Abstract
Health policy is motivated by a variety of factors including moral concerns, values and convictions. Policymakers are motivated to consider how constituents and those directly impacted by policies will react to the policies they enact. Thus, it is advantageous for policymakers to understand the psychological processes that shape constituents' reactions toward health policies. We outline how and when policymakers and constituents are motivated to empathize, moralize, and compromise on divisive health policies, such as opioid-related policies, by considering the motivational frameworks of empathy and the plurality of moral values that inform attitudes. We offer insight for policymakers balancing tradeoffs between different moral values and concerns, suggesting that policymakers should consider cultivating an active dialogue around the relevant moral emotions felt by both supporters and opponents. For example, when considering syringe services programs, supporters and opponents may both be motivated by the moral concern of harm—as supporters may see services as preventing infections and keeping people healthy, while opponents may see services as promoting drug use and in turn, harmful health outcomes. We suggest that such a morally pluralistic effort will (1) highlight moral alignment amongst supporters to cultivate collective resolve and (2) acknowledge the competing moral concerns of opponents so that they feel understood and in turn, feel more willing to understand competing perspectives. While leaning into moral emotions may feel like a turn toward divisiveness, we suggest that acknowledging the plurality of moral values at stake sets the foundation for support and compromise.
Social Media
Empathy and moral judgment are motivated by many different values that can impact policy. We consider how constituents and policymakers can actively balance costs and benefits of moral emotions, collaborate, and improve policymaking.
Key Points
Empathy and moral conviction both can motivate social action and public policy development, yet reliance on them has been critiqued due to risk of bias and limitations.
Motivational frameworks emphasize how people manage empathy based on their goals and values, and moral psychology frameworks emphasize that people have a variety of moral values. Both are useful for understanding the complexity of policymaking because they explicitly consider how people understand their own moral emotions and the values that shape them.
To understand psychological processes that shape policymaking and reactions to policy, we need to consider: a) the vantage points of those who are directly impacted by relevant policies; b) the broader set of constituents and their moral reactions; and c) how policymakers expect the public to react and how the policymakers themselves react to policies.
As we close the first quarter of the twenty-first century, it is an intriguing moment to consider the role of empathy and morality in health policy. Although empathy seemed to be on the decline through the century's first decade (Konrath et al., 2011), in the time since it has increased (Konrath et al., 2025). Such fluctuations sit against a backdrop of debates about the role of empathy in public life, such as President Barack Obama's address on an “empathy deficit” in 2009, calling for more empathy (Honigsbaum, 2013). On the other hand, some have argued that empathy is biased and selective toward groups we belong to, and away from distant strangers, making it unreliable for morality and social life (Bloom, 2017; Prinz, 2011). Such academic debates over whether empathy has morally compromising biases have been explicitly alluded to in public, with some calling empathy “toxic” and “sinful” (Szalai, 2025).
If empathy cannot reliably respond to large-scale suffering (e.g., in response to widespread opioid use), then perhaps relying on it for policy is misguided (Decety, 2021; Slovic, 2007). Additionally, some question how far empathy and moral concern should extend, focusing locally versus globally (see comments about moral circle by JD Vance, noted in Rottman, 2025; see also Crimston et al., 2022; Waytz et al., 2019). Such debates are grounded in divisions of moral opinion in terms of where it is seen as acceptable to acknowledge and care for others (Graham et al., 2013; Schein & Gray, 2018).
Many health policies provide vivid examples of how moral values, stigma, and public perceptions intersect with evidence-based interventions. In the case of opioid-related policies, as opioid use has touched more families and communities, attitudes toward opioid-related policies have shifted. Policies once seen as controversial, such as diversion programs (i.e., programs that provide treatment as an alternative to the criminal justice system), provision of naloxone to reverse overdoses, or syringe services programs (i.e., access to sterile syringes, testing and vaccination for infectious diseases, and connection to substance use disorder treatment; see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024), have gained traction as the crisis is increasingly viewed through a lens of empathy rather than criminal justice (Franco et al., 2021). Yet stigma remains pervasive—while some first responders’ empathy increases as opioid-related calls increase, for other first responders there is fatigue when called repeatedly to revive the same patients (Metcalf et al., 2022).
