Moral expansiveness around the world: The role of societal factors across 36 countries

What are the things that we think matter morally, and how do societal factors influence this? To date, research has explored several individual-level and historical factors that influence the size of our ‘moral circles.' There has, however, been less attention focused on which societal factors play a role. We present the first multi-national exploration of moral expansiveness—that is, the size of people’s moral circles across countries. We found low generalized trust, greater perceptions of a breakdown in the social fabric of society, and greater perceived economic inequality were associated with smaller moral circles. Generalized trust also helped explain the effects of perceived inequality on lower levels of moral inclusiveness. Other inequality indicators (i.e., Gini coefficients) were, however, unrelated to moral expansiveness. These findings suggest that societal factors, especially those associated with generalized trust, may influence the size of our moral circles.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Trust predicts COVID-19 prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions in 23 countries

The worldwide spread of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) since December 2019 has posed a severe threat to individuals well-being. While the world at large is waiting that the released vaccines immunize most citizens, public health experts suggest that, in the meantime, it is only through behavior change that the spread of COVID-19 can be controlled. Importantly, the required behaviors are aimed not only at safeguarding one s own health. Instead, individuals are asked to adapt their behaviors to protect the community at large. This raises the question of which social concerns and moral principles make people willing to do so. We considered in 23 countries (N = 6948) individuals willingness to engage in prescribed and discretionary behaviors, as well as country-level and individual-level factors that might drive such behavioral intentions. Results from multilevel multiple regressions, with country as the nesting variable, showed that publicized number of infections were not significantly related to individual intentions to comply with the prescribed measures and intentions to engage in discretionary prosocial behaviors. Instead, psychological differences in terms of trust in government, citizens, and in particular toward science predicted individuals behavioral intentions across countries. The more people endorsed moral principles of fairness and care (vs. loyalty and authority), the more they were inclined to report trust in science, which, in turn, statistically predicted prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions. Results have implications for the type of intervention and public communication strategies that should be most effective to induce the behavioral changes that are needed to control the COVID-19 outbreak

Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally

To gain insight into the reasons that the public may have for endorsing or eschewing pharmacological moral enhancement for themselves or for others, we used empirical tools to explore public attitudes towards these issues. Participants (N = 293) from the United States were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and were randomly assigned to read one of several contrastive vignettes in which a 13-year-old child is described as bullying another student in school and then is offered an empathy-enhancing program. The empathy-enhancing program is described as either involving taking a pill or playing a video game on a daily basis for four weeks. In addition, participants were asked to imagine either their own child bullying another student at school, or their own child being bullied by another student. This resulted in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. In an escalating series of morally challenging questions, we asked participants to rate their overall support for the program; whether they would support requiring participation; whether they would support requiring participation of children who are at higher risk to become bullies in the future; whether they would support requiring participation of all children or even the entire population; and whether they would be willing to participate in the program themselves. We found that people were significantly more troubled by pharmacological as opposed to non-pharmacological moral enhancement interventions. The results indicate that members of the public for the greater part oppose pharmacological moral bioenhancement, yet are open to non-biomedical means to attain moral enhancement. [248 words]

I may not like you, but I still care: Children differentiate moral concern from other constructs. (advance online)

In industrialized societies, adults exhibit stable preferences for the types of people, animals, and entities they feel moral concern for (Crimston et al., 2016). Only one published study to date has utilized the moral circles paradigm to examine these preferences in children, finding that as children age, their preferences shift to become more similar to adults’ (Neldner et al., 2018). However, it is currently unclear whether children’s conceptualization of moral concern differs from that of other related social constructs. The aim of the current study was twofold: first, to test the moral circles paradigm in a new sample of children to see whether published patterns of moral concern could be replicated and, second, to investigate whether children distinguish moral concern from the related constructs of liking and familiarity. Australian children aged 4 to 10 years old (N = 281; 143 boys, 138 girls; predominantly middle class) placed 24 pictures of human, animal, and environmental entities on a stratified circle according to how much they cared, liked, or knew about the targets. We found similar patterns of moral prioritization to previous research (Neldner et al., 2018), replicating both stable preferences and age-related changes in children’s moral concern for others. Crucially, we extend these findings by showing that children distinguish how much they care about entities from their levels of liking and knowing about them. This suggests children differentiate between moral concern and other social constructs early in development and display distinct patterns of prioritization when evaluating everyday entities according to these judgments

