↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
37 X users

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0048693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jay J. Van Bavel, Dominic J. Packer, Ingrid Johnsen Haas, William A. Cunningham

Abstract

Over the past decade, intuitionist models of morality have challenged the view that moral reasoning is the sole or even primary means by which moral judgments are made. Rather, intuitionist models posit that certain situations automatically elicit moral intuitions, which guide moral judgments. We present three experiments showing that evaluations are also susceptible to the influence of moral versus non-moral construal. We had participants make moral evaluations (rating whether actions were morally good or bad) or non-moral evaluations (rating whether actions were pragmatically or hedonically good or bad) of a wide variety of actions. As predicted, moral evaluations were faster, more extreme, and more strongly associated with universal prescriptions-the belief that absolutely nobody or everybody should engage in an action-than non-moral (pragmatic or hedonic) evaluations of the same actions. Further, we show that people are capable of flexibly shifting from moral to non-moral evaluations on a trial-by-trial basis. Taken together, these experiments provide evidence that moral versus non-moral construal has an important influence on evaluation and suggests that effects of construal are highly flexible. We discuss the implications of these experiments for models of moral judgment and decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 139 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 29%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 11 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 81 52%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 17 11%