Curvilinear Morality: Moralized and Amoralized Attitudes Predict Empathy and Perceived Bias

Authors:

Abstract: Existing research suggests moralized attitudes—attitudes rooted in moral values rather than personal taste—escalate social conflict, yet less is known about the effects of amoralized attitudes—attitudes divested of moral relevance and rooted in amoral beliefs and values. Across two studies, we investigated whether moralized attitudes alone escalate social conflict (through reducing empathy and increasing perceived bias), or whether both moralized and amoralized attitudes escalate conflict. In each study, participants reported how much they moralize a social issue (e.g. abortion rights) and imagined interacting with someone on the other side of the issue. We found that, compared to those with moderately moralized attitudes, those with highly moralized attitudes (those who reported high moralization for the issue) and those with amoralized attitudes (those who reported little or no moralization for the issue) expressed less empathy and perceived more bias. Study 2 investigated two psychological mechanisms underlying highly moralized and amoralized attitudes. Moral conviction—the personal belief that an issue is moral or immoral—mediated the responses of those with highly moralized attitudes, but not of those with amoralized attitudes, and moral aversion—aversion toward the use of moral arguments in political discourse—mediated the responses of those with amoralized attitudes, but not of those with highly moralized attitudes. These findings demonstrate unique antecedents of moralization and amoralization and that both can heighten social conflict, suggesting the relevance of moralized and amoralized attitudes in understanding sociopolitical conflict.

Track: MORAL

Keywords: Morality, Social Conflict, Moralization, Amoralization, Moral Conviction