These tensions highlight how moralization shapes the public's view of health policy as well as the specific health policies that resonate more with them. We suggest a focus on motivated empathy––the idea that empathy is a goal-driven choice shaped by people's appraisals of its costs and benefits (Cameron et al., 2022), and moral pluralism––the idea that people rely on different moral values; no single value explains everyone's choices (Graham et al., 2013). This focus informs how citizens and policymakers might consider creating policies that balance competing priorities of harm reduction and treatment for patients, support of affected families, and social goals of safety and socioeconomic opportunities.
Values-Based Approaches to Empathy and Moral Decisions
We focus on empathy and moral decision-making, to consider their possible roles in facilitating and developing health policy focusing on opioid-related policy as an example. People might respond well to policies that focus on three aspects of empathy: recognize shared experience, express compassionate warmth for their well-being, and evince clear consideration of different viewpoints (cf. Hall & Schwartz, 2019). Facets of empathy connect to policy support (Gault & Sabini, 2000) and health behavior (Pfattheicher et al., 2020) ––a relationship that is at least partially explained by people's beliefs (e.g., individualistic beliefs; Feldman et al., 2020). Empathy and reasoning can support each other (Law, Amormino et al., 2024), which matters because empathy is motivated: people assign value to empathy, and regulate their feelings based on what they want (Cameron et al., 2022; Zaki, 2014), such as avoiding empathy due to cognitive effort (Cameron et al., 2019). Policymaking requires considering how
Importantly, motivated empathic choices are nested within diverse frameworks of values. People prefer not to empathize with those they deem morally unworthy (Anderson & Cameron, 2023; Wang & Todd, 2021; for review, Wang et al., 2023). People disagree not only about what is right or wrong, but also about the underlying principles that matter. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) is one framework, proposing that moral judgments are rooted in at least five broad foundations: harm and care, fairness and reciprocity, ingroup loyalty, authority and respect, and purity and sanctity (Graham et al., 2013). Research shows liberals tend to emphasize individualizing foundations (which emphasize rights and relations, given that harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are often relationship-focused) while conservatives tend to endorse a broader range of values, including binding values (which emphasize relationships, roles, and duties; see Graham et al., 2013). At the same time, MFT is not the only account of moral judgment. The Theory of Dyadic Morality (TDM) argues that morality is fundamentally organized around an underlying narrative where there is a moral agent who is intentionally harming a victim (Schein & Gray, 2018). For example, use of opioids might be framed as harming the body, society, or the spirit (in all cases, read through the lens of harm). Varying assumptions of who is most vulnerable to harm may explain differences of opinion about social policies (Gray & Kubin, 2024), and such an approach has been useful for understanding attempts to find common ground (Kubin et al., 2021). Across these accounts is a recognition that these differences of opinion influence how people think about who deserves empathy and consideration. Even as there is moral pluralism, there may still be a common set of moral values that people can agree on as relevant for compromise and cooperative outcomes (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2013). Once we understand that people balance conflicting values, and that, in turn, motivates and shapes their empathetic and emotional reactions, we can begin to think about the complexity of the psychology of health policy.
Moral Psychological Antecedents: What Makes an Issue Morally Charged?
Moralization as a Lens
Moral framing of issues can shift public opinion and policy support. Policies to provide support to those with opioid use disorder can appeal to different moral principles (e.g., harm to user, bodily impurity, or risk of disease transmission) or the same principle applied differently (e.g., harm to user, harm to community; see Feinberg & Willer, 2019 on moral re-framing). Policies framed in terms of fairness and harm reduction—for example, emphasizing equal access to care and preventing unnecessary suffering garners broader support than a framing that is purely economic or efficiency based (Gollust et al., 2013). More generally, the perceived moral relevance of an issue is often a matter of idiosyncratic personal belief (Skitka, 2010). Policy debates are not only about facts or costs, but also about specific values that are highlighted, shaping polarization or prospects for consensus.
