5 examples of difficult ethical dilemmas in AAT practice

What is a DILEMMA - essence, meaning and definition in simple words.

In simple terms, a Dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice must be made between two or more unfavorable or mutually exclusive alternatives. We can also say that a dilemma is a certain moment in which a conflict or critical situation arises, where a person needs to make a difficult choice between two courses of action. Moreover, both options have almost the same value, and not one of them satisfies a person. To put it very informally, a dilemma is a situation of extremely difficult choice.

What is a MORAL (Ethical) DILEMMA?

A moral or ethical dilemma is a situation or event that calls into question the morality of a person during a certain period of time. As a rule, in the future, a person can return to his usual moral values, but in a given period of time, he must choose one morality that is superior to another. In simple words, this means that a person is faced with a moral choice between: sticking to his principles or temporarily agreeing with other moral principles.

Summary

As you develop your own negotiation strategies, actions, and behaviors, be sure to consider the science we just outlined. Always remember that the initial plan must be built on the assumption that your opponent (business partner, manager or colleague at work, friend or family member) is, like you, committed to long-term, mutually beneficial and honest cooperation.

But don't lose sight of the fact that the situation may get out of control and things may not go as you originally expected. For this reason, you should always develop and have insurance in stock - another option if you suddenly have to act in force majeure conditions. And if you had to respond with the same actions that your opponent took against you, then immediately after you “gave back” return the strategy to its previous state - offer peace, become “kind”, be ready to make concessions, etc. . Moreover, this behavior can be repeated as many times as necessary in order to come to some common denominator and mutually beneficial solution.

We wish you to successfully master the art of negotiations, because this skill will definitely be useful to you both in your professional sphere and in your personal life.

We also recommend reading:

• Storytelling
• Negotiation Matrix
• Psychology of choice
• Problem about salary options
• Wolves
• Clayton Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma. How strong companies are dying due to new technologies” - summary
• Rules for tough negotiations
• Problem about 4 criminals and 4 hats
• Rule of three "Yes"
• Types of games
• Diagnostics of moral consciousness. Moral Interview Technique

Key words:1Cognitive science

Dilemma example:

The simplest example of a moral dilemma is the following question: “ Is saving many lives worth it by killing one person? " In this case, the morality of murder is contrasted with the morality of salvation. The answer varies depending on the individual's personality and culture.

In fact, the issue of resolving moral dilemmas is a very common problem, especially in those areas where the lives of others directly depend on one's actions. For example, similar difficulties are encountered on a regular basis:

• Soldiers;
• Policemen;
• Doctors;
• Firefighters;
• Politicians and so on.

How to solve an ethical (moral) dilemma?

The biggest problem with an ethical dilemma is that it does not offer an obvious solution that is morally acceptable. Throughout human history, people have always faced similar dilemmas, and philosophers have strived and worked to find solutions to such problems. As a result of such activities, some recommendations have been formed, which in many cases help solve moral dilemmas. So, first of all you should:

• To refute the paradox (dilemma): it is necessary to carefully analyze the situation. In some cases, the existence of a dilemma can be logically refuted;
• Determine value: it is necessary to choose an alternative that offers greater good and less evil;
• Try to find alternative solutions: In some cases, the problem may be reconsidered and new alternative solutions may emerge.

Ethical dilemmas in psychological counseling

When Morality Becomes Obvious: Ethical Dilemmas in Counseling Psychology

An ethical dilemma in the practice of a psychologist is not simply a complex situation in which the personal needs of the psychologist or the organization where he works and ethical principles collide. For example, to recruit clients, a novice psychologist is offered to offer discounts when the client pays for several consultations at once or conduct initial consultations for free. This is a situation in which, even if the psychologist chooses to follow ethical professional principles, the decision of the psychologist may lead to adverse consequences for other parties involved.

Anastasia Armashova, psychologist-consultant at the Center for Corporate Training and Consulting, Yaroslavl State University named after P.G. Demidova, Ph.D. in psychology, talks about the results of her dissertation research on “ethical vigilance”—the ability of a psychologist to recognize an ethical dilemma in a professional situation and treat it differently.

