Abstract
Neuroscience has identified brain structures and functions that correlate with psychopathic tendencies. Since psychopathic traits can be traced back to physical neural attributes, it has been argued that psychopaths are not truly responsible for their actions and therefore should not be blamed for their psychopathic behaviors. This experimental research aims to evaluate what effect communicating this theory of psychopathy has on the moral behavior of lay people. If psychopathy is blamed on the brain, people may feel less morally responsible for their own psychopathic tendencies and therefore may be more likely to display those tendencies. An online study will provide participants with false feedback about their psychopathic traits supposedly based on their digital footprint (i.e., Facebook likes), thus classifying them as having either above-average or below-average psychopathic traits and describing psychopathy in cognitive or neurobiological terms. This particular study will assess the extent to which lay people are influenced by feedback regarding their psychopathic traits, and how this might affect their moral behavior in online tasks. Public recognition of these potential negative consequences of neuroscience communication will also be assessed. A field study using the lost letter technique will be conducted to examine lay people’s endorsement of neurobiological, as compared to cognitive, explanations of criminal behavior. This field and online experimental research could inform the future communication of neuroscience to the public in a way that is sensitive to the potential negative consequences of communicating such science. In particular, this research may have implications for the future means by which neurobiological predictors of offending can be safely communicated to offenders.
Highlights
Since the time of Aristotle it has been argued that all human behavior can be described in terms of deterministic causality, and that there is no such thing as free will
We aim to overcome this problem by implementing a strict plan for dropping the postcards: each distributor will rotate between dropping cards from all four conditions in boroughs of every socio-economic status (SES) category at all dropping times, spread across the day
We present the material for the two conditions in the same paragraphs, emphasizing the equivalence of the conditions independent of the manipulation: The brain’s/mind’s moral alarm Here, we present the material for the two conditions in the same paragraphs, emphasizing the equivalence of the conditions independent of the manipulation: Extensive research shows that human brains/minds have a moral alarm
Summary
Since the time of Aristotle it has been argued that all human behavior can be described in terms of deterministic causality, and that there is no such thing as free will. People may be especially receptive to neuroscience if the explanation is construed as a scientific means of excusing the socially disapproved symptoms of their condition. Psychopaths have been shown to differ from ordinary people in both neurobiological and cognitive terms. Previous research has shown that psychopaths differ from lay people in moral dilemmas, such that they choose utilitarian reasoning more often. One focus of our study is whether a neuroscientific explanation of typical psychopathic behavior will affect behavior in this sort of task, perhaps by excusing the behavior as not a result of free will
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