Several areas of ongoing debate illustrate these dynamics. Syringe services programs are effective at reducing the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C; yet remain contested by those who see them as encouraging drug use (McGinty et al., 2018; Showalter, 2018). A well-known case occurred in Indiana, where resistance gave way to implementation only after a severe HIV outbreak during Governor Mike Pence's tenure (Legan, 2021). Mike Pence acknowledged that despite his own moral opposition, he supported syringe services because of public health implications (Legan, 2021). Safe injection sites face even sharper resistance, despite evidence of potentially reducing overdose deaths (Kennedy et al., 2017). Medications for opioid use disorder are strongly supported in the medical literature, but opposition persists in some abstinence-oriented treatment programs and among providers uncomfortable prescribing them (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2019). Underlying all of these debates are moral concerns about enabling versus protecting, personal responsibility versus public health, and appropriate boundaries of community tolerance. As stigma shifts and moral framing evolves, so too does the political viability of these interventions.
Below, we present one example of how moralization of a health-relevant policy could generate polarized arguments. We outline different theoretical expectations here because those might matter for predictions about how people respond to policies. For instance, someone who follows Moral Foundations Theory (Graham et al., 2013) could appeal to any of the previously mentioned principles to either support or oppose syringe services program. Someone focusing on a harm foundation might consider that such policies prevent infections, reduce overdoses, and keep people healthy; whereas opponents might suggest the policies increase harmful outcomes from drug use. Through a fairness lens, advocates might say that people with substance use disorders deserve access to supplies and healthcare (this might also capture a liberty framing); alternatively, opponents might deem it unfair for taxpayers to fund needles for drug use and may resent it if government seems to bypass community consent (“not in my backyard”). An authority lens might appeal to the guidance of public health organizations (such as the CDC), or on the other hand, suggest such policies interfere with law enforcement. Through a purity/sanctity lens, one might favor such policies for reducing stigmatizing disgust toward opioid users, yet disfavor such policies if they normalize drug use and “impurify” communities.
By contrast, the Theory of Dyadic Morality (Schein & Gray, 2018) suggests that different conceptualizations of harm explain these moralizing responses, and in the context of health-relevant policies might focus on harm to self, to others, or to society (Pratt et al., 2025). For example, different health behaviors could be moralized along these different conceptualizations of harm (Pratt et al., 2025). The arguments listed above (i.e., pro- or anti-syringe services programs, through the lens of different moral foundations) could also be cast through a harm-based framing. For example, for the authority arguments listed previously, perhaps it is harmful to society if people distrust public health policymakers, and that is where concerns over harm to society can explain support for such policies.
The main point is that different moral psychology frameworks suggest that people can flexibly consider health policies through a range of value-based lenses, and these influence how they manage empathy and concern for others.
Framing Tragic Tradeoffs
Some values—such as human life, dignity, or religious faith—are treated as sacred and morally nonfungible, meaning they are not seen as tradeable for secular gains like cost savings or efficiency (Baron & Spranca, 1997; Tetlock, 2003). As a result, policymakers might be tempted to avoid acknowledging that the opposing party's sacred values would be compromised if the policy were adopted and instead opt to frame decisions in terms of pragmatic or economic benefits. However, research shows that when two sacred values conflict—such as safety versus liberty—framing the decision as a
Although some have recommended that too much moralizing may backfire (Rottman, 2025), there are scientific reasons to believe that standing up for morality in health policy might convey to others the importance of a particular issue and help them to coordinate toward common goals even amidst disagreements (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2013; Kubin et al., 2021). Next, we examine how motivated management of empathy may follow from these value tradeoffs.
