Moral Framing and Mechanisms Influence Public Willingness to Optimize Cognition
- PDF / 606,708 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 229 Views
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Moral Framing and Mechanisms Influence Public Willingness to Optimize Cognition Madeline Haslam 1 & David Yaden 2 & John D. Medaglia 3,4 Received: 21 February 2020 / Accepted: 31 August 2020 # Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract Scientists, clinicians, and the public aim to optimize cognition using numerous techniques. While drugs and education have become mainstays in the public and professional practice, brain stimulation is rapidly emerging. The public reports some concerns about brain stimulation used to optimize cognition. In our prior work using hypothetical vignettes involving brain stimulation, the moral acceptability of specific uses was only somewhat related to the public’s willingness to administer brain stimulation to influence a given cognitive function. Notably, whether the moral framing influences willingness to optimize cognition with various mechanisms is unknown. Here, we randomly assigned subjects to one of four mechanism vignette conditions: education, drugs, invasive brain stimulation, and noninvasive brain stimulation. Within each mechanism, subjects were assigned to think morally either before or after reporting their willingness to optimize specific cognitive functions in others. Across 1328 subjects, we found that thinking morally reduced the public’s willingness to optimize cognition overall. Moreover, willingness decreased the most in invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation. Encouraging moral reasoning uniquely reduces openness to using brain stimulation among other ways to optimize cognition. Studying how specific moral concerns drive public hesitancy about brain stimulation could suggest avenues for education and ethical discourse. Keywords Neuroenhancement . Brain stimulation . Neuroethics . Judgment . Decision-making
People aim to optimize their cognitive functions at home (Farah 2015; Lampit et al. 2014; Wexler 2016a, b, 2018) and in clinics (McGurk et al. 2015), through cognitive training and education, drugs, and invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation (Ngandu et al. 2015; Ritchie et al. 2015; Franke et al. 2014; Snowball et al. 2013).While the effect sizes of many cognitive optimization techniques are modest (e.g., Au Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00190-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * John D. Medaglia [email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, Washington College, Chestertown, MD 21620, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3
Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
4
Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
et al. 2015; Brunoni and Vanderhasselt 2014; Jaeggi et al. 2011; McGurk et al. 2007; Thorell et al. 2009), some are more compelling (e.g., Reinhart and Nguyen 2019) and the prospects for more potent techniques in the hands of professionals and the general
Data Loading...
