The COVID-19 pandemic poses many real-world moral dilemmas, which can pit the needs and rights of the many against the needs and rights of the few. We investigated moral judgments in the context of the contemporary global crisis among older adults, who are at greatest personal risk from the pandemic. We hypothesized that during this pandemic, individuals would give fewer utilitarian responses to hypothetical dilemmas, accompanied by higher levels of confidence and emotion elicitation. Our pre-registered analysis (https://osf.io/g2wtp) involved two waves of data collection, before (2014) and during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic, regarding three categories of moral dilemmas (personal rights, agent-centered permissions, and special obligations). While utilitarian responses considered across all categories of dilemma did not differ, participants during the 2020 wave gave fewer utilitarian responses to dilemmas involving personal rights; that is, they were less willing to violate the personal rights of others to produce the best overall outcomes.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses many real-world moral dilemmas, which can pit the needs and rights of the many against the needs and rights of the few. We investigated the influence of this contemporary global crisis on moral judgments in older adults, who are at greatest personal risk from the pandemic. We hypothesized that during this pandemic, individuals would give fewer utilitarian responses to hypothetical dilemmas, accompanied by higher levels of confidence and emotion elicitation. Our pre-registered analysis (https://osf.io/g2wtp) involved two waves of data collection, before (2014) and during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic, regarding three categories of moral dilemmas (personal rights, agent-centered permissions, and special obligations). While utilitarian responses considered across all categories of dilemma did not differ, participants during the 2020 wave gave fewer utilitarian responses to dilemmas involving personal rights; that is, they were less willing to violate the personal rights of others to produce the best overall outcomes.
One influential framework for examining utilitarian judgments has been a dual process model, in which utilitarian judgment (e.g., infliction of harm for the greater good) is typically associated with deliberate cognitive control processes, while non-utilitarian judgment (e.g., avoiding such harms) is associated with emotional, automatic processes. Another paradigm framework of moral cognition, the two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology, posits that utilitarian choices may reflect either instrumental harm, i.e., inflicting harm on an individual for the greater good; or impartial beneficence, i.e., impartially and altruistically acting for the benefit of the overall welfare. We evaluated preregistered (https://osf.io/m425d) hypotheses derived from these models of moral cognition in a sample of 275 neurologically healthy older adults. Our results suggest that both the dual process and two-dimensional models provided insights regarding utilitarian reasoning, including three cardinal domains of conflict between utilitarianism and common-sense morality: agent-centered permissions, special obligations and personal rights. One aspect of the dual process-based model was supported by our findings, with higher emotionality associated with decreased endorsement of utilitarian judgments (b = - 0.12, p < .001). We also found partial support for the second paradigm emphasizing the two-dimensional nature of utilitarianism, as utilitarian judgments about dilemmas involving agent-centered permissions and personal rights were dissociated; however, both sets of judgments were associated with utilitarian judgments about dilemmas involving special obligations (p <.01). We propose that our findings, with support for some elements of the dual process and two-dimensional models, can be integrated in a revised two-dimensional model of utilitarian judgment as including impartial beneficence and acceptance of attributable harms.
Dementia caregiving, besides encompassing various challenges in tandem to the diagnosis of the care recipient, is associated with decreased psychological well-being and mental health. Accordingly, caregivers’ wellbeing has an impact on the quality of care they provide and on the relationship quality with the person in their care. The aim of the present study is to examine the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention on relational and psychological wellbeing, tailored to the needs of dementia caregivers. This clinical trial (NCT04977245) will apply a randomized controlled mixed method design. Caregivers will be randomly allocated to either the mindfulness intervention or the active control group. The intervention arm is based on experiential learning and is targeted to promote caregivers’ well-being and empowerment. Assessments will include, standardized self-report questionnaires, task performance measures, and qualitative measures. All assessments will be held at three time points (baseline; t0, 0 months, post-intervention; t1, 2 months, and after maintenance; t2, 3 months) focused on three core domains (1. relational well-being, 2. psychological well-being, and 3. dementia patient’s lifestyle/activities). The primary outcome will be relational well-being, and data will be analyzed using linear mixed modelling.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.