Moral expansiveness short form: Validity and reliability of the MESx

Abstract

Moral expansiveness refers to the range of entities (human and non-human) deemed worthy of moral concern and treatment. Previous research has established that the Moral Expansiveness Scale (MES) is a powerful predictor of altruistic moral decision-making and captures a unique dimension of moral cognition. However, the length of the full MES may be restrictive for some researchers. Here we establish the reliability and validity of a reduced moral expansiveness scale, the MESx. Consistent with the full version, the MESx is strongly associated with (but not reducible to) theoretically related constructs, such as endorsement of universalism values, identification with all humanity, and connectedness to nature. The MESx also predicted measures of altruistic moral decision-making to the same degree as the full MES. Further, the MESx passed tests of discriminant validity, was unrelated to political conservatism (unlike the full MES), only mildly associated with the tendency to provide socially desirable responses, and produced moderate reliability over time. We conclude that the MESx is a psychometrically valid alternative for researchers requiring a short measure of moral expansiveness.

Tree‐Huggers Versus Human‐Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

“…For example, it is possible that some people who are tree‐huggers have a large scope of moral concern due to elevated levels of anthropomorphism but relatively blunted levels of dehumanization, while some people who are human‐lovers have a large scope of moral concern due to very low levels of dehumanization and moderate levels of anthropomorphism. Alternatively, a number of other variables—including the self‐importance of moral identity (Reed & Aquino, 2003; Smith, Aquino, Koleva, & Graham, 2014), proclivities to identify with diverse others (Crimston et al., 2016, 2018a; McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013), and demographic factors that promote well‐being (Brethel‐Haurwitz & Marsh, 2014)—may help to explain individual differences in overall moral expansiveness in tree‐huggers, in human‐lovers, or in both of these groups. Future research should aim to discern whether reliable differences exist between tree‐huggers who have highly expansive (or highly restricted) moral circles and human‐lovers who have highly expansive (or highly restricted) moral circles.…”

“…Such patterns of moral valuation can be metaphorically demarcated by “circles” demarcating boundaries of moral concern, which can accumulate new concentric “rings” in a predictable and perhaps universally applicable fashion. This schema has productively served as the bedrock for research on ascriptions of moral rights and obligations (e.g., Bastian, Costello, Loughnan, & Hodson, 2012; Bratanova, Loughnan, & Gatersleben, 2012; Crimston, Bain, Hornsey, & Bastian, 2016, 2018a; Laham, 2009; Neldner, Crimston, Wilks, Redshaw, & Nielsen, 2018; Reed & Aquino, 2003; Waytz, Iyer, Young, Haidt, & Graham, 2019; also see Crimston, Hornsey, Bain, & Bastian, 2018b; Graham, Waytz, Meindl, Iyer, & Young, 2017). However, despite the considerable explanatory power provided by the concept of the moral circle, we argue that previous characterizations of the anatomy of moral concern have been incomplete.…”

How much could your heart embrace? What about your behavior? The Socio‐moral Radar as a behavioral expression of moral regard

“…The breadth of individuals' moral worlds has been approached as well with another concept, that of moral expansiveness that captures people's willingness to extend moral concern to others, distant ones (Crimston et al, 2016(Crimston et al, , 2018. Moral expansiveness is considered to be a unique aspect of moral cognition and a part of people's moral judgments.…”

“…It recognizes varying levels of moral concern that may range from strong moral obligations, to some acknowledgement of moral rights, or to no recognition at all (Crimston et al, 2016). Moral expansiveness represents an individual trait that may be modified by motivation, situational factors, and the attributions of the targets, which highlights the fluid nature of our moral boundaries (Crimston et al, 2018;Rottman et al, 2021). The concepts reviewed above show a variety of approaches to what can be defined as "moral circle" studies.…”

“…In many cases, the choice of targets has corresponded to specific interests or the focus of a study. Perhaps, the most representative selection of entities has been included in the Moral Expansiveness Scale (MES) (Crimston et al, 2016(Crimston et al, , 2018. It contains 10 prototypical targets that represent ingroup-outgroup and humans-nonhumans categories and includes entities with different "moral status" such as revered, stigmatized, or villains.…”