Moral relevance varies due to inter‐individual and intra‐individual differences across big data technology domains

Abstract

Theories of moralization argue that moral relevance varies due to inter-individual differences, domain differences, or a mix of both. Predictors associated with these sources of variation have been studied in isolation to assess their unique contribution to moralization. Across three studies (N Study1 = 376; N Study2a = 621; N Study2b = 589), assessing attitudes towards new big data technologies, we found that moralization is best explained by theories focusing on inter-individual variation (∼29%) and intraindividual variation across technology domains (∼49%), and less by theories focusing on differences between technology domains (∼6%). We simultaneously examined 15 inter-individual and 16 intra-individual predictors that potentially explain this variation. Predictors directly relevant to the technologies (e.g., justice concerns), cognitive styles (e.g., faith in intuition), and emotional reactions (e.g., anger) best explain variation in moral relevance. Accordingly, scholars should simultaneously adopt and adapt moralization theories related to inter-individual and intra-individual differences across domains rather than in isolation.

Person-specific priorities in solitude

“…Instead, this person-specific and more idiosyncratic solitude priorities are captured by the person × solitude function interaction component. See Figure 5 for a visual illustration (Kodapanakkal et al, 2021). Therefore, to reduce measurement error and estimate an additional variance component, participants in the new study rated each solitude function twice.…”

“…For example, some functions of solitude experiences are more valuable than others, and there is some consensus regarding which functions are more important. Figure 1 provides a visual illustration of these two perspectives using hypothetical data (this figure is inspired by Figures 1-3 in Kodapanakkal et al, 2021).…”

“…Illustration of the two existing theoretical perspectives on variation in solitude perception (Kodapanakkal et al, 2021) Which theoretical perspective is more useful for better understanding perceived importance of solitude? Put differently, how much does solitude perception arise from the characteristics of a person vs. the function of solitude?…”

“…In this research, we assess sources of variation of solitude perception. This approach has been applied in several research areas including person perception (Hehman, Sutherland, Flake, & Slepian, 2017), situation perception (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2019), and morally relevant attitudes (Kodapanakkal, Brandt, Kogler, & van Beest, 2021). Our central aim is to quantify the contributions of individual differences and solitude functions in variance of solitude perception, specifically, perceived importance of solitude.…”

Moral Frames Are Persuasive and Moralize Attitudes; Nonmoral Frames Are Persuasive and De-Moralize Attitudes

“…We also explored potential mechanisms (e.g., emotions, perceptions of harm) driving changes in moral convictions (Studies 2 and 3). All the studies focused on persuading people to oppose new big-data technologies because these issues involve relatively new attitudes that are often discussed using moral language (Corlett, 2002;Kleinberg et al, 2018) and because they have the potential to moralize those attitudes (Kodapanakkal et al, 2021).…”