RESULTS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES As hypothesized and observed in some of our previous work, significant LPS-induced learning decrements were noted, including fewer avoidance responses and decreased response efficiency. As hypothesized, antalarmin proved to be effective in attenuating the behavioral effects of LPS, as shown in avoidances, escapes, and response efficiency. Treatment with antalarmin alone had no effect on any of the behavioral, tissue, or serum measures. Behavioral effects were not due to alterations in motor ability, as shown by crossing latencies, and in later testing days when LPS-treated mice cross more frequently than control animals. Contrary to our original hypothesis, antalarmin did not affect peripheral cytokine production. However, antalarmin significantly reduced central (i.e., hippocampal) levels of IL-1 , potentially explaining the observed learning decrements. Peripheral LPS administration impairs two-way active avoidance conditioning. These cognitive effects induced by LPS can be ameliorated by antalarmin, a selective CRF receptor antagonist. The effects of antalarmin on LPS-induced cognitive deficit do not appear to be mediated via effects on corticosterone production. The effects of antalarmin on LPS-induced learning decrements appears to be due to a reduction in the production of hippocampal (but not peripheral) IL-1 . Joshua Hansen, Brenna Smith, and Crystal Kreitler Department of Psychology, Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX, Considerable evidence suggests that moral judgment is conditioned through two separate systems: a deontological system that is affect based, and a utilitarian system which is reason based. The current study focused on logical priming and its possible effect on moral judgments. The experimental design was influenced by Dr. Joshua Greene’s ‘Dual- Process Theory of Moral Judgment’. The objective of the current study was to examine whether logical priming leads participants to a higher prevalence of utilitarian moral judgments. If the ‘Dual- Process Theory of Moral Judgment holds true it could have far-reaching implications concerning ethical evaluations made in the process of scientific research. INTRODUCTION METHODS Fifty-seven undergraduate students (38 females) from psychology classes at ASU participated. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions (Logical priming vs. Control Group). All participants completed a standard consent form, followed by a demographics form. Participants in the logical priming condition were asked to work on a series of logic problems which require deductive reasoning. Participants in the control group were given a neutral task. Both conditions were then asked to answer a short series of ethical vignettes to determine if their responses would be more utilitarian or deontological in character. Following these tasks, all participants were asked to complete a state anxiety questionnaire to determine if their was any perceptible difference amongst the two conditions. RESULTS CONCLUSIONS A one-way (Logical Priming Group vs. Control Group) MANOVA was conducted on all ethical vignettes. A marginal significant univariate main effect for group was obtained for utilitarian decision making in the kidney vignette (See Figure 8). Participants in the Logical Priming Group reported a greater likelihood to select a more logical response than those in the Control Group. There were no other significant main effects found. A one-way (Gender) MANOVA was conducted on all ethical vignettes. significant univariate main effect for gender was obtained for utilitarian decision making in the lifeboat vignette (See Figure 3). Males reported a significantly greater likelihood to select a more logical response than did females. There were no other significant main effects found. It was hypothesized that participants primed with a series of logical problems would exhibit a higher tendency to approach troubling ethical vignettes with a cost/benefit analysis as opposed to affect-driven moral evaluations. The findings demonstrated that there was a marginal difference between conditions towards moral evaluations for the low-risk kidney vignette. Additional findings indicated a significant difference between males and females regarding the low-risk Lifeboat vignette. These data suggest that logic has a marginal effect on moral evaluations of a certain character. Furthermore, data demonstrates that there is an observable difference in moral evaluations between genders. Figure 1. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS Figure 8. Participants scored high in utilizing utilitarian decision making amongst the male gender*p<.05 Figure 3. Participants scored high in utilizing utilitarian decision making in condition two. *p<.05 Figure 2. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS Figure 4. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS Figure 5. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS Figure 6. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS Figure 7. Participants scored low in utilizing utilitarian decision making in both conditions. *p=NS