An ethical dilemma in the practice of a psychologist is not simply a complex situation in which the personal needs of the psychologist or the organization where he works and ethical principles collide. For example, to recruit clients, a novice psychologist is offered to offer discounts when the client pays for several consultations at once or conduct initial consultations for free. This is a situation in which, even if the psychologist chooses to follow ethical professional principles, the decision of the psychologist may lead to adverse consequences for other parties involved.

Often such situations arise directly during interaction with the client. The psychologist does not have the opportunity to prepare for the initial consultation. As a rule, he does not know in which field he will work: what personal characteristics the client will have, what problem he will have and in what psychological state he will come. Also, due to the severity of the situation, clients do not always disclose all the details to the consultant. The specialist understands that he is working in a deficit of information about the full picture of the circumstances, the parties affected, etc. High uncertainty in a consulting situation and the need to make a decision “here and now” makes an ethical dilemma not just a case of the specialist’s absolute authorship in his choice, but also involves high emotional stress.

A consulting psychologist describes his experiences at the beginning of working with ethically complex cases: “As a rule, in such difficult situations, clients first raise the issue of confidentiality, we discuss the principle of the ethical code, and I explain in detail how a specialist should act. Even then, this feeling of uncertainty arises, you understand that there is a difficult consultation ahead, a difficult situation in which, most likely, you will have to make a difficult decision, but you don’t know what it will be, you don’t know the consequences.”

At the Department of Consulting Psychology YARSU named after P.G. Demidov, we conducted a study of the perception of ethical dilemmas by psychologists-consultants. We collected cases from practice that psychologists considered complex ethical situations and ethical dilemmas and then showed two cases to the study participants:

Situation 1 A 38-year-old man came for consultation. During the consultation, it became clear that the client has an addiction problem (LSD, cocaine, alcohol addiction), and is also currently a drug distributor.

Situation 2 A psychologist is counseling a client (the topic is cheating on his wife). After another consultation, the consultant received a call from his friend, who turned out to be the client’s wife (she, according to her, accidentally discovered a psychologist’s business card with a familiar last name). The woman really asks for information about the reasons for her husband’s visit; she hopes that the consultant will understand her feelings and help her get rid of the painful uncertainty.

We wanted to describe the peculiarities of a specialist’s perception of such situations—the ability to recognize an ethical field or dilemma in a situation. We have designated this ability as “ethical vigilance.” We were able to identify three levels of its development: rational-pragmatic, situational-emotional, personally responsible.

At the rational-pragmatic level, the psychologist does not perceive the situation as an ethical dilemma, evaluates it from one position and does not take into account the entire context of the situation. The consultants treated the case as a professional problem that was interesting to solve, or as a situation whose circumstances required a certain normative behavior. Here, choice and responsibility for its consequences were not assumed in principle, since the consultants treated a possible decision as forced and as an obligation.

Examples of reactions of consulting psychologists to cases:

On the situation with a drug distributor: “Report that addiction greatly affects all areas of life. Work with request and dependency"; “Refuse, report to the police (violation of the code)”); "Fear for yourself"; “Since I am a private practicing psychologist, it is not safe for me to work with this client due to his involvement in the drug distribution network. In addition, the client will likely receive more effective help from a psychologist working in an institution specializing in addictions”; "Maintain a neutral position."

In response to a situation with a call from a friend: “It should be unpleasant for a consultant to feel like a victim of manipulation by an offended wife”; “Irritation, bewilderment, worry that she is violating his boundaries”; “I am also being drawn into a coalition and deprived of an independent position”; “I would feel angry because my wife called.”

At the situational-emotional level of ethical vigilance, the perception of a situation as an ethical dilemma is influenced by the context of its circumstances. That is, the consultant does not recognize an ethical conflict in all cases.

Psychologists emotionally experienced the impossibility of making the optimal decision, analyzed the situation from different angles, and predicted negative consequences.

