Advertisement

Experimental Neuroethics

  • Peter B. ReinerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

Ethical discourse draws upon information from various disciplines to promote normative conclusions. In this chapter, we review one particular method—the contrastive vignette technique (CVT)—that has been fruitfully used as a quantitative means of exploring public attitudes towards ethically challenging issues. The chapter serves as a practical guide to the design and use of CVT in neuroethical inquiry, a technique we term experimental neuroethics.

References

  1. Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J (2012) The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337:846–849.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219569 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berryessa CM, Chandler JA, Reiner P (2016) Public attitudes toward legally coerced biological treatments of criminals. J Law Biosci 3(3):447–467.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw037 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K (2005) The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19:49–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burstin K, Doughtie E, Raphaeli A (1980) Contrastive vignette technique: an indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. J Appl Soc Psychol 10:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabrera LY, Fitz NS, Reiner PB (2015a) Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains. Neuroethics 8:93–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9222-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabrera LY, Fitz NS, Reiner PB (2015b) Empirical support for the moral salience of the therapy-enhancement distinction in the debate over cognitive, affective and social enhancement. Neuroethics 8:243–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9223-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrera LY, Reiner PB (2018) A novel sequential mixed-method technique for quantification of unscripted narratives: contrastive quantitized content analysis. Sociol Methods Res 47:532–548Google Scholar
  9. Daniels N (1979) Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. J Philos 76:256–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Brigard F (2010) If you like it, does it matter if it’s real? Philos Psychol 23:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FeldmanHall O, Dalgleish T, Thompson R et al (2012) Differential neural circuitry and self-interest in real vs hypothetical moral decisions. Soc Cogn 7:743–751Google Scholar
  12. Felsen G, Castelo N, Reiner PB (2013) Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges. Judgm Decis Mak 8:202–213Google Scholar
  13. Finch J (1987) The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 21:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher R (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res 20:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitz NS, Nadler R, Manogaran P et al (2014) Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics 7:173–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9190-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frith L (2010) Empirical ethics: a growing area of bioethics. Clin Ethics 5:51–53.  https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2010.010004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gervais WM, Norenzayan A (2012) Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science 336:493–496.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215647 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldenberg MJ (2005) Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the “empirical turn” from normative bioethics. BMC Med Ethics 6:E11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-6-11 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauser DJ, Schwarz N (2016) Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav Res Methods 48:400–407.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes J (2009) TechnoProgressive biopolitics and human enhancement. In: Progress in bioethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 163–188Google Scholar
  21. Hughes J (2010) Contradictions from the enlightenment roots of transhumanism. J Med Philos 35:622–640.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhq049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ives J, Draper H (2009) Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: it’s all relative. Bioethics 23:249–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01715.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Knobe J, Buckwalter W, Nichols S et al (2012) Experimental philosophy. Annu Rev Psychol 63:81–99.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100350 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kraft ME, King MF, Furlong SR, Bruner GC (2000) Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol Mark 17:79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krosnick J (1999) Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 50:537–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Krosnick JA, Presser S (2010) Question and questionnaire design. In: Handbook of survey research, 2nd edn. Emerald, Bingley, pp 263–314Google Scholar
  27. Levay KE, Freese J, Druckman JN (2016) The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open 6:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Link BG, Phelan JC, Bresnahan M et al (1999) Public conceptions of mental illness: labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. Am J Public Health 89:1328–1333CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Link BG, Yang LH, Phelan JC, Collins PY (2004) Measuring mental illness stigma. Schizophr Bull 30:511–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W et al (2004) Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos 7:55–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nichols AL, Maner JK (2008) The good-subject effect: investigating participant demand characteristics. J Gen Psychol 135:151–166.  https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nichols S (2011) Experimental philosophy and the problem of free will. Science 331:1401–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192931 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT (2007) A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep 12:281–316Google Scholar
  34. Paolacci G, Chandler J (2014) Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23:184–188.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peer E, Vosgerau J, Acquisti A (2014) Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods 46(4):1023–1031.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rand DG, Tarnita CE, Ohtsuki H, Nowak MA (2013) Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultimatum game. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:2581–2586.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214167110 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Reiner PB (2013) The biopolitics of cognitive enhancement. In: Hildt E, Franke A (eds) Cognitive enhancement: an interdisciplinary perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roskies A, Nichols S (2008) Bringing moral responsibility down to earth. J Philos 105:371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rouse SV (2015) A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Comput Hum Behav 43:304–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G (2009) On Quantitizing. J Mixed Methods Res 3:208–222.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vohs KD, Schooler JW (2008) The value of believing in free will: encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychol Sci 19:49–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations