Research suggests individuals import real-world facts into fictional worlds based on the type of fact and fictional context. We examined the importation of real-world morality across fictional contexts. Undergraduate (Study 1) and MTurk (Study 2) participants were randomly assigned to read either a realistic or matching fantastical interactive narrative. At seven junctions, participants were presented with a choice between behaving morally and behaving immorally to advance their goals. In Study 3, an MTurk sample judged the actions of a character who behaved immorally. For Study 1, a gender by condition interaction was found, with males electing more immoral actions in the fantasy condition. For Study 2, no such effect was found. Nonetheless, in Study 3, participants judged immoral actions in the realistic condition as more immoral compared to the fantasy context. Across all studies, transportation predicted choosing fewer immoral actions and judging immoral actions more harshly.
AquinoK.ReedI. I. (2002).
The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(6), 1423–1440.
2.
BalakrishnanB.SundarS. S. (2011).
Where am I? How can I get there? Impact of navigability and narrative transportation on spatial presence. Human–Computer Interaction,
26(3), 161–204.
3.
BanduraA. (1999).
Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
3(3), 193–209.
4.
BanduraA. (2006).
Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1(2), 164–180.
5.
BarnesJ.BlackJ. (2016).
Impossible or improbable: The difficulty of imagining morally deviant worlds. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
36(1), 27–40.
6.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
7.
BilandzicH.SchnellC.SukallaF. (2019).
The cultivation of idealistic moral expectations: The role of television exposure and narrative engageability. Mass Communication and Society,
2(5), 604–630.
8.
BlackJ. E.BarnesJ. L. (2017).
Measuring the unimaginable: Imaginative resistance to fiction and related constructs. Personality and Individual Differences,
111, 71–79.
9.
BlackJ. E.HelmyY.RobsonO.BarnesJ. L. (2019).
Who can resist a villain? Morality, Machiavellianism, imaginative resistance and liking for dark fictional characters. Poetics,
74, 101344.
10.
Breithaupt, F. (2016). Empathy for Empathy’s Sake: Aesthetics and Everyday Empathic Sadism. In Empathy and its Limits (pp. 151–165). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
11.
CarreirasM.GarnhamA.OakhillJ.CainK. (1996).
The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,
49(3), 639–663.
12.
ClarkJ. W.DawsonL. E. (1996).
Personal religiousness and ethical judgements: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
15(3), 359–372.
13.
CohenJ. (2001).
Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society,
4(3), 245–264.
14.
CurrieG. (1995).
The moral psychology of fiction. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
73(2), 250–259.
15.
CurrieG. (2016).
Does fiction make us less empathic?Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía,
35(3), 47–68.
16.
CziborA.SzaboZ. P.JonesD. N.ZsidoA. N.PaalT.SzijjartoL.CarreJ. R.BereczkeiT. (2017).
Male and female face of Machiavellianism: Opportunism or anxiety?Personality and Individual Differences,
117, 221–229.
17.
DeanA.VossD.DraguljićD. (1999). Design and analysis of experiments (
Vol. 1).
Springer.
18.
DetertJ. R.TreviñoL. K.SweitzerV. L. (2008).
Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(2), 374–391.
19.
EdenA.DaalmansS.JohnsonB. K. (2017).
Morality predicts enjoyment but not appreciation of morally ambiguous characters. Media Psychology,
20(3), 349–373.
20.
EdenA.GrizzardM.LewisR. J. (2011).
Disposition development in drama: The role of moral, immoral and ambiguously moral characters. International Journal of Arts and Technology,
4(1), 33–47.
21.
EdenA.OliverM. B.TamboriniR.LimperosA.WoolleyJ. (2015).
Perceptions of moral violations and personality traits among heroes and villains. Mass Communication and Society,
18(2), 186–208.
22.
FastA. A.Van ReetJ. (2018).
Preschool children transfer real-world moral reasoning into pretense. Cognitive Development,
45, 40–47.
23.
FleschW. (2007). Comeuppance: Costly signaling, altruistic punishment, and other biological components of fiction.
Harvard University Press.
24.
GendlerT. S. (2000).
The puzzle of imaginative resistance. The Journal of Philosophy,
97(2), 55–81.
25.