Social Discounting: Valuing Others’ Welfare
People often “discount” the value of outcomes depending on when, how, and for whom they occur. Social discounting refers to how generosity declines as social distance between the giver and recipient increases (Jones & Rachlin, 2006). A recent meta-analysis found that people generally value those closer to them than to those more distant, but the
Empathy and Impartiality
The evidence-based research on discounting is connected to studies on how empathy can shift across different situations (such as how close you are to someone in need of help). Much discussion about empathy has been about its perceived limits in response to large-scale crises (e.g., Slovic et al., 2017), misfortunes of outgroups (Cikara et al., 2014), and when empathy seems to lead people to act unfairly (Batson et al., 1995). Many policies deal with large numbers of potentially unknown people, which can reduce empathy and generosity, leading some to suggest we should move away from focusing on inspiring empathy in individuals and instead find ways to change institutions or policies directly (Slovic, 2007). Policy appeals often draw on narratives for emotional support, though doing so might risk short-term engagement without long-term support (Slovic et al., 2017).
Similarly, many policies require coordination across diverse audiences with conflicting interests, and here too empathy in favor of one group in a felt zero-sum conflict with another group might reduce empathy (Cikara et al., 2014). For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, instead of focusing on empathy for the common good to promote public-protective behaviors (Pfattheicher et al., 2020), there was polarization in people's opinions about public health responses (Van Bavel et al., 2024) that interfered with the extension of empathy and shared appreciation of harm. The scope of policymaking might be ill-suited for empathy: many health policies affect large numbers of people and need to be enacted in a nonbiased and impartial way, rather than partial to specific individuals or interests (although one could argue that local health policy necessarily requires a focus that favors harms to one's community). Paralleling the social discounting literature, people empathically favor close over distant others (Ferguson et al., 2020). People might not be willing to engage with the suffering of strangers, which might matter more for policies that require a level of impartiality: policies about large groups where many are distant strangers. When considering how policies are framed, it is important to consider that constituents and policymakers may have different empathetic reactions to those who are directly impacted (e.g., possible stigmatization of people afflicted by opioid use disorder). In sum, policymakers’ own moral reactions may shape their policymaking, and so can the moral reactions they anticiapte from the public.
Importantly, empathy need not always be partial (Cameron et al., 2022). When people are incentivized and motivated in different ways, empathy can become more sensitive to large numbers (i.e., when there is less expectation of helping; Cameron & Payne, 2011). Similarly, motivation applies to how people attribute mental life to stigmatized groups such as drug users (i.e., when there is less anticipated emotional exhaustion; Cameron et al., 2016). Both examples suggest that re-alignment of empathy in policy-relevant contexts is possible based on one's value tradeoffs (see also Ferguson et al., 2020, who showed how both financial reward and relationships with close others can motivate people to choose empathy more). Even when people make impartial altruistic decisions like donating their kidneys to strangers, this impartiality need not interfere with other aspects of life, such as ability to empathize with others (Law et al., 2025), or quality of close relationships (Amormino et al., 2024). If one can be partial or impartial, all while retaining an ability to stay empathetic and engaged, then this may complicate arguments for how and whether these moral reactions should factor into policy.
Moral Psychological Processes and Outcomes of Policies
Policies shape reciprocal reactions among three groups: constituents who are not directly affected by the issue and policy, policymakers, and direct recipients of the policy. These groups influence one another: constituents react to both recipients and leaders, policymakers interpret and anticipate constituent responses, and direct recipients may advocate for their interests.
