Roman Catholic beliefs produce characteristic neural responses to moral dilemmas

Abstract

This study provides exploratory evidence about how behavioral and neural responses to standard moral dilemmas are influenced by religious belief. Eleven Catholics and 13 Atheists (all female) judged 48 moral dilemmas. Differential neural activity between the two groups was found in precuneus and in prefrontal, frontal and temporal regions. Furthermore, a double dissociation showed that Catholics recruited different areas for deontological (precuneus; temporoparietal junction) and utilitarian moral judgments [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC); temporal poles], whereas Atheists did not (superior parietal gyrus for both types of judgment). Finally, we tested how both groups responded to personal and impersonal moral dilemmas: Catholics showed enhanced activity in DLPFC and posterior cingulate cortex during utilitarian moral judgments to impersonal moral dilemmas and enhanced responses in anterior cingulate cortex and superior temporal sulcus during deontological moral judgments to personal moral dilemmas. Our results indicate that moral judgment can be influenced by an acquired set of norms and conventions transmitted through religious indoctrination and practice. Catholic individuals may hold enhanced awareness of the incommensurability between two unequivocal doctrines of the Catholic belief set, triggered explicitly in a moral dilemma: help and care in all circumstances-but thou shalt not kill.

Keywords: DLPFC; moral dilemmas; moral emotions; moral judgment; religion.

Fig. 1

Examples of personal and impersonal versions of two dilemmas. The Orphanage dilemma is a self-beneficial and instrumental moral dilemma, whereas the On the Waterfront dilemma is an other-beneficial and accidental death moral dilemma. Self-beneficiency is indicated by the fact that the proposed moral transgression involves that the protagonist’s life is also saved, as opposed to the case where the transgression does not imply any direct benefit to the protagonist. The Instrumentality of a transgression is designated by the fact that the protagonist uses the victim’s body in a certain way to save others (i.e. harm as a means). Conversely, accidental harm means that the victim dies as a undesired side effect of the act of saving the other individuals. See also Christensen and Gomila (2012) for further clarifications on moral dilemma conceptualization.

Fig. 2

The proportion of utilitarian and deontological ratings of the two groups of participants, irrespective of the type of dilemma. The Catholic participants judged the moral transgressions to be inappropriate more often than the atheist participants, who, conversely, preferred consenting harm.

Fig. 3

Comparisons between the groups: particularly, when making a utilitarian moral judgment, the Catholic participants needed significantly more time than the atheists, irrespective of the type of dilemma. Conversely, participants of both groups needed approximately the same time for a deontological moral judgment. PMD = personal moral dilemmas; IMD = impersonal moral dilemmas.

Fig. 4

Comparison Catholics vs atheists. Catholic > Atheist contrast (red) reveals activity in right Temporal Pole, middle Superior Frontal Gyri (BA10), ventral portion of the Precuneus and left Posterior Cingulate Cortex. Atheist > Catholics contrasts (blue) reveals left superior parietal gyrus activity.

Fig. 5

Activity related to deontological responses for Catholic (violet) and atheist (green) participants.

Fig. 6

Activity related to utilitarian responses for Catholic (violet) and atheist (green) participants.

Fig. 7

Activity related to utilitarian judgments of IMD by Catholics.

Fig. 8

Activity related to deontological judgments of PMD by Catholics.