utilitarian behaviors using the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI; self-oriented vs. other-oriented justice), and examined moral attitudes through both implicit and explicit measures. The key finding was that acute lorazepam administration significantly decreased D scores in the High-D group on the Implicit Association Test (mIAT), while no such effect was observed in the Low-D group. Additionally, there were notable differences in other-oriented JSI between groups, with lorazepam showing a marginal trend toward significance. A significant interaction between group and gender was also observed, with men in the High-JSI group experiencing a more pronounced effect of lorazepam on other-oriented JSI compared to men in the Low-JSI group. Furthermore, harmful scenarios were judged as more blameworthy and helping scenarios as more praiseworthy than neutral scenarios, though these judgments were unaffected by lorazepam administration.

One critical aspect of this study was the need to distinguish the effects of lorazepam from its potential sedative side effects, given its known impact on psychomotor performance and reaction times (RTs) ^30–32. RTs were used as an objective measure of sedation, with the hypothesis that if lorazepam’s effects were purely sedative, RTs would increase regardless of the moral task. However, the study found that lorazepam’s effects varied depending on moral valence, suggesting that the observed changes were not solely due to sedation.

Interestingly, contrary to our initial hypothesis, lorazepam significantly lowered D scores for participants in the High-D group on the mIAT, while having no effect on those in the Low-D group. High-D scores are associated with longer reaction times, indicating that individuals with lower D scores are quicker in their responses and possibly more attuned to their moral intuitions. This finding appears to contradict earlier research, such as the study by Martinez, et al. ²², which suggested that individuals with lower D scores, often linked to a particular serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR), relied more heavily on moral intuitions. The discrepancy may be attributed to the different neurochemical systems involved—while 5-HTTLPR is related to the serotonergic system, lorazepam acts within the GABAergic system. Lorazepam might reduce anxiety-induced discomfort through the GABAergic system while preserving certain benefits like hypervigilance via the serotonergic system. However, previous studies have shown that serotonin transporters and GABAergic receptors are both linked to neuroticism ³³, with the former significantly affecting amygdala activity, a brain region where lorazepam is also known to exert significant inhibitory effects ^34–36. Despite this, the complex interplay between the GABAergic and serotonergic systems has not been definitively established ^37,38. Additionally, the lack of further reduction in D scores among participants with already Low-D scores post-lorazepam administration might be due to a floor effect, where the drug cannot exert additional inhibitory influence.

Regarding the other-oriented JSI, lorazepam administration was observed to slightly increase sensitivity to other-oriented justice, aligning with the dynamic nature of moral cognition where implicit and explicit processes interact ³⁹. The marginal increase in pro-sociality following lorazepam administration was expected, given the explicit nature of the JSI, which captures consciously controlled moral cognition ^27,40. This aligns with the finding that harming scenarios were judged more blameworthy, and helping scenarios more worthy of praise, than neutral ones, regardless of drug administration.

A significant interaction between group and gender was identified, particularly among participants with higher other-oriented JSI scores. Men in the High-JSI group exhibited greater sensitivity to other-oriented justice compared to women in the same group, a difference not observed in the Low-JSI group. This suggests that gender influences the relationship between justice sensitivity and moral evaluation, with men showing a stronger association between other-oriented JSI and moral praise. This finding contrasts with some previous research, which generally found women to be more sensitive to moral norms ^41,42, though it is important to consider the role of social desirability in shaping these responses, as some research has observed that the impact of gender on moral and ethical decision-making significantly diminishes once social desirability is accounted for in the analysis ⁴³.

Some limitations for this study should be acknowledged, particularly regarding the influence of individual differences and potential response biases in explicit moral judgments. Explicit measures can be affected by participants' desire to please the experimenter or avoid endorsing socially undesirable behaviors. Cognitive load and the capacity to imagine different moral outcomes also play a role in shaping these judgments ⁴⁴. Therefore, post-session questionnaires assessing participants' perceptions towards the experimenter could be useful for evaluating the influence of response expectancy in drug-placebo studies ⁴⁵. Last but not least, future research could benefit from including endophenotypic measures like EEG or fMRI to better understand the mechanisms underlying lorazepam’s effects on moral cognition ⁴⁶.

In conclusion, this study supports the dynamic system model of moral cognition, where explicit rational deliberation interacts with implicit emotional processes in shaping moral attitudes and decision-making ³⁹. Moreover, this study not only substantiates the findings that lorazepam, a GABA receptor agonist, can modulate moral processes, particularly the implicit ones, leading to more ruthless choices ³, but also that these ruthlessness may paradoxically enhance pro-social behavior. These results provide a foundation for further exploration of the interactions between neuromodulatory drugs and moral cognition.

