MedDataX Logo

Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities

NCT ID: NCT06735989

Last Updated: 2025-12-23

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

86 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-11-18

Study Completion Date

2025-10-13

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on 1 to 4 points scale) of qualitative variables in the moral justification expressed by the subjects.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The aim of this study is to test wether a single intervention on moral reasoning can have short and/or mid-term effects on the justification of moral judgements about a problematic moral case. Focusing on justification allows to assess reasonable improvement by referring to a procedural standard, that is, without assuming any substantive normative view; namely, without evaluating a "betterment" on the basis of the content of moral judgements, but rather on the satisfaction of formal, procedural conditions in their justification. Our standard for a good moral justification consists in a set of procedural features, such as logical, empirical, and conceptual competence, openness to revision, sympathetic imagination, and bias avoidance.

Once enrolled, participants will be randomized through random.org software in the two experimental groups: 1) the moral and 2) the non-moral condition. Allocation concealment will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will undergo a neuropsychological assessment and a (optional) task-based fMRI at study entry. Furthermore, during the day of the intervention (seminar: moral or logical reasoning), participants will undergo a pre-test (before the intervention) and a post-test (after the intervention) on a morally problematic case. The same test will be repeated by all participants one month after the intervention.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Moral Development Moral Dilemma Healthy Controls Moral Justification

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.
Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors
Blinding will be maintained for allocation concealment, which will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will be labelled with a numerical code to ensure anonymisation. Subjects, teachers, evaluators and statisticians will be blind to allocation. Specifically, teachers of both groups will be not informed about the aim of the study. They will be provided with specular material for the seminar (same structure and number of slides). They will be only informed to not answer to specific questions about dilemmas. Subjects of a group will be informed that the other group is attending a seminar on "reasoning". They will be separated until the end of the post-test phase.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Moral

The Moral group will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of moral justification, and outlining brief descriptions of six morally relevant factors. The Moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on moral reasoning.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Lecture on moral reasoning

Intervention Type OTHER

One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning

Non-moral

The Non-moral will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of argumentation, and outlining brief descriptions of six logical and argumentative principles. The Non-moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on (non-moral) logical reasoning.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Lecture on logical reasoning

Intervention Type OTHER

One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Lecture on moral reasoning

One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning

Intervention Type OTHER

Lecture on logical reasoning

One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* University students (other than Philosophy) within the first 3 years
* Aged between 18 and 26 years old
* Italian speakers
* Oral and written informed consent to study participation

Exclusion Criteria

* A current psychiatric condition
* Contraindications to MRI study (cardiac pacemakers; metal splinters or fragments; metal protheses not compatible with the magnetic field; claustrophobia; women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant during the study; breastfeeding women).
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

26 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

IRCCS San Raffaele

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Prof. Massimo Filippi

Prof.

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

IRCCS San Raffaele

Milan, Italy, Italy

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Italy

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11699120 (View on PubMed)

Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19739881 (View on PubMed)

Klenk M, Sauer H. Moral Judgement and Moral Progress: The Problem of Cognitive Control. Philos Psychol. 2021 Jul 2;34(7):938-961. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2021.1931670. eCollection 2021.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34556899 (View on PubMed)

Rozin P, Haidt J, Fincher K. Psychology. From oral to moral. Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1179-80. doi: 10.1126/science.1170492. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19251619 (View on PubMed)

Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30956726 (View on PubMed)

Schwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P. Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32721655 (View on PubMed)

Schwitzgebel E, Cushman F. Philosophers' biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition. 2015 Aug;141:127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 May 14.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25981733 (View on PubMed)

Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11557895 (View on PubMed)

Greene JD. The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:66-77. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004. Epub 2017 Mar 23.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28343626 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

Moral-REA

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id