The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research

Rhee, Joshua J.; Schein, Chelsea; Bastian, Brock

doi:10.1111/spc3.12511

Cited by 54 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our moral judgments also shift in more momentary ways (Rhee, Schein, & Bastian, 2019) when ethical considerations fade into the background (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2012). Although we might generally believe that exploitative labor practices are immoral, when we could really use a personal vacation to the Bahamas, our ethical values might fade into the background as we justify and overlook otherwise questionable behaviors (Paharia, Vohs, & Deshpandé, 2013).…”

Section: Additional Benefits Of Contextualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Schein

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a gap between morality as experienced and morality as studied. In our personal and professional lives, moral judgments are embedded within a specific context. We know the who, what, where, and when and often can infer the why; we know the broader context of actions; and we may have a specific relationship with the actors. However, scholarly theorizing is often built on inferences from participants’ responses to decontextualized, impoverished stimuli. In our quest for uncovering general psychological truths, moral psychologists have examined evaluations of poorly guarded trolleys, strangers with odd sexual proclivities, and endorsement of abstract principles. The four articles included in this section demonstrate the power of contextualizing morality. In the current article, I place these papers within a broader framework for how scholars can contextualize morality research. I then argue why contextualizing morality matters: not only do contextualized questions better reflect the nuances of reality but also contextualized judgments might be key for improving predictions of moral behavior and understanding moral change.

show abstract

Section: Additional Benefits Of Contextualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Schein

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Norm internalization provides another perspective that offers an explanation of the association between perceived prevalence of behavior and the likelihood of perceiving the risk of sanctions. According to norm internalization, when a behavior is commonly practiced and approved by members of a social group, the norm may be internalized as ‘moral’ and norm-abiding behavior will be considered good or appropriate [ 13 , 14 ]. Consequently, people expect informal external sanctions, such as shaming or gossiping, or experience internal ones, such as guilt or shame, when deviating from the norm [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: Evidence from Tamil Nadu India

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social sanctions can be effective for sustaining beneficial norms by harnessing the power of social pressure and peer monitoring. Yet, field evidence regarding how norms might be linked to perceived risk of sanction is limited. In this study, we focused on communities located in peri-urban areas of Tamil Nadu, India, and examined how people's perceived prevalence of a socially desirable behavior (i.e., toilet use) relates to the perceived risk of sanctions for deviating from this behavior (i.e., open defecation) in the sanitation domain. Cross-sectional data from 2427 participants in 75 communities revealed that the majority (77%, n = 1861) perceived the risk of informal sanctions related to open defecation. Among those, verbal reprimand was the most common (60%), followed by advice (30%) and gossip (7%). Results from multilevel logistic regression indicated that those who believed toilet use was prevalent in their community were more likely to perceive the risk of social sanctions for open defecation. Moderation analysis revealed that this relationship was robust among women, but attenuated among men. Our findings suggest that women are more likely to expect social sanctions if they deviate from what is perceived as the prevalent sanitation behavior (e.g., toilet use) in their community. Open defecation practices are known to cause psychosocial stress among women due to their experiences with sanitation insecurity, which may include fear of disapproval from community members. Our results highlight the need for gendered intervention strategies when sanitation programs leverage social influence for behavior change.

show abstract

“…Compared to the experimental tests of emotion on moralization using between-person manipulations discussed earlier, these longitudinal studies more closely modeled the within-person nature of moralization. Attitude moralization is by definition a withinperson process; a person's attitude becomes more strongly associated with their sense of morality over time (a point also noted by Rhee et al, 2019). Between-person designs, therefore, provide only limited insights about the withinperson processes underlying the moralization of individuals' political opinions (for a discussion of the limitations of using between-person designs to make inferences about within-person effects, see Molenaar, 2004).…”

Section: Disgust and Political Attitude Moralizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The roles of disgust and harm perception in political attitude moralization

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What causes people to see their political attitudes in a moral light? One answer is that attitude moralization results from associating one’s attitude stance with feelings of disgust. To test the possibility that disgust moralizes, the current study used a high-powered preregistered design looking at within-person change in moral conviction paired with an experimental manipulation of disgust or anger (versus control). Results from the preregistered analyses found that we successfully induced anger but not disgust; however, our manipulation had no effect on moral conviction. Additional exploratory analyses investigating whether emotion and harm predicted increases in moral conviction over time found that neither disgust, anger, nor sadness had an effect on moralization, whereas perceptions of harm did predict moralization. Our findings are discussed in terms of their implications for current theory and research into attitude moralization.

show abstract

The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research

Cited by 54 publications

References 68 publications

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Women are more likely to expect social sanctions for open defecation: Evidence from Tamil Nadu India

The roles of disgust and harm perception in political attitude moralization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About