GendlerT. S. (2011).
Is Dumbledore gay? Who's to Say?: Truth in Fiction and Authorial Authority.The Philosophers' Magazine, (52), 94–97.
26.
GerrigR. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading.
Westview Press.
27.
GerrigR. J.PrenticeD. A. (1991).
The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science,
2(5), 336–340.
28.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013).
Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
26(3), 213–224.
29.
GreenM. C. (2004).
Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes,
38(2), 247–266.
30.
GreenbergD. M.WarrierV.AllisonC.Baron-CohenS. (2018).
Testing the empathizing–systemizing theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism in half a million people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
115(48), 12152–12157.
31.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2000).
The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(5), 701–721.
32.
GreenlandS. (2021).
Analysis goals, error‐cost sensitivity, and analysis hacking: Essential considerations in hypothesis testing and multiple comparisons. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology,
35(1), 8–23.
33.
GrizzardM.ShawA. Z.DolanE. A.AndersonK. B.HahnL.PrabhuS. (2017).
Does repeated exposure to popular media strengthen moral intuitions?: Exploratory evidence regarding consistent and conflicted moral content. Media Psychology,
20(4), 557–583.
34.
HappC.MelzerA.SteffgenG. (2015).
Like the good or bad guy—Empathy in antisocial and prosocial games. Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
4(2), 80–96.
35.
HartmannT.VordererP. (2010).
It's okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games. Journal of Communication,
60(1), 94–119.
36.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016).
Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject Pool participants. Behavior Research Methods,
48(1), 400–407.
37.
HeckR. H.ThomasS.TabataL. (2013). Multilevel modeling of categorical outcomes using IBM SPSS.
Routledge Academic.
38.
JanickeS. H.RaneyA. A. (2018).
Modeling the antihero narrative enjoyment process. Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
7(4), 533–546.
39.
JanickeS.RaneyA. (2015).
Exploring the role of identification and moral disengagement in the enjoyment of an antihero television series. Communications,
40(4), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2015-0022
40.
JonasonP. K.LyonsM.BethellE. J.RossR. (2013).
Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences,
54(5), 572–576.
41.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2014).
Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment,
21(1), 28–41.
42.
JonesD. N.WeiserD. A. (2014).
Differential infidelity patterns among the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences,
57, 20–24.
43.
KeppelG.SaufleyW. H.TokunagaH. (1992). Introduction to design and analysis: A student's handbook.
Macmillan.
44.
KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (2015).
Origins and development of morality. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (p. 701–749). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy317
45.
KirkR. E. (2012). Experimental design. In The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 23–45). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020994
46.
KlimstraT. A.SijtsemaJ. J.HenrichsJ.CimaM. (2014).
The dark triad of personality in adolescence: Psychometric properties of a concise measure and associations with adolescent adjustment from a multi-informant perspective. Journal of Research in Personality,
53, 84–92.
47.
KonijnE. A.HoornJ. F. (2005).
Some like it bad: Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psychology,
7(2), 107–144.
48.
KrakowiakK. M.OliverM. B. (2012).
When good characters do bad things: Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication,
62(1), 117–135.
49.
KrakowiakK. M.TsayM. (2011).
The role of moral disengagement in the enjoyment of real and fictional characters. International Journal of Arts and Technology,
4(1), 90–101.
50.
KrakowiakK. M.Tsay-VogelM. (2013).
What makes characters’ bad behaviors acceptable? The effects of character motivation and outcome on perceptions, character liking, and moral disengagement. Mass Communication and Society,
16(2), 179–199.
51.
KrakowiakK. M.Tsay-VogelM. (2015).
The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses. Human Communication Research,
41(3), 390–411.
52.
LauK. S.MarseeM. A. (2013).
Exploring narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism in youth: Examination of associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
22(3), 355–367.
53.
Lester, N., & Weber, R. (2016, August 10-13). Construal level affects intuitive moral responses to narrative content [Paper presentation]. In38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, United States.
54.
LevyN. (2005).
Imaginative resistance and the moral/conventional distinction. Philosophical Psychology,
18(2), 231–241.
55.
LibermanN.TropeY.StephanE. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–381). The Guilford Press.
56.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013).
The common currency of psychological distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
22(4), 278–282.
