Moral DevelopmentNCT06735989
Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
A study testing Lecture on moral reasoning and Lecture on logical reasoning in people with Moral Development and Moral Dilemma, run by IRCCS San Raffaele at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 26 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Moral Development, Moral Dilemma, Healthy Controls
- What is being tested?
- Lecture on moral reasoning and Lecture on logical reasoning
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 86 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 18 Nov 2022to 13 Oct 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 26 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- University students (other than Philosophy) within the first 3 years
- Aged between 18 and 26 years old
- Italian speakers
- Oral and written informed consent to study participation
Who cannot join
- A current psychiatric condition
- Contraindications to MRI study (cardiac pacemakers; metal splinters or fragments; metal protheses not compatible with the magnetic field; claustrophobia; women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant during the study; breastfeeding women).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on 1 to 4 points scale) of qualitative variables in the moral justification expressed by the subjects.
Read the detailed description
The aim of this study is to test wether a single intervention on moral reasoning can have short and/or mid-term effects on the justification of moral judgements about a problematic moral case. Focusing on justification allows to assess reasonable improvement by referring to a procedural standard, that is, without assuming any substantive normative view; namely, without evaluating a "betterment" on the basis of the content of moral judgements, but rather on the satisfaction of formal, procedural conditions in their justification. Our standard for a good moral justification consists in a set of procedural features, such as logical, empirical, and conceptual competence, openness to revision, sympathetic imagination, and bias avoidance.
Once enrolled, participants will be randomized through random.org software in the two experimental groups: 1) the moral and 2) the non-moral condition. Allocation concealment will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will undergo a neuropsychological assessment and a (optional) task-based fMRI at study entry. Furthermore, during the day of the intervention (seminar: moral or logical reasoning), participants will undergo a pre-test (before the intervention) and a post-test (after the intervention) on a morally problematic case. The same test will be repeated by all participants one month after the intervention.
- Being tested
- Lecture on moral reasoning, Lecture on logical reasoning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Lecture on moral reasoningOther
One and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning
Lecture on logical reasoningOther
One and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Moral | Experimental | The Moral group will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of moral justification, and outlining brief descriptions of six morally relevant factors. The Moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on moral reasoning. Receives: Other: Lecture on moral reasoning |
| Non-moral | Active comparator | The Non-moral will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of argumentation, and outlining brief descriptions of six logical and argumentative principles. The Non-moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on (non-moral) logical reasoning. Receives: Other: Lecture on logical reasoning |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Short and mid-term (one month) impact of moral vs non-moral reasoning interventions on moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects when performing a moral dilemma.
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on a 0 to 3 points scale) in the moral justifications expressed by the subjects in six domains: empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions.
Measured: Baseline, 5 weeks
Secondary outcomes (3)
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities.
To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and changes in moral justification abilities in six domains (empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions) assessed using a 0-3 point scale.
Measured: Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements.
To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and agreement with moral statements assessed using a 0-3 point scale.
Measured: Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention.
To investigate the relationship between pre-intervention subjects' brain BOLD activity during a task-based functional MRI (fMRI), using a moral reasoning paradigm, and confidence post-intervention assessed by using 0-3 point scales.
Measured: Baseline, 5 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Dec 2024
- Study start18 Nov 2022
- Primary completion19 Feb 2024
- Study completion13 Oct 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Moral DevelopmentStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 86 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- IRCCS San Raffaele
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Prof. Massimo Filippi, IRCCS San Raffaele
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06735989
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Moral-REA
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 31 Jul 2024
- Last updated
- 23 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Greene JD. The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:66-77. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
PubMed 28343626Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872.
PubMed 11557895Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814.
PubMed 11699120Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.
PubMed 19739881Klenk M, Sauer H. Moral Judgement and Moral Progress: The Problem of Cognitive Control. Philos Psychol. 2021 Jul 2;34(7):938-961. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2021.1931670. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34556899Rozin P, Haidt J, Fincher K. Psychology. From oral to moral. Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1179-80. doi: 10.1126/science.1170492. No abstract available.
PubMed 19251619Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
PubMed 30956726Schwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P. Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.
PubMed 32721655Schwitzgebel E, Cushman F. Philosophers' biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition. 2015 Aug;141:127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 May 14.
PubMed 25981733
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06735989
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Moral-REA
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 86 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- IRCCS San RaffaeleUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele
- Study start
- 18 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 19 Feb 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Oct 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on 1 to 4 points scale) of qualitative variables in the moral justification expressed by the subjects.
