Moralization of Covid-19 health response: Asymmetry in tolerance for human costs

Abstract

We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues. We tested our predictions in two experimental studies. In Study 1, American participants evaluated the same costs (public shaming, deaths and illnesses, and police abuse of power) as more acceptable when they resulted from efforts to minimize C19's health impacts, than when they resulted from non-health C19 efforts (e.g., prioritizing economic costs) or efforts unrelated to C19 (e.g., reducing traffic deaths). In Study 2, New Zealand participants less favorably evaluated the quality of a research proposal empirically questioning continuing a C19 elimination strategy in NZ than one questioning abandoning an elimination strategy, although both proposals contained the same amount of methodology information. This finding suggests questioning elimination approaches is morally condemned, a similar response to that found when sacred values are questioned. In both studies, condition effects were mediated by lowered moral outrage in response to costs resulting from pursuing health-minded C19 efforts. Follow-up analyses revealed that both heightened personal concern over contracting C19 and liberal ideology were associated with greater asymmetries in human cost evaluation. Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.

Moral Decision-Making during COVID-19: Moral judgments, moralisation, and everyday behaviour

“…In terms of the relationship between moralisation and behaviour, we proposed that assigning moral values to behaviours associated with COVID-19 may shape social norms in favour of adhering to these behaviours (Graso et al, 2021;Mulder et al, 2015). However, and given previous research, we also acknowledged that moralisation could prompt reactance responses and less adherence to these behaviours (e.g., Mulder et al, 2015).…”

“…As such, moralisation is a dynamic and fluid process affected by context and time. With regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, existing research has found evidence that eliminating the virus has become moralised to the extent that individuals evaluate harmful outcomes as more tolerable if they resulted from attempts to eliminate COVID-19 (Graso, Chen, & Reynolds 2021). This would suggest that moralisation of behaviours associated with the pandemic has shaped social norms around compliant behaviours although this has yet to be empirically investigated.…”

“…Does assigning moral values to (moralising) current pandemic-related behaviours predict engagement in government-recommended behaviours? It is likely that moralisation will shape social norms in favour of adhering to these recommendations given recent evidence that elimination of COVID-19 has become moralised (Graso, Chen, & Reynolds 2021). However, it is also important to acknowledge that moralisation may result in individuals feeling judged and subsequently decreasing their adherence to these behaviours (e.g., Mulder et al, 2015).…”

The limitations of polling data in understanding public support for COVID-19 lockdown policies

“…Accordingly, any oversimplified or non-representative presentation of public opinion risks reaffirming a normative judgement that, in reality, is likely to be much more nuanced than the conclusion being published, an issue magnified by the polarization of media coverage [24]. Furthermore, polling data have been shown to be susceptible to socially desirable responding [25], which aligns with theory on availability cascades [15], and could also contribute to exaggerating the true level of support for lockdown policies, particularly given the apparent moralization of the issue [26].…”

Balancing the Freedom-Security Tradeoff During Crises and Disasters

“…Initial evidence from research on the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that increased security has already begun to take on moral value in line with what we have described. People have begun to see government interventions to stop the spread of the virus as sacred and may be unwilling to make tradeoffs for other causes (Graso et al, 2021). Consistent with research on moral outrage, people condemn and shun those who do not abide by social distancing or mask policies (Bor et al, 2020;Söderlund, 2020).…”