2015
DOI: 10.1177/0146167215591501
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Do moral disagreements regarding specific issues (e.g., patriotism, chastity) reflect deep cognitive differences (i.e., distinct cognitive mechanisms) between liberals and conservatives? Dyadic morality suggests that the answer is "no." Despite moral diversity, we reveal that moral cognition--in both liberals and conservatives--is rooted in a harm-based template. A dyadic template suggests that harm should be central within moral cognition, an idea tested--and confirmed--through six specific hypotheses. Studie… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

13
102
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
13
102
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Study 2 did find that ratings of harmfulness predicted moral judgments more for other-directed versus self-directed acts; however, this effect did not replicate in Study 3, where perceptions of harm predicted judgments of both dyadic and self-directed actions to a similar extent. Though inconsistent with our initial hypothesis, these findings are consistent with work showing that concerns about harm play a predominant role in most Americans’ moral psychology [41,60]. Harm norms are more universally held than purity norms [39,53], and people may be prone to seeing any negative dyadic interaction through the lens of a perpetrator harming a victim [45].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Study 2 did find that ratings of harmfulness predicted moral judgments more for other-directed versus self-directed acts; however, this effect did not replicate in Study 3, where perceptions of harm predicted judgments of both dyadic and self-directed actions to a similar extent. Though inconsistent with our initial hypothesis, these findings are consistent with work showing that concerns about harm play a predominant role in most Americans’ moral psychology [41,60]. Harm norms are more universally held than purity norms [39,53], and people may be prone to seeing any negative dyadic interaction through the lens of a perpetrator harming a victim [45].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…By contrast, other theories have proposed that all of these domains are reducible to harm (Schein & Gray, 2015), or a dyad involving an intentional agent and a suffering victim . The present work does not fit neatly into either category.…”
Section: Metaethics and Moral Psychologymentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Furthermore, and surprisingly, moral claims were only rated as more moral-like than preference-like in the harm domain. Based on this, one might conclude that harm is the most prototypical moral domain, and that other domains are only moralized to the extent they involve harm Schein & Gray, 2015). However, an alternative is also possible.…”
Section: Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rand, Greene, & Nowak, 2012)-and b) the moralization of distinct behaviors (e.g. Schein & Gray, 2015;. For instance, within this latter category, Moral…”
Section: Metaethics and Moral Psychologymentioning
confidence: 99%