How do antidepressants affect moral decision-making?

In a moral decision making experiment, individuals were found to be prone to cover cash to avoid injury both to others and themselves than control subjects who were given a placebo.

In the experiment, the “deciders” had the capacity to cover cash out of their allocated sum to prevent either themselves or their “receiver” from being shocked.

The researchers behind the brand new study, from Oxford University and University College London – both in the UK – examined to what extent individuals were willing to inflict pain on themselves or others in exchange for the money.

Dopamine and the neurotransmitters serotonin have already been associated with anti-social and aggressive behaviour in preceding studies. As several commonly prescribed psychiatric drugs function by improving levels of the neurotransmitters, the researchers compared how a impact on moral decision making of a drug that improves serotonin levels (citalopram) differed to that of a drug that improves dopamine levels (the Parkinson’s drug levodopa).

The results of which are printed in the journal Current Biology, for the study, the researchers recruited 175 healthy adults – 89 of which were randomized to get a placebo or citalopram, while 86 received a placebo or levodopa.

In the experiment, the participants were also randomly assigned a part of “decider” or “receiver.” Receivers and the deciders were matched – the deciders failed to understand who their receiver was and vice versa.

At the start of experiment, all participants were given “moderately distressing” electric shocks that have been matched to every participants’ pain threshold.

The choices produced by jolts that could be inflicted upon the receiver, along with the deciders associated with jolts that they might receive themselves. The deciders and receivers were allocated for an equivalent amount of jolts by the research workers, but the deciders had the capacity to cover cash out of their allocated sum from being shocked, to prevent themselves or the receiver.

The deciders were put using a computer terminal into rooms on their very own. Over 170 trials, the deciders were offered different levels of electric shocks costing various sums of money, up into a maximum of 20 jolts and about $30 per trial.

The deciders understood that any decisions they made wouldn’t be shown to the receiver. Therefore, the deciders had the the alternative of inflicting jolts without anxiety about retaliation or judgement upon the receivers.

Levodopa group’ prone to supply jolts to others’

The players who received placebos paid a mean of 55 cents per jolt to avoid injury to themselves and 69 cents per jolt on average to avoid injury to others.

Nevertheless, players who received citalopram were more considerate when it came to harm, revealing readiness to cover a mean of 94 cents per jolt to prevent hurting themselves and $1.14 per jolt to prevent hurting others.

The writers say that over the span of the study, individuals on citalopram gave themselves 35 fewer shocks to other individuals in contrast to the placebo group and 30 fewer jolts.

By comparison, the participants were usually reluctant to pay than to prevent shocks to prevent shocks. They might pay a mean of 55 cents per jolt to prevent others and themselves from being hurt.

On average, 10 more jolts were delivered by the levodopa group throughout the study compared to control group to others. The authors also report the levodopa participants were reluctant to provide jolts to receivers than players who received a placebo and made choices quicker.

In an earlier experiment, the exact same research team had found that individuals were averse when it came to damaging others when it came to harming themselves than they were. This behaviour – known as “hyper-altruism” – was likewise viewed in this study, as the players were largely more ready to take the electric shocks themselves than inflict them on another participant for gain.

“Our findings have consequences for possible paths of treatment for anti-social behaviour, as they help us to comprehend how serotonin and dopamine influence people’s readiness to hurt others for private gain,” says lead author Dr. Molly Crockett.

“We’ve proven that generally-prescribed psychiatric drugs affect moral choices in healthy individuals, raising significant ethical questions concerning using such drugs.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Crockett warns that these drugs may have distinct effects in psychiatric patients compared with healthy individuals. “More research is required to establish whether these drugs influence moral choices in those who take them for medical reasons,” she concludes.