Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control.

Abstract

When do people see self-control as a moral issue? We hypothesize that the group-focused "binding" moral values of Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Purity/degradation play a particularly important role in this moralization process. Nine studies provide support for this prediction. First, moralization of self-control goals (e.g., losing weight, saving money) is more strongly associated with endorsing binding moral values than with endorsing individualizing moral values (Care/harm, Fairness/cheating). Second, binding moral values mediate the effect of other group-focused predictors of self-control moralization, including conservatism, religiosity, and collectivism. Third, guiding participants to consider morality as centrally about binding moral values increases moralization of self-control more than guiding participants to consider morality as centrally about individualizing moral values. Fourth, we replicate our core finding that moralization of self-control is associated with binding moral values across studies differing in measures and design-whether we measure the relationship between moral and self-control language across time, the perceived moral relevance of self-control behaviors, or the moral condemnation of self-control failures. Taken together, our findings suggest that self-control moralization is primarily group-oriented and is sensitive to group-oriented cues. (PsycINFO Database Record

Morality and Self-Control: How They Are Intertwined and Where They Differ

“…A considerable amount of research shows that when a person experiences a conflicting selfish urge, poor self-control makes it more difficult for the person to act morally (e.g., Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011;Knoch, Pascual-Leone, Meyer, Treyer, & Fehr, 2006;Shalvi, Eldar, & Bereby-Meyer, 2012). 2 (6) Immoral means easily available: Even when a person has no (more) "inner constraints" to inhibit a selfish desire, external factors such as lack of time or money, as well as social (e.g., one's partner) and physical (e.g., prison bars) barriers, can keep the person from enacting the desire. This factor is closely related to the emerging literature on choice architecture and nudging, which typically tries to identify and implement factors that render the immoral option less accessible or more difficult to carry out (Mazar & Hawkins, 2015;Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).…”

Conservatism as a situated identity: Implications for consumer behavior

“…Conservatism is also associated with beliefs about what is moral and what is not (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009;Haidt & Graham, 2007). Higher endorsement of moral values associated with conservatism (loyalty, deference to authority, purity) is associated with more moralizing of self-control successes (e.g., sticking to a diet, saving instead of spending) and failures (e.g., succumbing to temptations, drinking or eating to excess, being unfaithful; Mooijman et al, 2017). This is not the case for higher endorsement of the moral values associated with liberalism (fairness, caring, harm avoidance), which are not associated with whether self-control is moralized (Mooijman et al, 2017).…”

“…Performance shifted depending on the match between the message and identity. Mooijman et al (2017) started with liberal and conservative differences in endorsement of moral values (Haidt & Graham, 2007), with liberals endorsing more individuating values of caring and fairness and avoiding harm and conservatives endorsing more binding values of loyalty, deference to authority, and purity. They documented that participants randomized to consider morality through a liberal individuating lens were less likely to moralize self-control successes and failures than participants randomized to consider morality through a conservative binding lens.…”

The Moral Foundations of Needle Exchange Attitudes

“…Moral concerns are impacted by experience and potentially interact with an open set of other aspects of the person. Any manipulation directed at bringing a moral foundation concern under experimental control (such as has been done in Mooijman et al, 2018) utilizes a specific model that stands in for the impact of real-world variation in moral concern. The elevated moral concern for a particular foundation that accompanies, for example, reading an evocative passage or sitting in an unclean environment may have a different impact on judgments and behavior than does real world elevation of concern related to the same foundation.…”