Whether we condemn the villain in a movie or feel that
somebody has wronged us personally, many of us make moral judgments on a daily
basis. From a neuropsychological viewpoint, the act of judging a moral
situation is incredibly complex and has a lot to do with intentionality - did
the perpetrator really mean to do those awful things? What happens in our brain
when we know that whoever caused the harm did so unintentionally? New research
investigates the neuroanatomical basis of forgiveness.
The new study examines the role of a
brain area called the anterior superior temporal sulcus (aSTS) in forgiving
those who make unintentional mistakes.
The researchers were led by Giorgia
Silani from the University of Vienna in Austria, and the study was carried out
in collaboration with scientists from Trieste University in Italy and Boston
College in Massachusetts. The findings were recently published in
the journal Scientific Reports.
As the authors explain, making a mature
moral judgment about a wrongful act involves not only considering the damage
done, but also the perpetrator's intention and mental state. When there is a
clear contradiction between the two, however, intention seems to take
precedence over the result of the action.
Indrajeet Patil, the study's primary
author, details this further and puts the new research into context:
"Behavioural studies have already
shown that when the intention and outcome of an action are conflicting, as in
the case of sometimes serious accidental harm, people tend to focus mainly on
the intentions when formulating a judgment. And this is more or less a
universal feature of mature moral judgments across cultures," Patil
explains.
"To date, however, very few
studies have taken on this issue from an anatomical point of view, to gain an
understanding of whether differences in the volume and structure of certain
areas of the brain might explain variations in moral judgment. This research
attempted to explore precisely this aspect."
Studying the
neuroanatomical basis of forgiveness
To do this, the researchers asked 50
participants to complete a moral judgement task. The volunteers were presented
with 36 unique stories and four potential outcomes for each of them.
Each scenario comprised four parts:
some background information; a so-called foreshadowing segment, in which it was
suggested that the outcome would be either neutral or harmful; information on
the neutral or intentionally harmful mental state of the agent; and, finally,
the consequence, which revealed the agent's action and the resulting outcome.
Participants read each story and were
asked to give their moral judgment by answering questions regarding
"acceptability" and "blame." Namely, the participants were
asked: "How morally acceptable was [the agent]'s behavior?" and
"How much blame does [the agent] deserve?" The volunteers gave
answers based on a scale from 1 to 7.
While answering the questions, the
participants' brain activity was analyzed using voxel-based
morphometry - a neuroimaging technique that allows for a
holistic examination of brain changes while simultaneously preserving a high
degree of brain region specificity.
The researchers also used neuroimaging
to localize the neural areas responsible for the so-called theory of mind
(ToM). ToM, or "mentalizing," is a person's ability to correctly
attribute mental states - such as beliefs, intentions, and desires - to others
based on their behavior. Mentalizing also refers to the person's ability to
explain and predict other people's behavior based on these inferences.
People with a
more developed aSTS are more inclined to forgive
The results revealed a connection
between the differences in moral judgement severity about unintentional harm
and the volume of the left aSTS brain region.
More specifically, the more developed the aSTS was,
the less blame was attributed to the wrongdoers. "The greater the gray
matter volume [in this area], the less accidental harm-doers are
condemned," the authors write.
Patil further explains the findings:
"The aSTS was already
known to be involved in the ability to represent the mental states (thoughts,
beliefs, desires, etc.) of others. According to our conclusions, individuals
with more gray matter at aSTS are better able to represent the mental state of
those responsible for actions and thus comprehend the unintentional nature of
the harm. In expressing judgment they are thus able to focus on this latter
aspect and give it priority over the especially unpleasant consequences of the
action. For this reason, ultimately, they are less inclined to condemn it
severely."
This study opens up new avenues for neuroscientific
research. Patil and colleagues recommend that further studies use more
realistic contexts to study moral judgments, as well as using a more
demographically diverse study sample.
No comments:
Post a Comment