Constituents’ Reactions
Constituents often judge the deservingness of policy beneficiaries: Are they responsible for their plight; are they likely to reciprocate; or will they “free-ride” (Petersen et al., 2011; Skitka & Tetlock, 1992)? Many direct recipients of policies may be stigmatized, which might relate to how people choose to manage empathy (Cameron et al., 2016). For example, a large driver of opioid use disorder-related stigma is perceptions of patient responsibility; that impacts opinions of deservingness of treatment and prevention efforts (Garpenhag & Dahlman, 2021; Yang et al., 2019). The expanse of constituents’ moral circles (Crimston et al., 2022) may relate to the extent to which they choose to feel empathy or outrage (Bambrah et al., 2022: Spring et al., 2018) in response to policy recipients; this may be influenced by whether they share similar values and group-based identities (Allamong & Peterson, 2021). As one example of how pre-existing values shape people's engagement with morally relevant issues, research by Niemi and Young (2016) demonstrates that attitudes toward sexual violence vary depending on whether narratives emphasize victim suffering or highlight perceived violations of loyalty, purity, or authority. To the extent that shared outcomes between constituents and those impacted by policies can be emphasized, such common focus on harm (Kubin et al., 2021) and mutual impact and adversity might motivate empathy and engagement (Hadjiandreou & Cameron, 2022).
Support for a given policy may be reduced if the target population is perceived as “undeserving”, especially under conditions of zero-sum thinking, where helping one group is seen as taking away from others (Esses et al., 2001). Such judgments also elicit paternalistic concerns—e.g., that aid will foster dependency or “enable” harmful behavior—thereby reducing support for unconditional assistance (Fiske et al., 2002; Gilens, 1999; Petersen et al., 2011; van Oorschot, 2000). People care in terms of how policies seem to implement different values and help valued recipients. When sacred values like dignity or safety are neglected, policies provoke moral outrage (Tetlock, 2003). Conversely, policies framed as protecting fairness and dignity can evoke empathy, though empathy itself is selective and regulated (Cameron et al., 2019).
Citizens also judge policymakers’ morality. Leaders who appear overly compassionate may be dismissed as soft or naïve, especially if they allocate resources to groups seen as undeserving (Petersen et al., 2011; Weiner et al., 1988). Such discussions have emerged within the national discourse about whether empathy makes leaders seem weak (McCammon, 2025). Conversely, impartial and utilitarian leaders may be judged as fair but cold, sacrificing group loyalty for aggregate welfare (Waytz et al., 2013). Yet while utilitarian leaders might seem to lack empathy, this may not always be a problem. During the Covid-19 pandemic, people distrusted leaders who made sacrificial tradeoffs (e.g., Covid lockdowns to save more lives) but also
Policymakers’ Attitudes
Policymakers must interpret constituents’ moralized reactions, anticipating backlash while signaling empathy for vulnerable groups (Skitka, 2010). Leaders use moral language strategically—to mobilize support, justify decisions or deflect criticism (Clifford et al., 2015; Feinberg & Willer, 2019; Voelkel & Feinberg, 2018). However, failing to recognize or engage with constituents’ morality can erode perceived legitimacy and trust in authorities (Skitka, 2010; Tyler, 2006). How choices are framed is critical: tragic tradeoffs tend to reduce polarization relative to ignoring the moral values being sacrificed or compromised (Tetlock et al., 2000). Ultimately, whether policies lead to cooperation, adoption, or resistance often depends on leaders’ willingness to acknowledge and align with constituents’ values (Tyler, 2006). Through the lens of pluralism, the recommendation is for policymakers to appreciate, articulate, and balance diverse viewpoints even if they do not endorse all such perspectives (Feinberg & Willer, 2019).
Our suggestion here is that policymakers and citizens might work together to manage each other's reactions to health policies, given that the topic area is inherently one tied to considerations of well-being and care. Policymakers might communicate policies in ways that impact how people think and feel about these policies, and about the direct recipients of those policies (e.g., people with substance use disorder). For example, if leaders emphasize that syringe service programs are useful because of direct positive outcomes to health to users, and also indirectly to the community, this might highlight how this is ultimately a caring and compassionate goal and make it easier for constituents to empathize with these recipients.
