An index of specific behaviors in the moral domain

Abstract

Behavioral stimuli that pertain to specific moral dimensions are used in much research in social psychology. Researchers in person memory, attribution, and stereotyping (to name just a few topics) often use specific behaviors as stimuli and assume that these behaviors are related to broader trait dimensions (Brown, Trafimow, & Gregory, 2005;Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Reeder & Coovert, 1986;Rothbart & Park, 1986;Trafimow, 1998;Trafimow & Schneider, 1994;Vonk, 1993;Vonk & Van Knippenberg, 1994). However, this is just an assumption, and it is not necessarily clear whether or not it is actually true or how strong the specific trait-behavior relations may be. Because knowledge of specific trait-behavior relations is a prerequisite for the validity of so much research in person memory, attribution, stereotyping, and other areas, our goal was to provide a large index of ratings of specific trait-behavior relations that would satisfy this requirement.In addition, it is sometimes necessary to compare various behaviors on the topic of interest across trait categories. Trait attribution is clearly trait dependent (Biernat & Ma, 2005); for example, it is easier to disconfirm that a person is honest than to disconfirm that a person is friendly, because the observance of a single dishonest behavior carries more attributional weight than does the observance of one unfriendly act (Trafimow, Bromgard, Finlay, & Ketelaar, 2005). An assortment of theoretical constructs has been developed in attempts to explain and understand these differences. However, it is often difficult to test these theoretical constructs because of the necessity to make comparisons across trait dimensions. In making these comparisons, differences in the intensities of the specific behaviors along their respective trait dimensions must be controlled. Although there is an increasing trend among attribution researchers to test theories that specify different attributional processes for different trait dimensions (Birnbaum, 1972(Birnbaum, , 1973Klein, 1991;Lupfer, Weeks, & Dupuis, 2000;Peeters, 1971;Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Rothbart & Park, 1986;Skowronski & Carlston, 1987;Trafimow & Schneider, 1994;Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999;Vonk, 1993;Vonk & Van Knippenberg, 1994), these researchers all face the necessity to compare trait-behavior relations across different trait dimensions. Cross-categorical comparisons of this sort are difficult to interpret properly, and careful analytical methods must be employed when doing so. If generalizations are to be valid, a variety of specific examples must be used and a means of assuring equivalence across categories employed.Assuring equivalent intensity of items across trait dimensions is not as straightforward as it might at first appear. The method used to determine equivalence across trait dimensions depends on the specific needs of the research and the assumptions about the frequency distributions of the sample items obtained in each trait dimension. When a limited sample of behaviors drawn from a potentially infinite population of t...

Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status

“…Participants were asked to imagine that a member of each social category had performed a series of behaviours in a fixed order of presentation. Behaviours were sampled from the index of specific moral behaviours developed by Chadwick, Bromgard, Bromgard, and Trafimow (2006). Immoral behaviours were ‘making a promise and not keeping it’ and ‘pushing someone out of the way so [they could] be first’; moral behaviours were ‘lending a hand to a person with a flat tire’, ‘returning a lost wallet or purse with the money intact’, and ‘not cheating on a test even if you have the answers in front of you’; and maltreatments were being ‘pushed out of the way by someone else who wants to be first’ and ‘[they asked] a simple question and [are] given a rude response’.…”

“…For each survey, participants were asked to imagine that each of their two characters had performed or been the recipient of a series of behaviours again sampled from Chadwick et al (2006). Behaviours included: four negative behaviours (e.g., 'Making a promise and not keeping it'; 'Cheating on a significant other and never telling them'; 'Refusing aid to a parent when they are in need'; 'Pushing someone out of the way so [they] can be first'), 4 positive behaviours (e.g., 'Returning a lost wallet or purse with the money intact'; 'Supporting parents when they are in need'; 'Being nice to your co-workers even under stress'; 'Not cheating on a test even if you have the answers in front of you'), and 3 maltreatments experienced by each character (e.g., 'You heard someone bad mouthing the person behind their back'; 'You saw someone refusing aid to the person when they really need it'; 'The person goes out to dinner with a friend who refuses to pitch in for dinner because it's not their favorite restaurant').…”

Moral foundations vignettes: a standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory

“…Notably, we do not view these vignettes as measuring every aspect of morality. Our vignettes focuses specifically on judgment of third-party moral violations, as opposed to separable dimensions such as moral praise (Wiltermuth, Monin, & Chow, 2010) or moral character (Chadwick, Bromgard, Bromgard, & Trafimow, 2006). …”

Humanness beliefs about behavior: An index and comparative human-nonhuman behavior judgments

“…Behaviors that exemplify this low-HN, negative profile include stealing, torturing, and killing. More generally, our results provide moral psychology researchers with an index of normative moral informativeness judgments for 60 prosocial, nonsocial, and antisocial behaviors (see supplemental file, Table 9), which complements extant indices of specific behaviors in the moral domain (see, e.g., Chadwick, Bromgard, Bromgard, & Trafimow, 2006). The humanness and morality indices for general behaviors presented here provide useful information to researchers seeking to develop specific moral and nonmoral behavioral stimuli.…”