MudrackP. E. (1989).
Age-related differences in Machiavellianism in an adult sample. Psychological Reports,
64(3_suppl), 1047–1050.
59.
MudrackP. E. (1992).
Additional evidence on age-related differences in Machiavellianism in an adult sample. Psychological Reports,
70(3 Pt 2), 1210–1210.
60.
MurisP.MerckelbachH.OtgaarH.MeijerE. (2017).
The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science,
12(2), 183–204.
61.
RaneyA. A. (2004).
Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory,
14(4), 348–369.
62.
RaneyA. A. (2011).
The role of morality in emotional reactions to and enjoyment of media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology,
23(1), 18–23.
63.
RaneyA. A. (2017).
Affective disposition theory. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1–11.
64.
RosenblattL. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
SIU Press.
65.
RyanM. L. (1980).
Fiction, non-factuals, and the principle of minimal departure. Poetics,
9(4), 403–422.
66.
RyanM. L. (1991).
Possible worlds and accessibility relations: A semantic typology of fiction. Poetics Today,
12(3), 553–576.
67.
SaboJ. S.Giner-SorollaR. (2017).
Imagining wrong: Fictitious contexts mitigate condemnation of harm more than impurity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
146(1), 134–153.
68.
SalgaroM.Van TourhoutB. (2018).
Why does frank underwood look at us? Contemporary heroes suggest the need of a turn in the conceptualization of fictional empathy. Journal of Literary Theory,
12(2), 345–368.
69.
SandersM. S.Tsay-VogelM. (2016).
Beyond heroes and villains: Examining explanatory mechanisms underlying moral disengagement. Mass Communication and Society,
19(3), 230–252.
70.
SchnellC.BilandzicH. K. (2017).
Television stories and the cultivation of moral reasoning: The role of genre exposure and narrative engageability. Journal of Media Ethics,
32(4), 202–220.
71.
Shafer, D.M., Janicke, S. H. & Seibert, J. (2016). Judgment and choice: Moral complexity, enjoyment and meaningfulness in interactiveand non-interactive narratives. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
21(8), 97–106. doi: 10.9790/0837-2106010106J
72.
ShaferD. M.RaneyA. A. (2012).
Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives. Journal of Communication,
62(6), 1028–1046.
73.
SzabóE.JonesD. N. (2019).
Gender differences moderate Machiavellianism and impulsivity: Implications for Dark Triad research. Personality and Individual Differences,
141, 160–165.
74.
TamboriniR.EdenA.BowmanN. D.GrizzardM.WeberR.LewisR. J. (2013).
Predicting media appeal from instinctive moral values. Mass Communication and Society,
16(3), 325–346.
75.
TrapnellP. D.PaulhusD. L. (2012).
Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment,
94(1), 39–52.
76.
TrzebiatowskaM.BruceS. (2012). Why are women more religious than men?
Oxford University Press.
77.
TurielE. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention.
Cambridge University Press.
78.
TurielE. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 7–35). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
79.
TurielE.SmetanaJ. G.KillenM. (2014).
Social contexts in social cognitive development. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development,
2, 307–332.
80.
VaageM. B. (2013).
Fictional reliefs and reality checks. Screen,
54(2), 218–237.
81.
VaageM. B. (2015). The antihero in American television.
Routledge.
82.
van OmmenM.DaalmansS.WeijersA. (2014).
Who is the doctor in this house? Analyzing the moral evaluations of medical students and physicians of house. AJOB Empirical Bioethics,
5(4), 61–74.
83.
WaltonK. L.TannerM. (1994).
Morals in fiction and fictional morality.
68, 27–66. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes,
84.
WardS. J.KingL. A. (2018).
Gender differences in emotion explain women’s lower immoral intentions and harsher moral condemnation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
44(5), 653–669.
85.
WeisbergD. S.GoodsteinJ. (2009).
What belongs in a fictional world. Journal of Cognition and Culture,
9(1-2), 69–78.
86.
ZillmanD.CantorJ. R. (1977).
Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
13(2), 155–165.
87.
ZillmannD. (2000).
Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg (Ed.), Moving images, culture, and the mind (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 53–63). Luton, UK: Luton University Press.
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.
