Beyond Harm and Fairness: A Study of Deviance and Morality

Silver, Eric; Abell, Leslie

doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1060746

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis also revealed that general moral intuitions are negatively related to involvement in crime, a conclusion that is consistent with previous research (Antonaccio and Tittle 2008;Gallupe and Baron 2010;Silver and Abell 2016;Wikström and Svensson 2010). More importantly, our analysis supports Agnew's (2014) argument about the importance of general moral beliefs when understanding crime and delinquency.…”

Section: Assessing Social Concern Theorysupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Concern and Delinquency: An Empirical Assessment of a Novel Theory

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Assessing Social Concern Theorysupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Finally, Silver and Abell (2016) analyze the relationship between moral foundations and different antisocial behaviors. They find that higher values on a scale representing orientations toward loyalty, authority, and purity decrease the odds of engaging in different types of antisocial behaviors.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Concern and Delinquency: An Empirical Assessment of a Novel Theory

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…497) and personal spiritual integrity ("thinking of oneself as a spiritual entity striving for purity and sanctity"; pg. 497), (Silver & Abell, 2016) and Abell (2016) operationalize purity using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire as elicitors of disgust ("Whether or not someone did something disgusting"; pg. 507), chastity/sexual taboos ("Chastity is an important and valuable virtue.…”

Section: Spiritual Integrity (79 Papers)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problem of Purity in Moral Psychology

DiMaggio

Schein²,

Kachanoff³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purity is an important topic in psychology. It has a long history in moral discourse, has helped catalyze paradigm shifts in moral psychology, and is thought to underlie political differences. But what exactly is “purity?” To answer this question, we review the history of purity and then systematically examine 158 psychology papers that define and operationalization (im)purity. In contrast to the many concepts defined by what they are, purity is often understood by what it isn’t—obvious dyadic harm. Because of this “contra”-harm understanding, definitions and operationalizations of purity are quite varied. Acts used to operationalize impurity include taking drugs, eating your sister’s scab, vandalizing a church, wearing unmatched clothes, buying music with sexually explicit lyrics, and having a messy house. This heterogeneity makes purity a “chimera”—an entity composed of various distinct elements. Our review reveals that the “contra-chimera” of purity has 9 different scientific understandings, and that most papers define purity differently from how they operationalize it. Although people clearly moralize diverse concerns—including those related to religion, sex, and food—such heterogeneity in conceptual definitions is problematic for theory development. Shifting definitions of purity provide “theoretical degrees of freedom” that make falsification extremely difficult. Doubts about the coherence and consistency of purity raise questions about key purity-related claims of modern moral psychology, including the nature of political differences and the cognitive foundations of moral judgment.

show abstract

“…However, given that the moral foundations that make up the individualizing and binding moral intuitions are often strongly related to one another (i.e., Care/harm and Fairness/cheating) and that particular violations may trigger multiple moral foundations (i.e., drug use may signify dissolution of the social order, rejection of traditional authority, and violation of purity norms), the investigation of moral foundation-specific effects in the current study is considered exploratory. 6 To our knowledge, only one prior study has attempted to use MFT's intuition-based moral categories to study offending empirically (Silver and Abell 2016). The study found that among a sample of 1,429 college students, individualizing moral intuitions (combining the Care/harm and Fairness/cheating foundations) were inversely associated with fighting, while binding moral intuitions (combining the Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation foundations) were inversely associated with theft from a person or store, pot smoking, drug use, and viewing pornography.…”

Section: A Moral Foundations Approach To Conceptualizing and Measurinmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature and Role of Morality in Offending: A Moral Foundations Approach

Silver

2020

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Criminologists have long viewed morality as a critical element in offending. However, two factors limit the theoretical impact of prior work. First, no overarching framework for describing the nature and role of morality has been developed. Second, morality has been measured in a narrow manner as the extent to which individuals disapprove of particular acts of offending. To address these limitations, we examine the utility of a moral psychological framework—Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)—that fits remarkably well with the conceptions of morality found in criminological theorizing (i.e., that morality inhibits offending, has intuitive and pluralistic dimensions, and under certain circumstances may motivate offending). Methods: We use negative binomial regression to model self-reported counts of violence, group violence, theft, property damage, marijuana use, and illegal phone use while driving, in a large national sample of Icelandic youths (n = 10,710). Results: We find that individualizing moral intuitions centered on rights and autonomy and binding moral intuitions centered on social order and cohesion are uniquely associated with different types of offending and exhibit inhibiting or motivating effects depending on the outcome. Conclusion: MFT holds considerable promise as a framework for conducting criminological research on the relationship between morality and offending.

show abstract

Beyond Harm and Fairness: A Study of Deviance and Morality

Cited by 23 publications

References 44 publications

Social Concern and Delinquency: An Empirical Assessment of a Novel Theory

Social Concern and Delinquency: An Empirical Assessment of a Novel Theory

The Problem of Purity in Moral Psychology

The Nature and Role of Morality in Offending: A Moral Foundations Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About