Examples of reactions of psychologists-consultants:

On the situation with a drug distributor: “Conflict between professional and ethical standards and personal feelings”; “Can I work with drug addiction? Should I report this person to the drug control authorities if he commits offenses?”; “We need to think about what and how to work in this situation, ask for advice from the Association.” To the situation with a call from a friend: “Sympathy and understanding of the client’s wife. Human remorse"; “Solidarity and understanding for the woman’s experiences, but professionalism and understanding in the difficult situation of the client”; “The idea is how you can convey to your acquaintance, without traumatizing her, that this is confidential information that under no circumstances can be disclosed, and whether in this case it is even possible to send him with her to a family psychologist. What is the best thing to do in this situation - what alternatives might there be?”; “Anxiety, uncertainty about a favorable outcome of the consultation”; “Anger from the inability to find the optimal solution, solidarity, empathy, rage, doubt, etc.”

At the personally responsible level, an ethical dilemma is recognized by a specialist, regardless of the context of the circumstances of the situation. What is distinctive about this level is not just the emotional experience of the inevitability of the negative consequences of the decision made, but also the awareness of the psychologist’s personal responsibility for it. The situation is not perceived as a complex professional task, where the choice is dictated by circumstances. The consultant perceives it as a personal choice, treats the decision as significant for the development of his personality (“how should I live with this decision”).

Decision making is accompanied by a process of self-determination, reflection of values ​​regarding the circumstances of a given specific situation.

Examples of reactions of psychologists-consultants:

On the situation with a drug distributor: “- confusion: with any action of the consultant there will be a violation of confidentiality, so the choice is: either help the client, or be a respectable citizen and report to drug control.; - question to yourself: “what decision can I live with later?” . A deal with conscience with the understanding that in any case I am doing something wrong, or breaking something.; a sense of responsibility for the relationship with the client: he sees his salvation in the consultant and trusts”; “Should I report it to law enforcement agencies? But if he reports, he will be imprisoned. And he wants to get out. He came himself and trusted (after words about confidentiality). But it’s difficult for me to support him, understanding that he is spreading substances. Work with the confidence that you are determined to stop taking and distributing substances”; “Confusion about whether I can handle such a difficult situation, thoughts about the cost of the client’s trust and my responsibility.”

On the situation with a call from a friend: “At first I felt indignation at the request. Then the feelings change. It’s unpleasant that the information was twisted like this. That old acquaintances are involved. A feeling of complexity and the absence of a single correct solution”; “Pang of conscience,” torment between the fact that there is already an established trusting relationship with the client and cannot be violated, and the desire to help the woman”; “The husband did not consent to the dissemination of information about him; this is not a case where the principle of confidentiality can be violated. Therefore, the psychologist cannot provide any information to his wife. There is a clash between the value systems of the consultant and the client (the value of family). Should I express my thoughts on this matter? Or adhere to the client’s value system.”

Treating an ethical dilemma as a personal choice, reflecting on your emotional experience in a given situation, and your responsibility for the consequences requires a resourceful state from the consultant. Rational-pragmatic perception can be a consequence not only of ethical ignorance, but also an aspect of a professional crisis or burnout. In other words, it is important for a psychologist not only to be ethically educated and know the algorithms for action in ethically controversial situations, but also to develop and maintain ethical vigilance, that is, the very ability to recognize a given situation in one’s professional activities.

Link to the study: Armashova A.B. Ethical dilemmas in the interaction between a psychologist-consultant and a client: dis. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences: 19.00.05 / Armashova Anastasia Borisovna; [Place of defense: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Yaroslavl State University named after. P.G. Demidova”], 2018

TOP dilemmas that will make you use your brain.

Dilemma: Concentration camp.

Imagine that you are a prisoner in a concentration camp. The sadistic security guard is going to hang your son, who tried to escape. He demands that you personally pull the chair out from under your son's feet. If you don't, he will not only kill your son, but also another innocent prisoner. You have no doubt that the guard will do as he says. What will you do?

Dilemma: Accident.

