Implicit theories and conceptions of morality.

Abstract

In this article, the authors propose that individuals' moral beliefs are linked to their implicit theories about the nature (i.e., malleability) of their social-moral reality. Specifically, it was hypothesized that when individuals believe in a fixed reality (entity theory), they tend to hold moral beliefs in which duties within the given system are seen as fundamental. In contrast, when individuals believe in a malleable reality (incremental theory), one that can be shaped by individuals, they hold moral beliefs that focus on moral principles, such as human rights, around which that reality should be organized. Results from 5 studies supported the proposed framework: Implicit theories about the malleability of one's social-moral reality predicted duty-based vs. rights-based moral beliefs.Moral philosophers have long noticed that every moral belief embodies an implicit theory of the society and an implicit theory of the person (see, e.g., Sandel, 1984). Indeed, the idea that implicit theories are central to people's moral beliefs has found its way into major psychological theories of human morality

Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition.

“…Theories regarding one personal attribute (e.g., intelligence) might be largely independent of theories regarding another personal attribute (e.g., moral character). Such domain specificity has been demonstrated in research distinguishing implicit theories of intelligence from implicit theories of morality (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997;Dweck et al, 1995a) and personality (Beer, 2002;Hong, Chiu, Dweck, & Sacks, 1997).…”

Implicit Theories of Morality, Personality, and Contextual Factors in Moral Appraisal

“…They are motivated by vengeance more than incremental theorists, who are mainly motivated by restorative philosophies, corrective measures, education and rehabilitation. More, Chiu, Dweck, Tong, and Fu (1997) show that entity theorists are primarily motivated by conservative concerns, focused on the preservation of the status quo, while incrementalists are driven by change and social progress. These orientations, in turn, are expected to affect the priority given to specific types of information and influence decision processes related to assignment of culpability and punishment.…”

“…This effort shows internal organization and most of the views people hold about the nature of the social world, personality and their own configuration of traits or their self-concepts are in general coherently structured (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, and Fu 1997).…”

“…Research in social psychology on person perception, more specifically, on implicit theories of morality (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, and Fu 1997;Dweck 1991;Dweck, Chiu, and Hong 1995;Miller, Burgoon, and Hall 2007), and on essentialist beliefs (Haslam, Bastian, Bain, and Kashima 2006) reveals that people generally tend to be oriented either towards a situational, contextual view of moral conduct, or a more trait-based vision of morality. This strand of research has been generally conducted without paying attention to philosophical accounts that discuss concepts such as character, human nature, traits, virtues, vices and the complicated relation between the individual and environment.…”

“…The controversies surrounding these conceptions and the fragmentation of the models and perspectives in metaethics and moral psychology endangers the pursuit of adequate operationalizations of morally relevant constructs. The current debate between situationists, who deny that character is an useful concept for understanding human behavior, which is better explained by contextual factors (Doris 1998; Harman 1998) and dispositionists, who advocate the crosssituational stability of traits, is also present in the lay discourse, through the existence of competing commonsense ontological assumptions regarding the mutability or alterability of moral features, namely the implicit theories perspective (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, and Fu 1997). These personal theories are the primary suspects in the affective and cognitive reactions to transgressions: the type of attended information in formulating evaluative judgments, the calibration of moral responsibility and blameworthiness, the assignment of retribution or reparatory recommendations to transgressors.…”