FUNDING

This work was financially supported by grants from Wan-Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University (112TMU-WFH-15); the National Science and Technology Council (112-2636-H-038 -005 -; 112-2410-H-038 -029-); and the Higher Education Sprout Project (DP2-TMU-112-N-08) by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

All data generated or analyzed during this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

A written informed consent was obtained from all the participants, as well as were given a monetary compensation at the end of the study.

Lucas, B. J. & Galinsky, A. D. Is Utilitarianism Risky? How the Same Antecedents and Mechanism Produce Both Utilitarian and Risky Choices. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 541–548. 10.1177/1745691615583130 (2015).
Chen, C., Martinez, R. M., Chen, Y. C., Fan, Y. T. & Cheng, Y. The neural mediators of moral attitudes and behaviors. Behav. Brain Res. 430, 113934. 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113934 (2022).
Perkins, A. M. et al. A dose of ruthlessness: interpersonal moral judgment is hardened by the anti-anxiety drug lorazepam. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 612–620. 10.1037/a0030256 (2013).
Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., Archer, L. M. & Donohoe, P. L. Neuroticism and negative affect influence the reluctance to engage in destructive obedience in the Milgram paradigm. J. Soc. Psychol. 153, 161–174. 10.1080/00224545.2012.713041 (2013).
Drake, K. E. Interrogative suggestibility: Life adversity, neuroticism, and compliance. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 48, 493–498 (2010).
Maner, J. K. et al. Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 42, 665–675 (2007).
Grupe, D. W. & Nitschke, J. B. Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 488–501. 10.1038/nrn3524 (2013).
Steimer, T. The biology of fear- and anxiety-related behaviors. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 4, 231–249 (2002).
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 44, 389–400. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 (2004).
Zhao, J., Harris, M. & Vigo, R. Anxiety and moral judgment: The shared deontological tendency of the behavioral inhibition system and the unique utilitarian tendency of trait anxiety. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 95, 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.024 (2016).
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39, 341–350. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341 (1984).
Martinez, R. M. et al. Negative emotionality downregulation affects moral choice but not moral judgement of harm: a pharmacological study. 14, 1200 (2024).
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 293, 2105–2108. 10.1126/science.1062872 (2001).
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).
Gould, R. A., Otto, M. W., Pollack, M. H. & Yap, L. Cognitive behavioral and pharmacological treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary meta-analysis. Behav. Ther. 28, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(97)80048-2 (1997).
Richter, A., Grimm, S. & Northoff, G. Lorazepam modulates orbitofrontal signal changes during emotional processing in catatonia. Hum. Psychopharmacology: Clin. Experimental. 25, 55–62. 10.1002/hup.1084 (2010).
Martinez, R. M. et al. Negative emotionality downregulation affects moral choice but not moral judgement of harm: a pharmacological study. Sci. Rep. 14, 1200. 10.1038/s41598-024-51345-8 (2024).
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480 (1998).
Luo, Q. et al. The neural basis of implicit moral attitude–an IAT study using event-related fMRI. Neuroimage. 30, 1449–1457. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.005 (2006).
Kyriakopoulos, A. A. & Greenblatt, D. J. Shader, R. I. Clinical pharmacokinetics of lorazepam: a review. J. Clin. Psychiatry. 39, 16–23 (1978).
Chen, H. C., Li, W. C., Chou, T. A. & Cho, S. L. Measuring the self-exposure of Chinese people using the implicit association test. Psychol. Test. 49, 217–234 (2002).
Martinez, R. M. et al. The Multifaceted Effects of Serotonin Transporter Polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) on Anxiety, Implicit Moral Attitudes, and Harmful Behaviors. Front. Psychol. 11, 1521. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01521 (2020).
Chen, C., Martinez, R. M., Chen, Y. & Cheng, Y. Pointing fingers at others: The neural correlates of actor-observer asymmetry in blame attribution. Neuropsychologia. 136, 107281. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107281 (2020).
Yoder, K. J. & Decety, J. The Good, the bad, and the just: justice sensitivity predicts neural response during moral evaluation of actions performed by others. J. Neurosci. 34, 4161–4166. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4648-13.2014 (2014).
Chen, C., Martinez, R. M. & Cheng, Y. The key to group fitness: The presence of another synchronizes moral attitudes and neural responses during moral decision-making. Neuroimage. 213, 116732. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116732 (2020).
Nosek, B. A., Bar-Anan, Y., Sriram, N., Axt, J. & Greenwald, A. G. Understanding and using the brief Implicit Association Test: recommended scoring procedures. PLoS One. 9, e110938. 10.1371/journal.pone.0110938 (2014).