Imagine that you are an emergency medical worker who has just been called to the scene of an accident. Upon arrival, you see that the damaged car belongs to your wife. As you get closer, you see that the wife is stuck in her car with another man. She sees you and quietly, guiltily says the words “I’m sorry.” You understand that the man next to her is her lover with whom she had an affair. Of course, you are stunned, devastated, offended and even in a state of rage. However, you are at work. You see that your wife is seriously injured and needs urgent medical attention immediately or she will die. You also notice that her lover is bleeding heavily from a wound on his neck, and you need to immediately stop the flow of blood. Stopping the bleeding will only take about 5 minutes, but it will mean that your wife will most likely die. However, if you help your wife, the man will bleed to death, even though it could have been avoided. What to do? Who should we save first?

Dilemma: Neighbor.

Imagine that you have a beautiful daughter. She is 8 years old and has always been a happy, outgoing child. But some time ago, she was raped. You are absolutely sure that the person who raped her is your neighbor. The point is that your daughter is so traumatized that she stopped speaking, but was able to let you know that it was a neighbor. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to convict him legally.

Some time passes, and you try to restore your daughter’s life and yours. You move house and try to help your daughter as best you can, but it is clear that this experience has ruined her life and the life of your family. One evening while having dinner at a restaurant, you notice your former neighbor. He eats alone and looks unhappy. You quickly finish eating and leave. The next day you learn that the neighbor's wife was killed last evening. Soon there will be enough evidence to convict him of murder. At first you are very happy, finally he will get what he deserves. But then you remember that you saw him in the restaurant at the time of the murder. You know he didn't kill his wife. He may have paid someone else to do it, but you can't say that. You sit down to think. If you remain silent, he will be convicted of murder, and the real killer will go free. If you give him an alibi, he will go free. But, you cannot be sure that the real killer will be found. What to do?

Dilemma: Pregnant woman in a narrow passage.

A pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave to the coast became firmly stuck in the narrow exit from this cave. High tide is expected soon. If she doesn't get through, all the people will drown except the woman, whose head is outside the cave. Luckily (or unfortunately), someone has dynamite with them. There is definitely no way to get a pregnant woman out without using dynamite, which will inevitably kill her. But if you don't use dynamite, then everyone else will drown. What should people do?

Dilemma: Crazy bomber.

A madman was detained who threatened to detonate several bombs in crowded places. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs, and they should go off soon. It is possible that hundreds of people could die. The authorities cannot force him to reveal the location of the bombs using conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and asks for a lawyer. In exasperation, some high-ranking officials are suggesting torture. Of course, this would be illegal, but officials believe that in this desperate situation it is still necessary to do so. Do you agree with such actions? What if, in order to achieve a result, it is proposed to torture his relatives in front of the bomber?

Get a plus for your karma - share your goodness with your friends: VK

Moral dilemmas and personality traits 410

Moral sense plays a decisive role in determining human behavior in society. The problem of moral choice has important practical significance in the study of the causes and prevention of deviant and criminal behavior, since a common feature of people prone to antisocial, rule-breaking behavior is non-compliance with moral principles. Analysis of the personal characteristics of people who are able to make a choice that, with rational reasoning, seems beneficial, but contradicts moral principles, is also important for solving practical problems of artificial intelligence, developing computer programs that must independently make decisions that are potentially dangerous for humans, for example, when driving a car driverless, drones. Is it possible to give a computer program that is insensitive to emotions the right to make moral decisions? What qualities should people developing these programs have, what values ​​and beliefs should they rely on when developing these programs?

Moral choice or moral judgment can be thought of as making decisions with more or less emotion involved. And if for most of the last century decision making was interpreted as a rational choice, then, starting with the studies of D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, [5] the emphasis is on subjective and personal factors in decision making. In the 1990s. A. Damasio and his colleagues published a series of studies examining decision making in patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Their actual decision-making was clearly impaired by the lesions, but their deficits were generally undetectable using standard measures of executive function and concerned primarily social behavior, communication, and empathy. Using an In-Gaming Task (IGT) designed to simulate real-life decision making in situations of uncertainty and risk, A. Bechara and colleagues [9] demonstrated these behavioral deficits and demonstrated that these deficits are emotional. Such patients make poor decisions because they cannot generate the feelings that “guide” adaptive decision making in healthy people.

