Social Distance study

People were asked how close they would be willing to live to a person with intensely different attitudes about morals, or moral conviction from theirs.

-Strength of moral conviction, not attitude, predicted social distance.

Abortion study

-People were pre-tested on their pro or anti-abortion attitudes.

-A few weeks later did an unrelated experiment in which they were paired with another person.

-The person was absent, but their bag was on the chair.

-On their bag was pin that expressed the opposite views on abortion.

-dependent variable was how close the chairs were placed together.

-Results: only strength of moral conviction pedicted how close people would be willing to sit next to eachother.

-Shows that moral conviction is not just about attitude. And that it plays a big role in interpersonal relations.

Cross-cultural moral judgements study

-People both rich and poor in both brazil and the u.s. were asked to read descriptions of a few instances (a brother and sister fucking was one) and then to rate how immoral each one was.

-Results: more affluent people saw non-harmful actions (cleaning toilet with the flag) as a question of social convention, not morality.

-Poorer people judged these actions as immoral not because they were harmful, but because they found them emotionally disturbing.

-This study shows that moral convictions have a cultural component, and that they are not purely based on harm.

Children and pets study

-Researchers wanted to know how children btwn ages of 1-2 yrs wopuld respond to feigned sadness, pain, or crying by family members.

-Results: children already acted to comfort their family members- but so did the family pets!

-This shows that contrary to what was previously believed, children are not egocentric and selfish.

And that animals have the same inclinations toward empathy, suggesting evolutionary roots.

Vegetarianism study

-Tested the hypothesis that strong emotional associations play a part in moral judgements.

-P's were people who had expressed reluctance to eat meat.

-Measured how reluctant they were for different reasons: moral, ecological, health, economic, or disgust. Disgust was suspected to have a strong connection with moral judgement.

-Result: moral vegatarians were more disgusted by meat than health vegetarians.

-This suggests that digust is an evolutionary mechanism that would aid in rejecting unsafe food. And moral judgement, as proved earlier studies, does have an evolutionary basis.

-However, this study between moral vegetarians and disgust for meat is a purely correlational study.

Hypnosis study

-P's were hypnotized to feel a brief pang of disgust. They then read the same vignettes (including a family eating their dead dog, etc.), which they rated for morality and disgust.

-Results: when primed with a sickening feeling, P's rated vignettes as more morally wrong, as well as more disgusting.

Taste study

-Explored whether taste can influence moral judgements.

-P's drank shots of either bitter, sweet, or neutral beverages during moral assesment tasks.

-Those who drank the bitter liquid made slightly more severe moral judgements.

Fart study

-P's were gathered up in a public space, and asked to make judgements about situations similiar to the infamous Vignettes! The fart spray released beforehand triggered the feeling of disgust.

-Results: participants in the fart condition were more severely morally judgemental than those in the control group.

Windex study- trust game experiment

-P's played the Trust Game (all participants were palyer 2), either in a normal room, or a room sprayed with Windex. In the Trust Game, whatever palyer 1 decides to give can be tripled by player 2. How much would player 2 be willing to give back to player 1?

-Results: clean smells evoked more virtuous behavior.

Windex study- volunteering experiment

-In this second experiment, p's were asked if they would be willing to donate $$ to habitat for humanity.

-Results: 22% of those in the clean-scented room said they would, as opposed to 6% in the neutral-scented room.....I rest mah case!

Trolley dilema

-question 1: a trolley is speeding down a track. there are 5 people tied to one branch of the track, and one person tied to the other. You can pull a lever, casunig the trolley to run over the one person, thus saving five people. Do you pull the lever?

question 2: you are standing on a bridge, underwhich a trolley is speeding out of control. The trolley is about to hit five people that are tied to the track. There is a fat man standing in front of you- you know that by pushing him in front of the trolley you could save these five people's lives. Do you do it?

-Most people answer yes to the first question, and no to the second question. This is because the 2nd question is less impersonal (Me hurting You), arousing more emotional areas of the brain, thus it is seen as a more severe moral dilema.

-This is evidence that emotional processes play a big role in moral decision making.

Panda study

-P's were asked how much they'd be willing to donate to save endangered pandas, accompanied by either a giant black dot, or a picture of a panda.

-When given the choice of saving either 1 panda or 4 pandas, people in the black dot condition were more likely to pick 4. In the picture condition, it was roughly the same, with a slight partially towards 1 panda.

MRI study

-Areas of the brain associated with emotion were most activated when judging personally-effecting moral issues.

-Areas of the brain associated with working memory were most activated equally when dealing with impersonal moral issues, and non-moral issues.

Product-rating study

-P's hand-copied a story describing an etihcal, selfless deed (helping coworker) or an unethical deed (sabotaging coworker). Then rated desirability of various products (soap, energizer batteries, etc.).

-Results: those in the unethical story condition rated the cleansing product as much higher than those given the ethical story.

