What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments

The act of suicide is commonly viewed as wrong in some sense, but it is not clear why this is. Based on past empirical research and philosophical theorizing, we test ten different explanations for why suicide is opposed on normative grounds. Using a within-subjects design, Study 1 showed that seven out of ten manipulations had significant effects on normative judgments of suicide: time left to live, lack of close social relationships, a history of prior immoral behavior, the manner in which the suicide is committed, painful, incurable medical issues, impulsive decision-making, and the actor’s own moral-religious background. However, in all cases, the act of suicide was still considered wrong, overall. Using a between-subjects design, Study 2 tested the combined effect of the seven significant manipulations from Study 1. In combination, the seven manipulations eliminated opposition to suicide, on average. Implications for moral psychology and suicide prevention are discussed

Does Incidental Disgust Amplify Moral Judgment? A Meta-Analytic Review of Experimental Evidence

The role of emotion in moral judgment is currently a topic of much debate in moral psychology. One specific claim made by many researchers is that irrelevant feelings of disgust can amplify the severity of moral condemnation. Numerous studies have found this effect, but there have also been several published failures to replicate this effect. Clarifying this issue would inform important theoretical debates between rival accounts of moral judgment. We meta-analyzed all available studies, published and unpublished, that experimentally manipulated incidental disgust prior to or concurrent with a moral judgment task (k = 50). We found that there is evidence for a small amplification effect of disgust (d = .11), which is strongest for gustatory/olfactory modes of disgust induction. However, there is also some suggestion of publication bias in this literature, and when this is accounted for, the effect disappears entirely (d = -.01). Moreover, prevalent confounds mean that the effect size that we estimate is best interpreted as an upper bound on the size of the amplification effect. The results of this meta-analysis argue against strong claims about the causal role of affect in moral judgment and suggest a need for new, more rigorous research on this topic

Good People Don\u27t Need Medication: How Moral Character Beliefs Affect Medical Decision-Making

How do people make decisions? Prior research focuses on how people\u27s cost-benefit assessments affect which medical treatments they choose. We propose that people also worry about what these health decisions signal about who they are. Across four studies, we find that medication is thought to be the easy way out , signaling a lack of willpower and character. These moral beliefs lower the appeal of medications. Manipulating these beliefs--by framing medication as a signal of superior willpower or by highlighting the idea that treatment choice is just a preference--increases preferences for medication

Pre-commitment to Moral Values

When faced with reoccurring tradeoffs between moral values, people can address them by considering the specifics of each case or by setting policies that predetermine how they will address similar cases. Previous research on moral judgment has often focused on isolated tradeoffs, and therefore, it is unclear which decision strategies are preferred in contexts with reoccurring tradeoffs. Across our studies, participants judged people who precommitted to always prioritizing one value more positively than people who adjusted their priorities based on the specifics of each case. Our findings have important implications for understanding public perceptions of complex policies

“Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments

Recent research has shown that religious individuals are much more resistant to utilitarian modes of thinking than their less religious counterparts, but the reason for this is not clear. We propose that a meta-ethical belief that morality is rooted in inviolable divine commands (i.e., endorsement of Divine Command Theory) may help explain this finding. We present a novel 20-item scale measuring a belief that morality is founded on divine authority. The scale shows good internal reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 found that this scale fully mediated the relationship that various religiosity measures had with a deontological thinking style in our sample of American adults. It also accounted for the link between religiosity and social conservative values. Furthermore, the relationship between the scale and these outcome variables held after statistically controlling for variables related to actively open-minded thinking and the Big Five. Study 2 replicated the results using naturalistic moral dilemmas that placed deontological and utilitarian concerns in conflict, and showed that the results of Study 1 cannot be explained by differences in moral foundations (e.g., concern for authority more generally) or differences in the perceived function of rules. Quite the contrary, endorsement of the divine origins of morality fully mediated the relationship religiosity had with the so-called “binding” foundations (i.e., Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity). Our findings highlight the importance of meta-ethical beliefs for understanding individual differences in moral judgment