Leaders also make judgments about the worthiness and prioritization of policy beneficiaries. Groups viewed as cooperative are more likely to be prioritized, while stigmatized groups may be deprioritized or excluded (Fiske et al., 2002). Policymakers’ perceptions of recipients’ deservingness shape agenda-setting, allocation of resources, and recognition (Petersen et al., 2011; Skitka & Tetlock, 1992). These judgments can entrench stigma or, alternatively, signal moral concern that shifts public opinion over time.
Direct Recipients’ Attitudes
The reactions of direct recipients toward policymakers and constituents are also important. These can take the form of advocacy and mobilization in addition to shaping the initial contours of legitimacy. Additionally, how direct recipients talk about their own narratives of addiction and recovery—which can convey their own attitudes about their situations—can inspire moral emotions (e.g., compassion, and outrage on their behalf), which might increase perceptions of legitimacy, collective action, and policy support. Direct recipients’ own attitudes toward policymakers and toward the broader public often carry less weight in shaping outcomes. But this also points to the benefits of advocacy, becoming an organized constituency, and appealing to the broader public (Achen & Bartels, 2016).
Policy Recommendations
Our goal is to provide a useful lens for policymakers that highlights how morality, values, and empathy both shape policy and how it is perceived by the public. Extending basic work in interdisciplinary moral psychology to the real world presents challenges, including understanding to what extent findings from psychological studies can generalize to more complex, immersive, lived experiences (Lewis, 2020; Premachandra & Lewis, 2022). Our approach builds on policy frameworks in social psychology (e.g., Hartman et al., 2022; Matsick et al., 2020) that suggest recommendations at multiple levels of analysis. Importantly, the goal is not to dictate ethical benchmarks for policymakers. Rather, the goal is to help illuminate various influences on policy-relevant actions and highlight how the general public perceives policies and their implementation using social psychological research evidence (Greene, 2003).
The Individual Level
A key lesson from motivated empathy and moral pluralism is that individual community members can consider the same policy through different value-based lenses and choose to relate to their emotional reactions in different ways to achieve their goals. Once an issue becomes moralized, it can be experienced as non-negotiable and harden divisions. It is crucial to anticipate not only the evidence people consider in evaluating policy proposals, but also the values and identities they see at stake—and to use empathy and perspective-taking strategically, as tools for inclusion of all stakeholders, rather than just persuasion (Barry et al., 2018). Policymakers who are debating how and whether to appeal to moral emotions in their policymaking should try to anticipate the psychological tradeoffs through which individual citizens evaluate policies.
People are often motivated by several considerations (e.g., a desire to improve others’ well-being for emotional, moral, and reputational reasons); leveraging these in tandem could be an effective strategy for encouraging policy support (Batson, 2011). Encouraging constituents to reflect on values could be achieved through science communication and education (for a similar suggestion, see Fujita et al., 2020). Constituents could be educated on how syringe services programs reduce risk of infectious disease in their communities, or how naloxone keeps people alive until they can receive treatment through partnerships between policymakers, researchers, and other key stakeholders. Researchers and think tanks might be able to help educate both policymakers and constituents, so that they can see the mutual impacts of their decisions and encourage collaboration so that policies are informed by voices of community members. Seeing how people in their communities are impacted might increase felt empathy, connection, and support. As another example, constituents may weigh different aspects of a syringe services program. They may favor the public health impact of limiting spread of infectious diseases but depending on their background have concerns about “encouraging” substance use, be against having it sited in their neighborhood, or have different priorities for addressing the problem for budgetary reasons.
Importantly, when people decide how to regulate their own moral reactions, they are attuned to social norms and each other's emotion regulation (Weisz et al., 2021; Zaki & Williams, 2013): they attune to how others are responding, and what they think others’ moral views about policies might be. It becomes important to consider what priorities are being signaled by different policies and how decision-makers are factoring these in. If people believe that policies are aligning with their own reactions and tradeoffs, they may be more likely to support them.