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M. & Maes, J. The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demorgraphic pattern, and normative data. Soc. Justice Res. 23, 211–238. 10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2 (2010).
Edele, A., Dziobek, I. & Keller, M. Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: the role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learn. Individual Differences. 24, 96–102 (2013).
Cheng, Y., Chou, J., Martinez, R. M., Fan, Y. T. & Chen, C. Psychopathic traits mediate guilt-related anterior midcingulate activity under authority pressure. Sci. Rep. 11, 14856. 10.1038/s41598-021-94372-5 (2021).
Smiley, A. Effects of minor tranquilizers and antidepressants on psychomotor performance. J. Clin. Psychiatry. 48 Suppl, 22–28 (1987).
Van Ruitenbeek, P., Vermeeren, A. & Riedel, W. J. Memory in humans is unaffected by central H1-antagonism, while objectively and subjectively measured sedation is increased. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 20, 226–235. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2009.12.003 (2010).
Curran, H. V., Pooviboonsuk, P., Dalton, J. A. & Lader, M. H. Differentiating the effects of centrally acting drugs on arousal and memory: an event-related potential study of scopolamine, lorazepam and diphenhydramine. Psychopharmacol. (Berl). 135, 27–36. 10.1007/s002130050482 (1998).
Sen, S. et al. Serotonin transporter and GABAA alpha 6 receptor variants are associated with neuroticism. Biol. Psychiatry. 55, 244–249. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.08.006 (2004).
Kreuder, A. K. et al. Common and dissociable effects of oxytocin and lorazepam on the neurocircuitry of fear. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 117, 11781–11787. 10.1073/pnas.1920147117 (2020).
Paulus, M. P., Feinstein, J. S., Castillo, G., Simmons, A. N. & Stein, M. B. Dose-dependent decrease of activation in bilateral amygdala and insula by lorazepam during emotion processing. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 62, 282–288. 10.1001/archpsyc.62.3.282 (2005).
Schunck, T. et al. Effects of lorazepam on brain activity pattern during an anxiety symptom provocation challenge. J. Psychopharmacol. 24, 701–708. 10.1177/0269881109104864 (2010).
Olivier, J. D., Vinkers, C. H. & Olivier, B. The role of the serotonergic and GABA system in translational approaches in drug discovery for anxiety disorders. Front. Pharmacol. 4, 74. 10.3389/fphar.2013.00074 (2013).
Ellerbrock, I. et al. Serotonergic gene-to-gene interaction is associated with mood and GABA concentrations but not with pain-related cerebral processing in fibromyalgia subjects and healthy controls. Mol. Brain. 14, 81. 10.1186/s13041-021-00789-4 (2021).
Van Bavel, J. J., FeldmanHall, O. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. The neuroscience of moral cognition: from dual processes to dynamic systems. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.009 (2015).
Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 4–27 (1995).
Qian, Y., Takimoto, Y., Wang, L. & Yasumura, A. J. C. P. Exploring cultural and gender differences in moral judgment: A cross-cultural study based on the CNI model. 43, 5243–5253 (2024).
Atari, M., Lai, M. H. & Dehghani, M. J. P. o. t. R. S. B. Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. 287, 20201201 (2020).
Dalton, D. & Ortegren, M. J. J. o. B. E. Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. 103, 73–93 (2011).
Gaesser, B., Keeler, K. & Young, L. Moral imagination: Facilitating prosocial decision-making through scene imagery and theory of mind. Cognition. 171, 180–193. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.11.004 (2018).
Gaab, J., Kossowsky, J., Ehlert, U. & Locher, C. Effects and Components of Placebos with a Psychological Treatment Rationale - Three Randomized-Controlled Studies. Sci. Rep. 9, 1421. 10.1038/s41598-018-37945-1 (2019).
Canli, T. & Lesch, K. P. Long story short: the serotonin transporter in emotion regulation and social cognition. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1103–1109. 10.1038/nn1964 (2007).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
24 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
01 Oct, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
30 Sep, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
30 Sep, 2024
Editor invited by journal
31 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
29 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
22 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Transforming the Unseen: Diminishing Negative Emotions Alters Implicit Moral Attitudes Without Affecting Subjective Moral Judgments or Justice Sensitivity

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

General Procedures

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT)

Explicit Measure of Justice Sensitivity: The Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI)

Subjective Evaluations on Morally Laden Scenarios

RESULTS

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT) results

Justice sensitivity (JSI) results

Subjective Moral Evaluations

Implicit moral attitude (mIAT), justice sensitivity (JSI), and Subjective Moral Evaluations

DISCUSSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1