-These results provide further evidence that moral judgements are driven by embodied emotions.

Free gift study

-Asked P's to recall either an ethical or unethical deed.

-Then offered a free gift: antiseptic wipe or a pencil.

-Results: Those in the unethical condition were about twice as likely to take the handwash.

Washing Away Sins study

-P's had to recall an unethical act. Half of them were then asked to wash hands. They were then asked to help volunteer in another study.

-Results: Those who DIDN'T wash their hand were roughly twice as likely to offer to volunteer.

-This indicates that the act of hand-washing also acts to make people feel cleansed of their wrong-doings. Hence, they no longer have a guilty consiounce that needs correcting.

Body parts study

-P's were asked to imagine they had found an important document belonging to Chris, their law firm partner.

They were asked either to leave a voice mail message (mouth) or an email (hand) saying that they had found (eithical) or that they could not find the document (unethical).

-Were then asked how much they'd be willing to pay for products, including mouth wash and hand sanitizer.

-Results were as predicted: those in the hands condition would pay more for hand wash, and those in the mouth condition would pay more for mouth wash.

-This further proves that embodiment plays a role in moral judgements.

CAD Hypothesis study

-Speculated that there are 3 kinds of moral violation: those relating to either Community, Autonomy, or Divinity. Emotions relating to the 1st are respect, duty, and heirarchy. Personal freedom and civil rights relate to the 2nd, and divinity and purity relate to the 3rd. Violation of the first code triggered contempt, violation of the 2nd triggered anger, violation of the 3rd disgust. (These are all hypothesized reactions!)

-P's both Japanese and American had to judge their emotional reaction to different scenerios based on these 3 codes, either by choosing from a menu of words or facial expressions.

-

Disgust or harm study (formerly, disgust and purity study)

-P's emotional states were manipulated by sitting through a film clip that evoked either sadness or disgust. P's then had to judge how good or bad different actions were. These actions involved either violation(bad) or defending (good) actions involving purity (divinity) or harm/care (autonomy).

-Results: those primed with disgust were roughly twice as critical of divinity violations, and only slightly more critical of autonomy violations.

Liberals vs. Conservative Study

-The results of a questionarre showed that Liberals moralize only some domains (harm/care and fairness) whereas Conservatives moralize every issue

(harm/car, fairness, purity, ingroup loyalty, and respect of authority). In other words, what a liberal sees as a personal choice, a conservative would see as a morally wrong act that no one should commit.

-This study supports the claim that different moral domains may solidify group memebership and define culutral boundaries.

Studies that support the claim that beliefs that one's morality does not apply to another group might be the basis for negative actions towards them:

1.lebanon study

2.dehumanization and disgust study

3.neuroimaging study

4.road rage study

5.animals and shocks study

6.9/11 and war study

7.iseali aggression study

8.collective crimes study

9.definition of human study

10.animals and androids study

Studies that shed light on why statistics of genocide fail to spark emotion and thus fail to motivate action:

1.slovic study

2.show all or one study

Lebanon study

-Showed that people think some moral values deifne what it means to be human, and thus cooperate people from other groups based on the extend to which these values are shared.

Dehuminization and disgust study

-Showed that people who are higher in general disgust sensitivity are more likely to dehumanize others, and form less favorable attitudes towards them.

Neuroimaging study

-Results: when thinking about people who ilicit disgust (drug addicts, homeless people) the part of the brain responsible for perceiving people (social cognition) is not activated.

Road rage study

-Results: drivers are more likely to show aggression (honking) if the person in the front car is not visible- this suggests that dehumanization ca lead to aggression.

Animals and shocks study

9/11 and war study

-A study on American attitudes to war post-9/11.

-Measures of dehumanization are correlated (slightly) with support for military strikes.

-The more aggressive the attitude, the more dehumanization.

Isreali aggression study

-Dehumanization is correlated with support for overt aggression towards other groups.

Collective Crimes study

-When reminded that one's group has commited an atrocity against an outside group, people will dehumanize the outgroup to regulate negative emotions such as guilt...interesting!!

Definition of "human" study

-Showed that people attribute more complex, uniquely human emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups.

Animals and androids study

-Our understanding of what makes someone human can be divided into things that seperate humans from animals (uniquely human), OR things related to human nature that are shared by other animals (human nature).

Slovic study

-People were less likely to donate $$ when presented with two starving children as oppose to one.

Show All or One study

-Giving personal info/details about children in need only increased willingness to donate if they were told about a SINGLE child, rather than 8 children in need.

-People were more emotionally distressed by a single child, whose name was identified.

-Looking at actual donations, it is apparent that people gave more money to a single identified child than to a group of children.

5 moral domains study

-P's were asked for their view on situations dealing with 1. harm/care

2. fairness

3.loyalty to ingroup

4.authority/respect

5.purity/sanctity