The “moral circle” defines entities toward which a person feels moral responsibility. Relational Models Theory (RMT) proposes four basic relational models (communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing), each with distinct moral motivations. This study applies RMT to define different types of moral responsibility: caring, guiding, obeying/deferring, ensuring equality, or equity. We proposed that the type of moral responsibility may alter a judge’s rating of degree of responsibility, affecting the entity’s placement within the moral circle. Linear mixed model analyses of responsibility ratings toward various human and other targets across six closeness levels confirmed that relational models significantly affected felt responsibility ratings. Specifically, asking about Equality Matching responsibility (assuring equal rights and treatment) led to higher moral responsibility ratings than other definitions (Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Market Pricing), even for negatively judged targets like rapists. The two cultures tested (US and Türkiye) differed in average responsibility ratings for various targets, but culture did not interact with Relational Models. Differences in moral inclusiveness are interpreted through relational model characteristics, such as boundedness and rule orientation. In addition to individual, situational, cultural differences, relational models between judge and target also affect extent of the moral circle.
AquinoK. F.ReedII, A.(2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
2.
BanduraA. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.
3.
BastianB.CostelloK.LoughnanS.HodsonG. (2012). When closing the human–animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611425106
4.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. R. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.
7.
CrimstonD.BainP. G.HornseyM. J.BastianB. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000086
8.
CrimstonD.HornseyM. J.BainP. G.BastianB. (2018). Toward a psychology of moral expansiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417730888
9.
CrossS.UskulA. K.Gerçek-SwingB.SunbayZ.AlozkanC.GunsoyC.AtacaB.Karakitapoglu-AygunZ. (2013). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of honor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510323
10.
CurryO. S.MullinsD. A.WhitehouseH. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47–69.
FiskeA. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. Free Press.
13.
FiskeA. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
14.
GoregenliM. (1995). Kültürümüz açısından bireycilik-toplulukçuluk eğilimleri: Bir başlangıç çalışması (Individualistic-collectivistic tendencies from the point of view of our culture) Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 19(35), 1–14.
15.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
16.
GrahamJ.WaytzA.MeindlP.IyerR.YoungL. (2017). Centripetal and centrifugal forces in the moral circle: Competing constraints on moral learning. Cognition, 167, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.001
17.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2012). Morality takes two: Dyadic morality and mind perception. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 109–127). American Psychological Association.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2008). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules.In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The Innate Mind: Vol. 3. Foundations and the future (pp. 367–392). Oxford University Press.
20.
HanH.GrahamM. (2025). Going in, moral, circles: A data-driven exploration of moral circle predictors and prediction models. Journal of Moral Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2025.2501140
21.
HaslamN. (Ed.) (2004). Relational models theory: A contemporary overview. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
22.
HaslamN.BastianB.LahamS.LoughnanS. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 203–218). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13091-011
HofstedeG. J. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
25.
HofstedeG. J. (2009). The moral circle in intercultural competence: Trust across cultures. In DeardorffD. K. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 85–100). Sage.
26.
KahalonR.KleinV.KsenofontovI.UllrichJ.WrightS. C. (2021). Mentioning the sample’s country in the article’s title leads to bias in research evaluation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 352–361. https://doi.org//10.1177/19485506211024036
27.
KeltnerD. (2017). The power paradox: How we gain and lose influence. Penguin.
28.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.Mendoza-DentonR.RheinschmidtM. L.KeltnerD. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756
29.
LahamS. M. (2009). Expanding the moral circle: Inclusion and exclusion mindsets and the circle of moral regard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 250–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.012
LeachS.KitchinA. P.SuttonR. M. (2023). Word embeddings reveal growing moral concern for people, animals and the environment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(4), 1925–1938. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12663
32.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.BastianB. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
33.
MarshallJ.WilksM.CaviolaL.NeldnerK. (2025). When development constricts our moral circle. Nature Human Behavior, 9, 1537–1545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02212-7
PassiniS. (2010). Moral reasoning in a multicultural society: Moral inclusion and moral exclusion. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00440.x
36.
PassiniS. (2016). Concern for close or distant others: The distinction between moral identity and moral inclusion. Journal of Moral Education, 45(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1156522
37.
PinkerS. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.
38.
PizarroD. A.Detweiler-BedellB.BloomP. (2006). The creativity of everyday moral reasoning: Empathy, disgust, and moral persuasion. In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 81–98). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606915.006
39.
RaiT. S.FiskeA. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021867
40.
ReedII, A.AquinoK. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270
41.
RoccasS.McCauleyC. (2004). Values and emotions in the relational models. In HaslamN. (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 263–285). Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
SchwartzS. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107308992
43.
ShwederR. A.MuchN. C.MahapatraM.ParkL. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In BrandtA. M.RozinP. (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). Routledge.
44.
SimpsonA.LahamS. M. (2015). Individual differences in relational construal are associated with variability in moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.044
45.
SingerP. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
46.
SingerP. (2005). Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics, 9, 331–352.
47.
SingerP. (2011). The expanding moral circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
48.
SmithI. H.AquinoK.KolevaS.GrahamJ. (2014). The moral ties that bind . . . Even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1554–1562.
49.
SmithP. B.EasterbrookM. J.KocY.LunV. M.-C.PapastylianouD.GrigoryanL.TorresC.EfremovaM.HassanB.AbbasA.AhmadA. H.al-BayatiA.SelimH. A.AndersonJ.CrossS. E.DelfinoG. I.GamsakhurdiaV.GavreliucA.GavreliucD.. . .ChobthamkitP. (2020). Is an emphasis on dignity, honor and face more an attribute of individuals or of cultural groups?Cross-Cultural Research, 55(2–3), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120979571
SunarD.CesurS.PiyaleZ. E.TepeB.BitenA. F.HillC. T.KoçY. (2020). People respond with different moral emotions to violations in different relational models: A cross-cultural comparison. Emotion, 21(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000736
52.
TepeB.Aydinli-KarakulakA. (2019). Beyond harmfulness and impurity: Moral wrongness as a violation of relational motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 310–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000169
53.
WaytzA.IyerR.YoungL.HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of moral circle. Nature Communications, 10, 4389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0
54.
ZakharinM.BatesT. C. (2023). Relational models theory: Validation and replication for four fundamental relationships. PLOS ONE, 18(6), e0287391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287391
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
