Common Mechanisms Underlying the Effect of Angry Rumination on Reactive and Proactive Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model

The different influencing factors and mechanisms of the two basic kinds of aggression (i.e., reactive and proactive aggression) are salient. However, they also have common influencing factors and mechanisms, which are ignored to some extent. In addition, discovering the common mechanisms is conducive to further revealing the nature and law of aggression. To address these issues, this study tested a relational model incorporating angry rumination, moral disengagement, harm aversion, reactive aggression, and proactive aggression from the perspective of aggressive motivation. A total of 1,186 undergraduate students from eight universities were recruited. The results showed that angry rumination was significantly associated with reactive and proactive aggression. Importantly, moral disengagement acted as a common mediator, and harm aversion acted as a common moderator in the effect of angry rumination on reactive and proactive aggression. Specifically, the enhancement effects of low levels of harm aversion on these relationships are due to that it could promote the effects of angry rumination on the common mediator of moral disengagement. An aggressive motivation perspective was developed to comprehensively explain the common mediating and moderating effects. The present study contributes to a greater understanding of the mechanisms of reactive and proactive aggression and how aggressive motivations shape the model of aggressive behavior. These findings support and extend current aggression theories, especially aggression motivation theories. This study could provide insights for targeted aggression prevention interventions.

Public Health Interventions with Harms and Benefits: A Graphical Framework for Evaluating Tradeoffs

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of public health interventions typically report benefits and harms aggregated over the population. However, benefits and harms are not always evenly distributed. Examining disaggregated outcomes enables decision makers to consider health benefits and harms accruing to both intended intervention recipients and others in the population.

METHODS

We provide a graphical framework for categorizing and comparing public health interventions that examines the distribution of benefit and harm between and within population subgroups for a single intervention and compares distributions of harm and benefit for multiple interventions. We demonstrate the framework through a case study of a hypothetical increase in the price of meat (5%, 10%, 25%, or 50%) that, via elasticity of demand, reduces consumption and consequently reduces body mass index. We examine how inequalities in benefits and harms (measured by quality-adjusted life-years) are distributed across a population of white and black males and females.

RESULTS

A 50% meat price increase would yield the greatest net benefit to the population. However, because of reduced consumption among low-weight individuals, black males would bear disproportionate harm relative to the benefit they receive. With increasing meat price, the distribution of harm relative to benefit becomes less "internal" to those receiving benefit and more "distributed" to those not receiving commensurate benefit. When we segment the population by sex only, this result does not hold.

CONCLUSIONS

Disaggregating harms and benefits to understand their differential impact on subgroups can strongly affect which decision alternative is deemed optimal, as can the approach to segmenting the population. Our framework provides a useful tool for illuminating key tradeoffs relevant to harm-averse decision makers and those concerned with both equity and efficiency.

Moral Choice When Harming Is Unavoidable

Past research suggests that actors often seek to minimize harm at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one’s actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies (N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming cannot always be avoided. Often, decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit and committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value trade-offs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.

Somatic Marker Production Deficits do not Explain the Relationship between Psychopathic Traits and Utilitarian Moral Decision Making

In moral dilemma tasks, high levels of psychopathic traits often predict increased utilitarian responding-specifically, endorsing sacrificing one person to save many. Research suggests that increased arousal (i.e., somatic marker production) underlies lower rates of utilitarian responding during moral dilemmas. Though deficient somatic marker production is characteristic of psychopathy, how this deficit affects the psychopathy-utilitarian connection remains unknown. We assessed psychopathic traits in undergraduates, as well as behavioral performance and skin conductance level reactivity (SCL-R; a measure of somatic marker production) during a moral dilemma task. High psychopathic traits and low SCL-R were associated with increased utilitarian decisions in dilemmas involving direct personal harm. Psychopathic traits were unrelated to SCL-R, nor did SCL-R mediate the relationship between psychopathy and utilitarianism. The present study did not find evidence that somatic marker production explains the connection between utilitarianism and psychopathy in a college population. Further research is necessary to identify the neural mechanisms relating psychopathy and moral decision-making in nonclinical samples.

How serotonin shapes moral judgment and behavior

Neuroscientists are now discovering how hormones and brain chemicals shape social behavior, opening potential avenues for pharmacological manipulation of ethical values. Here, we review recent studies showing how altering brain chemistry can alter moral judgment and behavior, focusing in particular on the neuromodulator serotonin and its role in shaping values related to harm and fairness. We synthesize previous findings and consider the potential mechanisms through which serotonin could increase the aversion to harming others. We present a process model whereby serotonin influences social behavior by shifting social preferences in the positive direction, enhancing the value people place on others’ outcomes. This model may explain previous findings relating serotonin function to prosocial behavior, and makes new predictions regarding how serotonin may influence the neural computation of value in social contexts.