People vary in the extent to which they imbue attitudes with moral conviction, and this variation is consequential. Yet we know relatively little about what makes people’s feelings about a given attitude object transform from a relatively nonmoral preference to a moral conviction. In this article, we review evidence from two experiments and a field study that sheds some light on the processes that lead to attitude moralization. This research explored the roles of incidental and integral affect, cognitive factors such as recognition of harm, and whether attitude-moralization processes can occur outside conscious awareness or require some level of conscious deliberation. The findings present some challenges to contemporary theories that emphasize the roles of intuition and harm and indicate that more research designed to better understand moralization processes is needed.
BrandtM. J.WisneskiD. C.SkitkaL. J. (2015). (See References). Details how emotions associated with political candidates were associated with increased moral conviction about preferred and nonpreferred candidates over an election cycle.
2.
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012). (See References). Presents a theoretical argument about how morality is primarily rooted in conceptions of harm.
3.
HaidtJ. (2001). (See References). Presents a theoretical argument about how perceptions of morality are primarily rooted in viscerally experienced emotions and intuitions.
4.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). (See References). Introduces and details tests of the idea that attitudes sometimes reflect people’s moral convictions, something that can be distinguished from attitude strength.
5.
WisneskiD. C.SkitkaL. J. (2017). (See References). Details experimental tests of the degree to which attitude moralization is due to incidental or integral affect, perceptions of harm, or combinations of both.
6.
BaumanC. W.SkitkaL. J. (2009). In the mind of the perceiver: Psychological implications of moral conviction. In BartelsD. M.BaumanC. W.SkitkaL. J.MedinD. L. (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 50. Moral judgment and decision making (pp. 339–362). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
BrandtM. J.WisneskiD. C.SkitkaL. J. (2015). Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 211–237.
8.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
9.
GrayK.ScheinC.WardA. F. (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1600–1615.
10.
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.
11.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 4, 814–834.
12.
HorbergE. J.OveisC.KeltnerD. (2011). Emotions as moral amplifiers: An appraisal tendency approach to the influences of distinct emotions upon moral judgment. Emotion Review, 3, 237–244.
13.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236.
14.
KolevaS. P.GrahamJ.IyerR.DittoP. H.HaidtJ. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.
15.
LandyJ. F.GoodwinG. P. (2015). Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 518–536.
16.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In GentryW. D. (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282–325). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
LovettB. J.JordanA. H. (2010). Levels of moralisation: A new conception of moral sensitivity. Journal of Moral Education, 39, 175–189.
18.
McArdleJ. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.
19.
NarvaezD. (2010). Moral complexity: The fatal attraction of truthiness and the importance of mature moral functioning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 163–181.
ReaganL. J. (1998). When abortion was a crime: Women, medicine, and law in the United States, 1867-1973. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
RozinP. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218–221.
23.
RozinP.SinghL. (1999). The moralization of cigarette smoking in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 321–337.
24.
RyanT. J. (2014). Reconsidering moral issues in politics. The Journal of Politics, 76, 380–397.
25.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2017). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1088868317698288
26.
SchnallS.HaidtJ.CloreG. L.JordanA. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109.
27.
SchnallS.HaidtJ.CloreG. L.JordanA. H. (2015). Landy and Goodwin (2015) confirmed most of our findings then drew the wrong conclusions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 537–538.
28.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.
29.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
30.
WheatleyT.HaidtJ. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780–784.
31.
WisneskiD. C.SkitkaL. J. (2017). Moralization through moral shock: Exploring emotional antecedents to moral conviction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 143, 139–150.
