Individual differences in relational construal are associated with variability in moral judgment

The Journal of Social Psychology

Fiske

2016

Self Cite

Morality primarily serves socio-relational functions. However, little research in moral psychology investigates how relational factors impact moral judgment, and a theoretically grounded approach to investigating relational context effects on moral judgment is lacking.We used Relationship Regulation Theory (Rai & Fiske, 2011) and Moral Foundations Theory (Graham et al., 2011) to explore how varying the relationship between actors and victims impacts judgment of different types of moral violations. Across three studies, using a diverse range of moral violations and varying the experimental design, relational context substantially influenced third-party judgment of moral violations, and typically explained variability in moral judgment independent of several factors that have consistently been shown to strongly correlate with moral judgment (e.g., political ideology; moral value endorsements). Results lend novel but mixed support to Relationship Regulation Theory, and provide some novel implications for Moral Foundations Theory. These studies highlight the importance of relational factors in developing a comprehensive understanding of moral psychology, and provide guidelines for exploring how relational factors might shape moral judgment.Keywords: moral foundations; moral judgment; moral motives; relational context; relationship regulation theory The notion that the relational context of a moral act (e.g., who is doing the action and to whom) should influence how wrong we judge that act is hardly surprising. Indeed, it is easy to think of actions that one may find permissible when done by one person but objectionable when done by someone else: for example, my sibling can take my belongings without asking, but my officemate must ask first; also, one might feel worse after ridiculing another person's weight gain if that person is a spouse rather than a casual acquaintance. It would seem, therefore, that relational context is inherently important in understanding variability in moral judgment. Indeed, several major scholars have stressed this point (e.g., Bloom, 2011;Fiske, 1991;Greenwood, 2011;Rai & Fiske, 2011). Yet oddly enough, relational context is given scant attention in the field of moral psychology (and also in moral philosophy; e.g., Kant, 1785Kant, /1989). This is a problem which Bloom (2011) refers to as "the crisis in moral psychology". Bloom notes that although most real-world moral judgments are about actions occurring in specific relational contexts (e.g., between mother and child), most research in the field focuses "on how people judge…the interactions of unrelated strangers…lead [ing] us to ask the wrong questions, design the wrong studies, and develop the wrong theories." (p.27). One novel theory that places relational factors at the forefront of moral psychology isRelationship Regulation Theory (RRT; Rai & Fiske, 2011). RRT stresses that judgments of right and wrong are inherently embedded into four cognitively distinct frameworks that guide human social interaction (i.e., the four rel...

Section: Relationship Regulation Theorysupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Moral Motives and Moralmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Moral Foundations Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Wrongness in different relationships: Relational context effects on moral judgment

Simpson

The Journal of Social Psychology

Fiske

2016

Self Cite

Different relational models underlie prototypical left and right positions on social issues

Simpson

2014

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

Social issues are important dividing lines in the “culture wars” between the political left and right. Despite much research into social issue stance and ideology, little research has explored these with Relational Models Theory (RMT). RMT proposes four distinct models that people use to construe social relations, each entailing distinct moral considerations. In two studies, participants read summaries of the models, rated how relevant each was to their positions on several social issues (e.g., capital punishment), and expressed issue positions. In Study 1, Communal Sharing and Equality Matching construals predicted prototypical liberal positions across a range of issues; Authority Ranking and Market Pricing construals predicted prototypical conservative positions. By using multilevel modelling in Study 2, individual differences in average Communal Sharing and Authority Ranking construals predicted prototypical liberal and conservative positions, respectively, independent of several factors known to predict social issue stance. In issue‐specific analyses (e.g., focusing on euthanasia), all models showed effects independent of self‐reported ideology, while for certain issues (same‐sex marriage, animal testing, gun control, and flag burning), issue construal using different models predicted opposing positions, implicating relational models in moral disagreement. This paper provides novel tests of Relationship Regulation Theory and suggests that RMT is relevant in understanding political ideology, social issue stance, and moral judgement. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The influence of war on moral judgments about harm

Watkins

2018

Euro J Social Psych

How does war influence moral judgments about harm? While the general rule is "thou shalt not kill," war appears to provide an exception to the moral prohibition on intentional harm. In three studies (n = 263, n = 557, n = 793), we quantify the difference in moral judgments across peace and war contexts, and explore two possible explanations for the difference. The findings demonstrate that third-party observers judge a trade-off of one life for five as more morally acceptable in war than in peace, especially if the one person is from an outgroup of the person making the trade-off. In addition, the robust difference in moral judgments across "switch" and "footbridge" trolley problems is attenuated in war compared to in peace. The present studies have implications for moral psychology researchers who use war-based scenarios to study broader cognitive or affective processes. If the war context changes judgments of moral scenarios by triggering groupbased reasoning or altering the perceived structure of the moral event, using such scenarios to make decontextualized claims about moral judgment may not be warranted.Killing is wrong; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. (Voltaire) 1 Although we generally frame this article as being specifically about war compared to peace, this is partly an incidental result of the fact that the vast majority of moral psychology research is set in a neutral ("peace") context, and this body of research forms a natural comparison, or baseline, for the present study. Another way to view the present article, however, is simply as a comparison between two different contexts; in which case the question of whether war or peace is the "default" may depend on your optimism or pessimism about human nature.