Is Anything Sacred Anymore?

Ditto, Peter H.; Liu, Brittany; Wojcik, Sean P.

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.669248

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, although explanations of moral judgments often include appeals to harm or victims, actual or imagined harm are not necessarily the true causes of those judgments (DeScioli, Gilbert, & Kurzban, 2012; Ditto, Liu, & Wojcik, 2012; Gutierrez & Giner-Sorolla, 2007). Rather than reflecting beliefs that harm actually occurred, formed upon hearing that actions were disgusting or angering, the Study 1 data suggest that participants’ explanations were rooted in a priori folk theories about what is central to moral blame, and did not accurately reflect underlying causal processes of moral reasoning (Haidt, 2001; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of testimony on children’s moralization of novel actions.

Rottman¹,

Young²,

Kelemen³

2017

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What leads children to moralize actions that cause no apparent harm? We hypothesized that adults' verbal instruction ("testimony"), as well as emotions such as disgust, would influence children's moralization of apparently harmless actions. To test this hypothesis, 7-year-old children were asked to render moral judgments of novel, seemingly victimless, body-directed or nature-directed actions after being exposed to adults' testimony or to an emotional induction. Study 1 demonstrated that children became more likely to judge actions as "wrong" upon being verbally presented with testimony about disgust or anger-but not upon being directly induced to feel disgusted. Study 2 established that principle-based testimony is an even more powerful source of moralization, and additionally found long-term retention of newly formed moral beliefs. These studies also indicated that children frequently lack introspective insight into the sources of their newly acquired moral reactions; they often invoked welfare-based concerns in their explanations regardless of experimental condition. In sum, this research demonstrates that children rapidly and enduringly moralize entirely unfamiliar, apparently innocuous actions upon exposure to a diverse array of morally relevant testimony. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of testimony on children’s moralization of novel actions.

Rottman¹,

Young²,

Kelemen³

2017

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This article presents an in-depth review of dyadic morality. Dyadic morality has been introduced before (Gray, Waytz, & Young, 2012; Gray & Wegner, 2011b; Gray, Young, & Waytz, 2012), but at that time, its claims outpaced the evidence—a point noted by many commentators (Alicke, 2012; Ditto, Liu, & Wojcik, 2012; Haslam, 2012; Monroe et al, 2012). Recent empirical work (Cheng, Ottati, & Price, 2013; Clark, Chen, & Ditto, 2015; Gray, Schein, & Ward, 2014; Royzman et al, 2015; Schein & Gray, 2015; Schein, Ritter, & Gray, 2016) provide the opportunity to narrow the gap between data and theory.…”

Section: Outlinementioning

confidence: 99%

The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm

Schein

Gray

2017

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

434

497

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature of harm-and therefore moral judgment-may be misunderstood. Rather than an objective matter of reason, we argue that harm should be redefined as an intuitively perceived continuum. This redefinition provides a new understanding of moral content and mechanism-the constructionist Theory of Dyadic Morality (TDM). TDM suggests that acts are condemned proportional to three elements: norm violations, negative affect, and-importantly-perceived harm. This harm is dyadic, involving an intentional agent causing damage to a vulnerable patient (A→P). TDM predicts causal links both from harm to immorality (dyadic comparison) and from immorality to harm (dyadic completion). Together, these two processes make the "dyadic loop," explaining moral acquisition and polarization. TDM argues against intuitive harmless wrongs and modular "foundations," but embraces moral pluralism through varieties of values and the flexibility of perceived harm. Dyadic morality impacts understandings of moral character, moral emotion, and political/cultural differences, and provides research guidelines for moral psychology.

show abstract

“…Convictions often derive from worldviews that spawn so-called protected values—those that resist trade-offs with other values ( Baron and Spranca 1997 ). Protected values (sometimes termed sacred values; see Ditto et al 2012 ; Tetlock 2003 ) are viewed as moral obligations that arise from deontological rules concerning action, and the thought of violating them often provokes anger. Experiments have shown that subjects are reluctant to trade or engage in monetary tradeoffs when protected values are at stake ( Baron and Leshner 2000 ; Bartels and Medin 2007 ).…”

Section: The Paradox Of Aot and Myside Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actively Open-Minded Thinking and Its Measurement

Stanovich

Toplak

2023

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actively open-minded thinking (AOT) is measured by items that tap the willingness to consider alternative opinions, sensitivity to evidence contradictory to current beliefs, the willingness to postpone closure, and reflective thought. AOT scales are strong predictors of performance on heuristics and biases tasks and of the avoidance of reasoning traps such as superstitious thinking and belief in conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, AOT is most commonly measured with questionnaires rather than performance indicators. Questionnaire contamination becomes even more of a danger as the AOT concept is expanded into new areas such as the study of fake news, misinformation, ideology, and civic attitudes. We review our 25-year history of studying the AOT concept and developing our own AOT scale. We present a 13-item scale that both is brief and accommodates many previous criticisms and refinements. We include a discussion of why AOT scales are such good predictors of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. We conclude that it is because such scales tap important processes of cognitive decoupling and decontextualization that modernity increasingly requires. We conclude by discussing the paradox that although AOT scales are potent predictors of performance on most rational thinking tasks, they do not predict the avoidance of myside thinking, even though it is virtually the quintessence of the AOT concept.

show abstract

Is Anything Sacred Anymore?

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

The impact of testimony on children’s moralization of novel actions.

The impact of testimony on children’s moralization of novel actions.

The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm

Actively Open-Minded Thinking and Its Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About