Impure or Just Weird? Scenario Sampling Bias Raises Questions About the Foundation of Morality

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Volumn 6, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 859-868

  Gray, Kurt ^a   Keeney, Jonathan E ^b  

^a The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

dyadic morality; moral foundations; morality; purity; values

Indexed keywords

EID: 84936973702     PISSN: 19485506     EISSN: 19485514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1948550615592241     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. L.S.AikenS.G.West (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. C.D.CameronK.A.LindquistK.Gray (2015). A constructionist review of morality and emotions: No evidence for specific links between moral content and discrete emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1088868314566683
3. S.Carey (1995). On the origin of causal understanding. In D.SperberD.PremackA.J.Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. (pp. 268–308). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. A.ChakroffJ.DunganL.Young (2013). Harming ourselves and defiling others: What determines a moral domain?PloS One, 8, e74434.
5. H.A.ChapmanA.K.Anderson (2014). Trait physical disgust is related to moral judgments outside of the purity domain. Emotion, 14, 341–348. doi:10.1037/a0035120
6. S.CliffordV.IyengarR.CabezaW.Sinnott-Armstrong (2015). Moral foundations vignettes: A standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behavior Research Methods, 1–21. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2
7. P.DeScioliK.AsaoR.Kurzban (2012). Omissions and byproducts across moral domains. PLoS ONE, 7, e46963. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046963
8. M.FeinbergR.Willer (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56–62. Retrieved fromhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449177
9. A.L.GlennR.IyerJ.GrahamS.KolevaJ.Haidt (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy?Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 384–398. doi:10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384
10. J.GrahamJ.HaidtS.KolevaM.MotylR.IyerS.WojcikP.Ditto (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
11. J.GrahamJ.HaidtB.A.Nosek (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
12. J.GrahamB.A.NosekJ.HaidtR.IyerS.KolevaP.H.Ditto (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
13. K.Gray (2014). Harm concerns predict moral judgments of suicide: Comment on Rottman, Young and Keleman (2014). Cognition, 130, 217–226.
14. K.GrayC.Schein (2012). Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s13164-012-0112-5
15. K.GrayC.ScheinA.F.Ward (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1600–1615.
16. K.GrayL.YoungA.Waytz (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124. doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.651387
17. R.GutierrezR.Giner-Sorolla (2007). Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion, 7, 853–868. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.853
18. J.Haidt (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
19. J.HaidtJ.Graham (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. Retrieved fromhttp://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
20. J.HaidtC.Joseph (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.
21. J.HaidtC.Joseph (2005). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P.CarruthersS.LaurenceS.Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22. J.HaidtC.Joseph (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. The Innate Mind, 3, 367–392.
23. J.HaidtS.H.KollerM.G.Dias (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.
24. J.HenrichS.HeineA.Norenzayan (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
25. C.A.HutchersonJ.J.Gross (2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719.
26. Impure [Def. 2]. (n.d.) Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved June 3, 2015, fromhttp://www.oed.com/view/Entry/92939?rskey=MrDRaF&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid
27. Y.InbarJ.Lammers (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.
28. I.N.Jarudi (2009). Everyday morality and the status quo: Conservative concerns about moral purity, moral evaluations of everyday objects, and moral objections to performance enhancement (Doctoral Dissertation). Yale University, New Haven, CT.
29. E.E.JonesK.E.Davis (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
30. C.E.McCullochS.R.SearleJ.M.Neuhaus (2008). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
31. G.L.Murphy (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
32. C.ParkinsonW.Sinnott-ArmstrongP.E.KoralusA.MendeloviciV.McGeerT.Wheatley (2011). Is morality unified? Evidence that distinct neural systems underlie moral judgments of harm, dishonesty, and disgust. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3162–3180. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00017
33. D.A.PizarroY.InbarC.Helion (2011). On disgust and moral judgment. Emotion Review, 3, 267–268. doi:10.1177/1754073911402394
34. D.A.PizarroD.Tannenbaum (2011). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In M.MikulincerP.R.Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 91–108). Washington, DC: APA Press.
35. P.PlinerM.L.Pelchat (1991). Neophobia in humans and the special status of foods of animal origin. Appetite, 16, 205–218. doi:10.1016/0195-6663(91)90059-2
36. T.S.RaiA.P.Fiske (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75. doi:10.1037/a0021867
37. J.RottmanD.KelemenL.Young (2014). Tainting the soul: Purity concerns predict moral judgments of suicide. Cognition, 130, 217–226. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.007
38. P.RozinL.LoweryS.ImadaJ.Haidt (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574
39. P.S.RussellR.Giner-Sorolla (2011). Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality. Emotion, 11, 233–240. doi:10.1037/a0022598
40. S.SchnallJ.HaidtG.L.CloreA.H.Jordan (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109.
41. A.SeidelJ.Prinz (2013). Sound morality: Irritating and icky noises amplify judgments in divergent moral domains. Cognition, 127, 1–5.
42. R.A.ShwederJ.Haidt (1994). The future of moral psychology: Truth, intuition, and the pluralist way. In B.Puka (Ed.), Reaching out: Caring, altruism, and prosocial behavior (pp. 336–341). New York, NY: Garland. Retrieved fromhttp://humdev.uchicago.edu/publications/shweder/ShwederFutureMoralPsychology.pdf
43. M.L.SnyderR.E.KleckA.StrentaS.J.Mentzer (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2297–2306. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2297
44. E.L.UhlmannD.A.PizarroD.Diermeier (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 72–81. doi:10.1177/1745691614556679
45. E.L.UhlmannL.Zhu[Lei] (2014). Acts, persons, and intuitions person-centered cues and gut reactions to harmless transgressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 279–285. doi:10.1177/1948550613497238
46. L.YoungR.Saxe (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120, 202–214. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.005