Divide and conquer? Identity, threat, and moral justification of violence at the G20

Objective: During the 2014 Brisbane G20 meeting, new police powers enabled segregation of protesters into specific protest alliances and groups. This study used this unique context to quantitatively test the Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd behaviour (ESIM) with protesters in vivo. We did this by examining how protesters’ social identification (own protest group and protesters more broadly) predicted perceived police threat and moral justification of violence. Method: Protesters completed survey measures of social identification, threat appraisals of police, and moral justification of violence. Results: Mediation analyses revealed identification with superordinate group (protesters generally), but not own protest group, predicted justification of violence via threat appraisals. Conclusions: This study presents survey data from protesters at G20. The findings support ESIM and highlight that protesters may appraise police as threatening and consider violence morally justified, even in the context of a generally well regarded and effective community-based policing strategy

Risk and protective factors for mental health at a youth mass gathering

Background: Mass gatherings are well-documented for their public health risks; however, little research has examined their impact on mental health or focused on young people specifically. This study explores risk and protective factors for mental health at mass gatherings, with a particular focus on characterising attendees with high levels of psychological distress and risk taking. Method: Data collection was conducted in\ua0situ at “Schoolies”, an annual informal week-long mass gathering of approximately 30,000 Australian school leavers. Participants were 812 attendees of Schoolies on the Gold Coast in 2015 or 2016 (74% aged 17\ua0years old). Results: In both years, attendee mental health was found to be significantly better than population norms for their age peers. Identification with the mass gathering predicted better mental health, and this relationship became stronger across the course of the mass gathering. Attendees with high levels of psychological distress were more likely to be male, socially isolated, impulsive, and in a friendship group where risk taking was normative. Conclusions: Mass gatherings may have a net benefit for attendee mental health, especially for those attendees who are subjectively committed to the event. However, a vulnerable subgroup of attendees requires targeted mental health support

Cracks before the crisis: Polarization prior to COVID‐19 predicts increased collective angst and economic pessimism

We examine how polarization within societies is associated with reduced confidence in national responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. We surveyed 4,731 participants across nine countries at Wave 1 (France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States), and then, at Wave 2 (3 months later), we recontacted 840 participants from two countries (the United Kingdom and the United States). We found that perceived polarization in the years preceding COVID-19 predicted an enhanced perception that a country's COVID response was anomic (i.e., disorganized, chaotic), which in turn predicted greater collective angst and economic pessimism. Moreover, polarization measured at Wave 1 continued to predict perceptions that the COVID-19 response was anomic at Wave 2, and, in turn, enhanced collective angst, pessimism, and the perception that dramatic political change was required to recover from COVID-19. Our findings highlight how polarization may be associated with reduced confidence in leaders and governments at times of crisis, and how this predicts future-focused anxiety and pessimism

A world together: Global citizen identification as a basis for prosociality in the face of COVID-19

How do global citizens respond to a global health emergency? The present research examined the association between global citizen identification and prosociality using two cross-national datasets\u2014the World Values Survey (Study 1, N = 93,338 from 60 countries and regions) and data collected in 11 countries at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 2, N = 5,427). Results showed that individuals who identified more strongly as global citizens reported greater prosociality both generally (Study 1) and more specifically in the COVID-19 global health emergency (Study 2). Notably, global citizen identification was a stronger predictor of prosociality in response to COVID-19 than national identification (Study 2). Moreover, analyses revealed that shared ingroup identity accounted for the positive association between global citizen identification and prosociality (Study 2). Overall, these findings highlight global citizenship as a unique and promising direction in promoting prosociality and solidarity, especially in the fight against COVID-19