Detailed description
The aim of this study is to test wether a single intervention on moral reasoning can have short and/or mid-term effects on the justification of moral judgements about a problematic moral case. Focusing on justification allows to assess reasonable improvement by referring to a procedural standard, that is, without assuming any substantive normative view; namely, without evaluating a "betterment" on the basis of the content of moral judgements, but rather on the satisfaction of formal, procedural conditions in their justification. Our standard for a good moral justification consists in a set of procedural features, such as logical, empirical, and conceptual competence, openness to revision, sympathetic imagination, and bias avoidance.
Once enrolled, participants will be randomized through random.org software in the two experimental groups: 1) the moral and 2) the non-moral condition. Allocation concealment will be carried out through closed and opaque mails by a blind operator. Subjects will undergo a neuropsychological assessment and a (optional) task-based fMRI at study entry. Furthermore, during the day of the intervention (seminar: moral or logical reasoning), participants will undergo a pre-test (before the intervention) and a post-test (after the intervention) on a morally problematic case. The same test will be repeated by all participants one month after the intervention.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Intervention study, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, and multiparametric.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Moral | Experimental | Other: Lecture on moral reasoningThe Moral group will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of moral justification, and outlining brief descriptions of six morally relevant factors. The Moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on moral reasoning. |
| Non-moral | Active comparator | Other: Lecture on logical reasoningThe Non-moral will read a short text explaining the meaning and function of argumentation, and outlining brief descriptions of six logical and argumentative principles. The Non-moral group will then attend a 1h30 lecture on (non-moral) logical reasoning. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 26 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- University students (other than Philosophy) within the first 3 years
- Aged between 18 and 26 years old
- Italian speakers
- Oral and written informed consent to study participation
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- A current psychiatric condition
- Contraindications to MRI study (cardiac pacemakers; metal splinters or fragments; metal protheses not compatible with the magnetic field; claustrophobia; women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant during the study; breastfeeding women).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Lecture on moral reasoningOne and a half-hour long lecture on moral justification and moral reasoning | Other | Moral |
| Lecture on logical reasoningOne and a half-hour long lecture on logical and argumentative principles | Other | Non-moral |
Primary outcome
Short and mid-term (one month) impact of moral vs non-moral reasoning interventions on moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects when performing a moral dilemma.
Time frame: Baseline, 5 weeks
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the short (immediate) and mid-term (one month) impact of moral (vs non-moral) reasoning interventions on the moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects. Such an impact will be assessed by observing quantitative changes (on a 0 to 3 points scale) in the moral justifications expressed by the subjects in six domains: empirical competence, conceptual competence, logical coherence, sympathetic imagination, bias reduction, openness to revision of opinions.
3 secondary outcomes
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and changes in moral justification abilities.
Time frame: Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and agreement with moral statements.
Time frame: Baseline, 5 weeks
Relationship between brain BOLD activity during task-based fMRI and confidence post-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline, 5 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Dec 2025.
- Background: PubMed 28343626Greene JD. The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:66-77. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
- Background: PubMed 11557895Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872.
- Background: PubMed 11699120Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001 Oct;108(4):814-34. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814.
- Background: PubMed 19739881Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009 Sep;64(6):515-26. doi: 10.1037/a0016755.
- Background: PubMed 34556899Klenk M, Sauer H. Moral Judgement and Moral Progress: The Problem of Cognitive Control. Philos Psychol. 2021 Jul 2;34(7):938-961. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2021.1931670. eCollection 2021.
- Background: PubMed 19251619Rozin P, Haidt J, Fincher K. Psychology. From oral to moral. Science. 2009 Feb 27;323(5918):1179-80. doi: 10.1126/science.1170492. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 30956726Schaefer GO, Savulescu J. Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2019;12(1):73-84. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9258-7. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
- Background: PubMed 32721655Schwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P. Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397. Epub 2020 Jul 25.
- Background: PubMed 25981733Schwitzgebel E, Cushman F. Philosophers' biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition. 2015 Aug;141:127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015. Epub 2015 May 14.
Related trials for Moral Development
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Digital Games on Ethical Sensitivity and Decision Making in Nursing Students
Decision Making, Ethics
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Lecture on moral reasoning and Lecture on logical reasoning in people with Moral Development and Moral Dilemma, run by IRCCS San Raffaele at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Short and mid-term (one month) impact of moral vs non-moral reasoning interventions on moral justification abilities in non-expert subjects when performing a moral dilemma. (time frame: Baseline, 5 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06735989, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Dec 2025.