The influence of cognitive and emotional processes on morality was considered by JD Greene [16], he proposed the dual-process theory; This theory distinguishes between a fast, unconscious, and effortless affective system and a slow, conscious, and effortless cognitive system. JD Greene et al. [15] proposed 50 dilemmas for research, which were divided into three groups: “neutral” dilemmas (also called “non-moral”), “morally impersonal” and “morally personal”. The subjects were asked to make their judgments about various imaginary situations.

“Neutral” dilemmas do not require the resolution of any conflicts between reason and emotion. “Morally impersonal” dilemmas involve morality and emotion, but do not cause strong internal conflict between utilitarian considerations (how to maximize the “total good”) and emotional restrictions or inhibitions: “ You are on duty in a hospital. Due to the accident, poisonous gas entered the ventilation system. If you do nothing, the gas will enter the room with three patients and kill them. The only way to save them is to turn a special lever that will direct poisonous gas into the room where only one patient lies. He will die, but those three will be saved. Will you turn the lever

?»

“Moral personal” dilemmas require the resolution of an acute conflict between utilitarian considerations of the greatest common good and the need to perform an act with one’s own hands against which emotions rebel. For example: “ An out-of-control trolley is speeding along the tracks towards 5 workers who will be crushed if the trolley does not stop. You are on a pedestrian crossing above the rails, just between the trolley and the workers. There is a stranger standing next to you, a very large man. The only way to save the five workers is to push the stranger onto the tracks, and then his body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die, but five people will be saved. Will you push the stranger onto the tracks to save five workers?

»

Complex personal dilemmas are in conflict with moral principles and lead to a conflict situation. If the final decision turns out to be utilitarian (rational), cognitive control, associated with a preference for delayed gain and suppression of emotions, prevails [21]. And if when solving “impersonal” dilemmas the cognitive system is primarily involved, then when solving “personal” dilemmas the affective system is involved.

Neurobiological determinants of moral behavior have been confirmed by various studies using neuroimaging methods [16; 13; 15], when studying patients with brain damage [18; 14].

Researchers have identified a group of “rational” people who consciously prefer utilitarian choices; they are distinguished by large working memory sizes and logical thinking [24]. However, beyond this small group, research shows that people who make predominantly utilitarian choices are distinguished by having a set of psychological characteristics, which may include: aggressiveness, sociopathy, insensitivity, pathological narcissism, emotional deficits, low levels of fear and behavioral dysregulation . The degree of expression of these traits in a population can vary from the level of character accentuations to clinically pronounced pathology, considered in psychiatry as part of a personality disorder, in particular, narcissistic pathology, antisocial and borderline disorders.

In a number of studies, subjects with similar characteristics are called “psychopaths,” and the severity of psychopathy most often refers to sociopathic traits that are identified using questionnaires. Given the crucial role of emotion in moral judgment and the fact that it is social/emotional deficits that are observed in people with psychopathic traits, one would expect an increase in utilitarian choices in people with high levels of psychopathic traits. Empirical studies based on JD Greene dilemmas confirm this hypothesis [8; 20; eleven]. In addition to clinical assessments of the severity of psychopathy, connections between moral choices and the severity of Machiavellianism, a sense of the meaninglessness of life, are being studied [8]; It has been shown that among those who are guided by a utilitarian choice, there are more often emotionally insensitive people with a tendency to manipulate.

Additionally, neuroimaging studies show that decreased activity in a number of regions during moral dilemma assessments, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, is associated with increased scores on psychopathic traits [12]. Impairments that lead to functional decoupling of emotional and cognitive appraisals in moral judgment have also been found in criminal psychopaths [22]. [23] summarizes key findings from brain imaging studies on both antisocial behavior and moral judgment. The overlap in brain regions that are impaired in both antisocial behavior and moral judgment suggests that the norm-breaking behavior common in people prone to antisocial, violent, and other psychopathic behavior is partly due to abnormalities in certain brain structures (the dorsal -ventral prefrontal cortex, amygdala and angular gyrus), which are responsible for moral sense and emotions.

