Do Adverse Childhood Experiences Make Us More Utilitarian in Moral Dilemmas?
Zhihui Wu,Junyao Song,Xiyou Chen,Daoqun Ding,Xiangyi Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.s455057
IF: 3.974
2024-04-25
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
Abstract:Zhihui Wu, 1– 3 Junyao Song, 4 Xiyou Chen, 1 Daoqun Ding, 1– 3, 5 Xiangyi Zhang 1, 6 1 Department of Psychology, School of Education Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, People's Republic of China; 2 Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, People's Republic of China; 3 Center for Mind and Brain Science, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, People's Republic of China; 4 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China; 5 Research Base for Mental Health Education of Hunan Province, Changsha, People's Republic of China; 6 Cognition and Human Behavior Key Laboratory of Hunan Province, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Daoqun Ding; Xiangyi Zhang, Department of Psychology, School of Education Science, Hunan Normal University, 36 Lushan Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410081, People's Republic of China, Email ; Purpose: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been associated with various aspects of morality, but their precise impact on moral decision-making remains unclear. This study aims to explore how ACEs influence moral decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas. Methods: Study 1 employed traditional dilemma analysis to quantify utilitarian responses and compare them among groups with no, low, and high ACEs. Study 2 utilized the CNI model to quantify three determinants of moral decision-making: sensitivity to consequences (C parameter), sensitivity to norms (N parameter), and general action tendencies (I parameter). Differences in these parameters among groups with no, low, and high ACEs were investigated. Results: Both Study 1 and Study 2 revealed that the high-ACE and low-ACE groups showed significantly higher utilitarian responses compared to the no-ACE group. However, no notable differences emerged between the high-ACE and low-ACE groups. Study 2 found that the N parameter was significantly lower in the high-ACE group compared to the low and no-ACE groups. Similarly, the low-ACE group exhibited significantly lower scores in the N parameter compared to the no-ACE group. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the C and I parameters among groups with no, low, and high ACEs. Conclusion: These findings suggest that individuals with a high number of ACEs tend to exhibit more utilitarian responses, attributed to decreased affective response to the violation of moral rules, rather than increased deliberative cost-benefit reasoning or a general preference for action. Such insights deepen our understanding of the precise aspects of moral decision-making influenced by ACEs. Keywords: adverse childhood experiences, moral decision-making, CNI model Previous studies on moral decision-making suggest that deontological and utilitarian responses can be evaluated through moral dilemmas, where considerations for the greater good conflicts with adherence to moral norms. 1 An example is the footbridge dilemma, 2 where a large man is pushed off the bridge onto the tracks below to save five workers. This dilemma prompts the question: is it acceptable to push a large man in order to save five workers? From a utilitarian perspective, pushing the large man is morally acceptable because it maximizes overall well-being (eg, sacrificing one man could save five). However, from a deontological standpoint, such an action is morally unacceptable as it violates the moral norm prohibiting the harm of innocents. 3,4 Responses favoring this action are labeled as utilitarian, prioritizing the greater good, while opposing responses are categorized as deontological, emphasizing adherence to moral norms. 5 To explain the empirically observed differences in moral decision-making, the dual-process theory posits that utilitarian responses predominantly stem from cognitive cost-benefit analysis, whereas deontological responses primarily arise from automatic emotional reactions to harm-related scenarios. 3,6 This theory suggests that moral decision-making is influenced by various factors, such as empathic concern and cognitive reasoning style. 4,7 Additionally, a significant contributor to moral decision-making is an individual's life experiences, particularly adverse life experiences during childhood and adolescence. 8,9 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) refer to potentially traumatic events encountered by individuals during childhood and adolescence. 10–12 It is widely accepted that ACEs are best understood as risk factors. 13 ACEs typically categorized into three main categories, comprising a total of 10 risk fa -Abstract Truncated-
psychology, clinical, multidisciplinary