The Social Consequences of Absolute Moral Proclamations

Across six studies (N = 3348), we find that people prefer targets who make absolute proclamations (i.e. It is never okay for people to lie ) over targets who make ambiguous proclamations ( It is sometimes okay for people to lie ), even when both targets tell equivalent lies. Preferences for absolutism stem from the belief that moral proclamations send a true signal about moral character--they are not cheap talk. Therefore, absolute proclamations signal moral character, despite also signaling hypocrisy. This research sheds light on the consequences of absolute proclamations and identifies circumstances in which hypocrisy is preferred over consistency

Typologies of stress appraisal and problem-focused coping: associations with compliance with public health recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Given prior research finding that young adults are less likely to engage in recommended public health behaviors (PHBs) than older adults, understanding who is and is not likely to engage in PHBs among young adults is crucial to mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping, this study examined how typologies of stress appraisal (SA) and problem-focused coping (PFC) among young adults were associated with compliance with public health recommendations during the pandemic. METHODS: An online sample of young adults in the United States, ages 18-35, was recruited during the early phase of the pandemic (April-May 2020). Participants reported their appraisals of how central, threatening, and uncontrollable the pandemic was, their tendencies to engage in instrumental, problem-focused coping strategies, and how frequently they engaged in three recommended PHBs (social distancing, mask wearing, and hand washing). RESULTS: Using latent class analysis, we identified three classes of individuals: Low-SA/Low-PFC, Low-SA/High-PFC, and High-SA/High-PFC. Demographics did not efficiently distinguish membership in the three classes. The former two classes reported less compliance with public health recommendations than did the latter class. Tests of measurement invariance for gender indicated trivial differences in the composition of class membership and relations to compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This research uncovered three qualitatively distinct classes of people who differed in their appraisal of the pandemic and their tendency to engage in PFC. Individuals who view the pandemic as central and threatening and engage in problem-focused coping were more likely than their peers to comply with guidelines recommending social distancing, mask wearing, and hand washing. These results contribute to our understanding of why people do and do not comply with public health guidelines and highlight the importance of attending to psychological variables in public health research. Understanding what drives poor compliance with public health recommendations can contribute to efforts promoting better compliance, and ultimately better health outcomes

Are good reasoners more incest-friendly? Trait cognitive reflection predicts selective moralization in a sample of American adults

Two studies examined the relationship between individual differences in cognitive reflection (CRT) and the tendency to accord genuinely moral (non-conventional) status to a range of counter-normative acts — that is, to treat such acts as wrong regardless of existing social opinion or norms. We contrasted social violations that are intrinsically harmful to others (e.g., fraud, thievery) with those that are not (e.g., wearing pajamas to work and engaging in consensual acts of sexual intimacy with an adult sibling). Our key hypothesis was that more reflective (higher CRT) individuals would tend to moralize selectively — treating only intrinsically harmful acts as genuinely morally wrong — whereas less reflective (lower CRT) individuals would moralize more indiscriminately. We found clear support for this hypothesis in a large and ideologically diverse sample of American adults. The predicted associations were not fully accounted for by the subjects’ political orientation, sensitivity to gut feelings, gender, age, educational attainment, or their placement on a sexual morals-specific measure of social conservatism. Our studies are the first to demonstrate that, in addition to modulating the intensity of moral condemnation, reflection may also play a key role in setting the boundaries of the moral domain as such

Madagascar’s extraordinary biodiversity: Threats and opportunities

Madagascar's unique biota is heavily affected by human activity and is under intense threat. Here, we review the current state of knowledge on the conservation status of Madagascar's terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity by presenting data and analyses on documented and predicted species-level conservation statuses, the most prevalent and relevant threats, ex situ collections and programs, and the coverage and comprehensiveness of protected areas. The existing terrestrial protected area network in Madagascar covers 10.4% of its land area and includes at least part of the range of the majority of described native species of vertebrates with known distributions (97.1% of freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals combined) and plants (67.7%). The overall figures are higher for threatened species (97.7% of threatened vertebrates and 79.6% of threatened plants occurring within at least one protected area). International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessments and Bayesian neural network analyses for plants identify overexploitation of biological resources and unsustainable agriculture as themost prominent threats to biodiversity. We highlight five opportunities for action at multiple levels to ensure that conservation and ecological restoration objectives, programs, and activities take account of complex underlying and interacting factors and produce tangible benefits for the biodiversity and people of Madagascar