Effect of professional expertise and exposure to everyday life decision-making on moral choices

Moral sense is defined as a feeling of fairness or unfairness of an action that knowingly causes harm to people other than the subject. It is crucial in determining human behavior and becomes pivotal in operational environments. Here we assessed whether professional daily life experience in an operational environment affects moral judgment by asking 41 military pilots of the Italian Air Force (P) and 69 controls (C) to solve 40 moral dilemmas. We found that P gave more morally acceptable utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Interestingly, men and women in P equally accepted utilitarian resolutions of moral dilemmas, whereas in C women were less prone than men to accept utilitarian responses. We conclude that professional daily life experience of P, in an operational environment, affects moral judgment and mitigates gender predisposition towards moral dilemmas.

[1]  A. Clará,et al.  The vascular surgeon facing clinical ethical dilemmas (the VASCUETHICS Study): 'V'-shaped association between compassionate attitudes and professional seniority. , 2006, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[2]  Paola Verde,et al.  Gender effects on mental rotation in pilots vs. nonpilots. , 2013, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[3]  P. Pasqualetti,et al.  Brain Switches Utilitarian Behavior: Does Gender Make the Difference? , 2010, PloS one.

[4]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  How (and where) does moral judgment work? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  Joshua D. Greene Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them , 2001 .

[6]  Claudio Lucchiari,et al.  Gender-related differences in moral judgments , 2010, Cognitive Processing.

[7]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Andrew D. Engell,et al.  The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment , 2004, Neuron.

[9]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[10]  A. Clará,et al.  Clinical ethical dilemmas for vascular surgeons (the VASCUETHICS study): are self-interest attitudes related to professional seniority? , 2004, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[11]  M. Sarlo,et al.  A New Set of Moral Dilemmas: Norms for Moral Acceptability, Decision Times, and Emotional Salience , 2014 .

[12]  J. Haidt The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology , 2007, Science.

[13]  Anne C. Pisor,et al.  Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Paola Verde,et al.  Gender differences in navigational memory: pilots vs. nonpilots. , 2015, Aerospace medicine and human performance.

[15]  Quinn Kennedy,et al.  Age and expertise effects in aviation decision making and flight control in a flight simulator. , 2010, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[16]  Olga Antonenko,et al.  Gender differences in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. , 2008, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[17]  UN NUOVO SET DI 60 DILEMMI MORALI: DATI NORMATIVI ITALIANI PER GIUDIZI DI ACCETTABILITÀ MORALE, TEMPI DI DECISIONE E VALUTAZIONI EMOZIONALI , 2013 .

[18]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment , 2001, Science.

[19]  S. Hannah,et al.  Different Hats, Different Obligations: Plural Occupational Identities and Situated Moral Judgments , 2012 .

[20]  H. Walter,et al.  From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. , 2011, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.