However, there are studies that find no connection between psychopathic traits and utilitarian choices. Thus, there are authors [10] who claim that psychopaths have a normal understanding of right and wrong, but at the same time the regulation of morally adequate behavior is impaired. Psychopaths understand the difference between right and wrong, but do not care about such knowledge or the consequences that flow from their morally inadequate behavior. M. Koenigs and colleagues [17] hypothesized that the failure to detect an association between psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgments in some studies may be due to group heterogeneity. Thus, in a group of incarcerated men, they found that although compared to the norm group, psychopaths from both the low and high anxiety groups tended to give positive responses to impersonal dilemmas; Only psychopaths with low levels of anxiety tend to make utilitarian personality decisions abnormally often, suggesting that high anxiety may buffer the relationship between psychopathic traits and utilitarian moral judgment.

Another issue concerns the possible effect of aggression on the relationship between psychopathic traits and moral judgments [11]; It was shown that participants who scored higher on measures of aggression were more likely to give utilitarian responses to all moral dilemmas.

In addition to the connection with psychopathic traits, the relationship between moral decisions and the ability to understand and regulate one's emotional state and the emotional state of others - with emotional intelligence and alexithymia - has been studied [19]. Analysis of the results revealed two latent factors—emotional clarity and attention to emotions. Among the factors, the main role is played by low clarity of emotions, reflecting difficulties in reasoning about one’s emotions; it is this parameter that predicts utilitarian “personal” choices in moral dilemmas.

Moral choice is influenced by beliefs and preferences that are not always realized. Perhaps some people manage to get out of a conflict by suppressing an emotional reaction because their emotional reaction was not as strong due to the subjective decrease in the emotional significance of “life.” It has previously been shown that the emotional significance of “life” is reduced in people at risk of suicide [3].

The above brief overview of research shows the variety of approaches and methodologies used accordingly. In our study, it was important for us to assess such personality traits as aggressiveness, insensitivity, narcissism, emotional deficit, level of fear and behavioral dysregulation as stable personality traits associated with pathological conditions that reflect such a concept as personality structure. These features can be pronounced not only in psychiatric patients with personality disorders, but also in the normal group. To assess such features, our study used the G. Ammon Self-Structural Test.

The purpose of the study

there was an analysis of the connection between moral choice and the ability to rely on past emotional experience, understanding of the social context and one’s own emotional state, personal characteristics, and implicit preferences.

Material and methods

The study involved 40 healthy subjects (19 men and 21 women, average age -25.4±2.12), who made up the “normal group”, and 34 patients of the Scientific Center for Mental Health (16 men and 18 women) diagnosed with the disorder personality (F60.x) (average age - 25.4±2.12). The groups did not differ statistically in terms of demographics and age. A total of 74 people took part in the study.

All subjects completed the Moral Dilemmas

, which included a selection of 30 dilemmas proposed by JD Greene [15] and translated into Russian [2] - 10 neutral, 10 “impersonal” and 10 “personal” dilemmas.

The ability to make decisions based on emotional experience was assessed using the Game Task

(Iowa gambling task - IGT), developed by A. Bechara [9;
6]; new parameters were introduced that made it possible to evaluate not only the total “good” or “bad” decks, but also the total decks with frequent or rare losses: the parameter “ BD-AC
-
preference for rare losses
” (calculated as the difference between the sum of selections from decks B and D and the sum of the selections from decks A and C);
parameter “ BA
—
preference for rare losses among “good” decks
(calculated as the difference between selections from deck B and deck A);
parameter “ DC
-
preference for rare losses among “good” decks
(calculated as the difference between selections from deck D and deck C).

Emotional Intelligence Test

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso (MSCEIT V2.0) [7] (hereinafter EI).
To process the test results, a consensus coding option was used. The responses of 60 people from a group of healthy subjects were used as a “group expert”. In this study, sections of emotion perception were used: A - “ evaluation_of faces
”, E - “
evaluation_of_landscapes_pictures
”.
A new parameter was introduced to assess the discrepancy between the perception of other people's emotions in faces and the emotions expressed in landscapes and abstract paintings, which require understanding one's own emotions to assess. The parameter is called “ relative decrease in the assessment of one’s emotional state
” and is calculated as the difference in the walls between sections A (assessment_of_faces) and E (assessment_of_landscapes_paintings).
In addition, the “ ambivalence
” parameter was assessed, which was calculated as the sum of all choices made in section E. High rates of this parameter indicate that the subject believes that the presented picture or landscape simultaneously expresses different feelings and emotions to a sufficiently high degree.