The Institutional Level
Next, we shift to the institutional level. Here, we primarily mean elected leaders in local, state, and national government, who are tasked with crafting policies to help their constituents. Although the specific policy targets might differ along with this scope (i.e., local policies might by definition be more partial and bound to local context, whereas national policies may need to be somewhat more impartial to local circumstances), we nevertheless suggest that the general points we have made here can transcend across these levels of government.
One challenge for policy interventions is risk of breakdowns from intent to practice (Premachandra & Lewis, 2022) and unclear targets of intervention (Zaki & Cikara, 2015). At the institutional level, policymakers can scaffold constructive engagement by creating forums where diverse voices feel heard before debates escalate into moral absolutes and by designing policies that acknowledge practical and moral concerns of stakeholders. Policymakers are driving policy positions and often communication about these policies (in collaboration with their staff). It could be helpful for policymakers to be trained explicitly to be aware of potential emotional and behavioral impacts of policies among constituents and direct recipients. Encouraging platforms to disclose harmful experiences in mutual conversation can unite people across viewpoints (Kubin et al., 2021). As such, it is critical that policymakers hear from a wide array of constituents. In the case of opioid-related policies, having perspectives from those with relevant lived experiences can be critical to developing and implementing policies that will meet policy goals. Stories from those with such experiences can be helpful in reducing stigma and “putting a face” to what otherwise may feel like problems affecting “others” (Osoro et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024).
A further challenge is that perceptions of a “broken system” can foster disengagement, where individuals or communities rationalize breaking rules on the grounds that corruption is widespread (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Bandura, 1999). Effective policy is not only about presenting outcomes, but also building trust, signaling respect for values, incorporating perspectives from those with lived experience to understand what approaches might work, and structuring decision processes to channel empathy and convictions toward cooperative rather than adversarial ends. Policymakers create public expressions of their moral value alignment (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2013) through drafting and passing policies (Wylie & Gantman, 2024) that can help people understand how to regulate their own reactions. Doing so requires anticipating pluralistic motivations and reactions of all involved, including policymakers, constituents, and direct recipients of policies.
Rather than suggest that moral emotions are not scalable (Caviola et al., 2021), we suggest a middle ground. Instead of abandoning focus on moral emotions because of concerns about scale, institutions’ communications teams and leaders (i.e., at local, state, and national levels) should consider cultivating clear appreciation for and active discussion of moral emotions and how policies may or may not align with these, which might in turn support employees’ willingness to talk about issues. For example, institutions could use framing as reminders that people with opioid use disorder are struggling with a chronic condition largely beyond their control and so are deserving of care.
Conclusion
Understanding policy is a matter of applied moral psychology (e.g., Inbar, 2018). Here, we cast moral psychology of policy through the lens of multiple interactive decision-makers. Outcomes of policies may have downstream and reinforcing effects on future proposals, policy framing, and reactions. If a policy is impactful and publicized, it may set a norm that shapes how people discuss the people impacted and values advanced. For example, if a policy that seems to support care and concern for a stigmatized group becomes publicly supported, it may then make it easier for citizens to empathize with such recipients (because the policy conveys this importance of empathy), which in turn might make it easier in future for policymakers to promote similar types of empathetic policies. Once it becomes clear there is a policy that supports harm prevention and concern for a vulnerable population, it may shape cost-benefit tradeoffs that people consider for empathizing with them and expressing outrage on their behalf. If people see policy support as extended and congruent with their choices to engage with moral emotions, they may be more likely to cooperate and build communities of support with one another to achieve shared goals.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank Nilanjana (Buju) Dasgupta for helpful editorial comments. This work was partially supported by T32 DA017629 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). It is the sole responsibility of the authors and may not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the NIDA.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant number DA017629).