«G. Ammon's self-structural test

”
(“Ich Structur Test Ammon”, ISTA) [1] - allows you to assess the range of pathological conditions that correspond to the current type of organization of the personality structure.
Modified Implicit Association Test (IAT)

).
In a modified version of the IAT, subjects sorted stimulus words representing objects from the categories “Death” and “Life” and attributes associated with the subject himself—the categories “Me” and “Not Me.” For each subject, the IAT effect
(in the work of AGGreenwald it is called
the D
score) [14].

Statistical data analysis was carried out using the SPSS software package.

results

MSCEIT.

Correlation analysis (Table 1) showed that a decrease in the ability to adequately assess the emotional state of other people based on faces (the
“face assessment” )
is associated with an increase in “
personal
” moral choices.

Table 1

Correlation of performance on the MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence Test and Moral Dilemmas

Notes

e
:
level of statistical significance: ~ p < 0.1; “*” — p < 0.05; “**” —p < 0.01.

Those who make more personal choices have a reduced ability to effectively manage their emotions (section D), and have fewer nuances in assessing their own emotional state (ambivalence decreases). Correlation of " personality"

“elections with the parameter “
ambivalence”
shows that the assessment of one’s emotional state, devoid of ambivalence, complexity, and nuances, increases the number of “personal” choices.

A relative decrease in the assessment of one’s emotional state compared to the ability to evaluate the emotions of other people (the “ relative decrease in the assessment of one’s emotional state”

") also significantly correlates with “personal” choices.

Ammon test performance analysis

(Table 2) showed that personal choices increased with an increase in pathological manifestations of “
deficit anxiety/fear”
, “
destructive
” and “
deficient narcissism
”, “
destructive internal
” and “
external
” boundaries and, accordingly, with a decrease in constructive manifestations of aggression, anxiety/fear, internal limitation, narcissism.

table 2

Correlation of performance on the Ammon test and “Moral dilemmas”

Notes

e
:
level of statistical significance: ~ p < 0.1; “*” — p < 0.05; “**” —p < 0.01.

I.G.T..

Subjects who made few choices in personal dilemmas in the Game task preferred choosing from decks in which loss occurs rarely and is distant in time (the value of the “
BD-AC
” parameter is significantly higher) (Table 3), such a choice of decks means importance for the subject frequency of loss, namely the fact that loss occurs rarely. In contrast, those who made more personality choices preferred "bad" deck A over "bad" deck B - and "good" deck C - over "good" deck D. These decks (A and C) are different because they have a smaller loss. The predominant choice from these decks means the relative importance for the subject of the magnitude of the loss and consideration of the long-term negative effect.

Table
3
Correlation of performance on the Game Task ( IGT ) and IAT and “Moral Dilemmas”

Note:

level of statistical significance: ~ p < 0.1; “*” — p < 0.05; “**” — p < 0.01.

Analysis of Implicit Association Test ( IAT )

showed that an increase in personal choices (Table 3) is associated with an implicit preference for “death” - an increase in
the IAT effect
means a shift towards the associative connection
“I + Death”
.

Discussion

Understanding social context, the emotional states of others, and the ability to understand and regulate one's own emotional states were assessed using the MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence Test. The results showed that the number of utilitarian “personal” choices in moral dilemmas increases with the deterioration of the ability to recognize the emotions of other people, with a relatively good ability to recognize one’s own emotions (negative correlation with the parameter “ Relative decrease in the assessment of one’s emotional state

" in the MSCEIT test).
Those who make more personal choices have fewer nuances in assessing their own emotional state (reduced ambivalence
). A decrease in the ability to regulate one’s own emotions and the use of inadequate methods for this are also associated with a large number of “personal” choices (negative correlation with section D).

Personality characteristics in our study were assessed using the Ammon questionnaire, which allows you to assess the severity of pathological conditions. The analysis showed that personal choices increased with an increase in pathological manifestations: deficit anxiety/fear, destructive and deficit narcissism, destructive internal and external boundaries, and, accordingly, with a decrease in constructive manifestations of aggression, fear, internal limitation, narcissism.

An increase in the number of personal choices is associated with a decrease in the “ Constructive aggression”

“, which means a decrease in the ability to have and defend one’s ideas, opinions, and points of view. No connection was found with other indicators of aggression, although one of the previous studies revealed a correlation between personal choices in moral dilemmas and the level of hostility in patients with depression [2].

At low levels of “ Constructive anxiety/fear”

“There may be a lack of realistic assessment of danger, which is associated with a weakening or even disruption of flexible emotional regulation of behavior, which also manifests itself in the emotional intelligence test in our study.
With pronounced “ deficit anxiety/fear
,” the fear of other people is perceived as little as one’s own fear, and there is a tendency toward emotional devaluation of important events. This result is similar to the result obtained in other studies [17; 11], conducted on samples of subjects with pronounced psychopathic traits. It should be noted that, according to the concept of G. Ammon, with significant severity on the scale of deficit anxiety/fear, there is likely to be a substitutive tendency to use alcohol, psychotropic substances or drugs and/or associated presence in a criminal environment, which is important when assessing the risk of deviant behavior .

The number of utilitarian “personal” choices increases with the growth of “ Destructive external delimitation”

”, which manifests itself in strict emotional distancing, inability to flexibly regulate interpersonal relationships, emotional indifference to the difficulties, problems and needs of other people.

With low scores on the “ Constructive internal self-limitation”

"and a simultaneous increase in
the "Destructive internal Self-delimitation
" there is an imbalance of thoughts and feelings, emotions and actions, a rigid orientation towards a purely rational comprehension of reality, which does not allow intuitive and sensory decisions, which is manifested in an increase in utilitarian "personal" choices.

Noteworthy is the fact that self-assessment, operationalized in “narcissism” scales, turns out to be most pathological with high rates of “personal” choices. These subjects have reduced “Constructive narcissism”

and at the same time the indicators of both “
Destructive narcissism
” and “
Deficient narcissism
” were increased. This is manifested in the absence of a positive and adequate attitude towards oneself, in pronounced inconsistency of self-esteem, inconsistency of its individual components, instability of attitude towards oneself, difficulties in interpersonal contacts; One can note a tendency to constantly control one’s own expression and a tendency to manipulate. At the same time, there are pronounced difficulties in identifying one’s own motives and desires, views and principles, including moral ones, as well as a poverty of emotional experiences. These results are also consistent with previous results in studies of moral choice in Machiavellianism [8], one of the manifestations of which is pathological narcissism.

When making decisions based on past emotional experience, which was assessed using the Game Task (IGT), a large number of utilitarian choices were made by people who relied on the experience of long-term negative consequences, the immediate emotional effect was reduced.

The number of positive choices in “personal dilemmas” increases significantly with a shift in the IAT effect

towards the association “I + Death”. That is, subjects who managed to get out of a moral conflict by suppressing an emotional reaction when solving “Moral dilemmas” were significantly more likely to demonstrate an implicit preference for “death” and a subjective decrease in the emotional significance of “life” for themselves personally. Previous studies show this connection [4; 2].

conclusions

The connection between moral decisions and understanding of the social context and one’s own emotional state, personal characteristics, the ability to rely on past emotional experience, and implicit preferences is shown.

The number of utilitarian choices in “personal” moral dilemmas increases with the deterioration of the ability to recognize the emotions of other people; Such subjects have fewer nuances in assessing their own emotional state, and their ability to effectively manage their emotions is reduced.

When making decisions, people who make utilitarian choices rely on the experience of long-term negative consequences; their immediate emotional effect is reduced.

Utilitarian personal choices increased with a decrease in the ability to constructively express one’s aggression and perceive one’s own fear and the fear of other people. Utilitarian choices increase with the manifestation of pathological narcissism. Also, the increase in utilitarian decisions is influenced by manifestations of destructive internal and destructive external boundaries.

The preference for utilitarian solutions is associated with an implicit preference for “death.”

The results obtained make it possible to identify personality traits that influence moral choice.