1932

Abstract

This review covers theory and research on the psychological characteristics and consequences of attitudes that are experienced as moral convictions, that is, attitudes that people perceive as grounded in a fundamental distinction between right and wrong. Morally convicted attitudes represent something psychologically distinct from other constructs (e.g., strong but nonmoral attitudes or religious beliefs), are perceived as universally and objectively true, and are comparatively immune to authority or peer influence. Variance in moral conviction also predicts important social and political consequences. Stronger moral conviction about a given attitude object, for example, is associated with greater intolerance of attitude dissimilarity, resistance to procedural solutions for conflict about that issue, and increased political engagement and volunteerism in that attitude domain. Finally, we review recent research that explores the processes that lead to attitude moralization; we integrate these efforts and conclude with a new domain theory of attitude moralization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612
2021-01-04
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/72/1/annurev-psych-063020-030612.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aramovich NP, Lytle BL, Skitka LJ 2012. Opposing torture: moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Soc. Influ. 1:21–34
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asadullah MA, Fayyaz I, Amin R 2019. Spirituality, moral conviction, and prosocial rule-breaking in healthcare. RAE J. Bus. Manag. 59:13–15
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asch SE. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 70:91–70
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastian B, Zhang A, Moffat K 2015. The interaction of economic rewards and moral convictions in predicting attitudes toward resource use. PLOS ONE 10:8e0134863
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauman CW, Skitka LJ. 2009. In the mind of the perceiver: psychological implications of moral conviction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 50: Moral Judgment and Decision Making DM Bartels, CW Bauman, LJ Skitka, DL Medin 339–62 San Diego, CA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumgartner JN, Morgan GS. 2019. Mindfulness and cognitive depletion shape the relationship between moral conviction and intolerance of dissimilar others. Stud. Psychol. 61:131–41
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Besley JC. 2012. Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making. Risk Anal. Int. J. 32:125–38
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bizumic B, Kenny A, Iyer R, Tanuwira J, Huxley E 2017. Are the ethically tolerant free of discrimination, prejudice and political intolerance. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:457–71
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloom P. 2012. Religion, morality, evolution. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63:179–99
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloom PBN. 2013. The public's compass: moral conviction and political attitudes. Am. Politics Res. 41:6937–64
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brandt MJ, Wisneski DC, Skitka LJ 2015. Moralization and the 2012 U.S. Presidential election campaign. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 3:2211–37
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brannon SM, DeJong A, Gawronski B 2019. Determinants of lateral attitude change: the roles of object relatedness, attitude certainty, and moral conviction. Soc. Cogn. 37:6624–58
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brehm JW. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance New York: Academic
  14. Cialdini RB, Trost MR. 1998. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. The Handbook of Social Psychology DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey 151–92 New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Clifford S. 2019. How emotional frames moralize and polarize political attitudes. Political Psychol 40:175–91
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Conover PJ, Miller PR. 2018. How Republicans won on voter identification laws: the roles of strategic reasoning and moral conviction. Soc. Sci. Q. 99:2490–511
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Crouch D. 2018. The Swedish 15-year-old who's cutting class to fight the climate crisis. The Guardian Sept. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/01/swedish-15-year-old-cutting-class-to-fight-the-climate-crisis
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Delton AW, DeScioli P, Ryan TJ 2020. Moral obstinacy in political negotiations. Political Psychol 41:13–20
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Deutsch M, Gerard HB. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51:3629–36
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Earle TC, Siegrist M. 2008. On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Anal. Int. J. 28:51395–414
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Feinberg M, Kovacheff C, Teper R, Inbar Y 2019. Understanding the process of moralization: how eating meat becomes a moral issue. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117:150–72An initial model of moralization that integrates the roles of emotion and cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Garguilo SP. 2010. Moral conviction as a moderator of framing effects PhD Thesis, Rutgers University Camden, NJ:
  23. Garrett KN. 2018. Fired up by morality: the unique physiological response tied to moral conviction in politics. Political Psychol 40:543–63
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrett KN, Bankert A. 2020. The moral roots of partisan division: how moral conviction heightens affective polarization. Br. J. Political Sci. 50:2621–40
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 2006.)
  26. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:51029–46
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray K, Young L, Waytz A 2012. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23:2101–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haidt J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108:814–34
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hanson B, Skitka LJ, Wisneski D 2016. Moral conviction as a limit on Supreme Court legitimacy: a natural experiment involving same-sex marriage Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology San Diego, CA:
  30. Haynes S. 2019. Students from 1,600 cities just walked out of school to protest climate change. It could be Greta Thunberg's biggest strike yet. Time May 24. https://time.com/5595365/global-climate-strikes-greta-thunberg/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hillygus DS, Shields TG. 2005. Moral issues and voter decision making in the 2004 presidential election. PS Political Sci. Politics 38:2201–9
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hornsey MJ, Majkut L, Terry DJ, McKimmie BM 2003. On being loud and proud: non‐conformity and counter‐conformity to group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42:3319–35
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hornsey MJ, Smith JR, Begg D 2007. Effects of norms among those with moral conviction: counter‐conformity emerges on intentions but not behaviors. Soc. Influ. 2:4244–68Morally convicted attitudes lead to a resistance to normative influence.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Huebner B, Lee J, Hauser M 2010. The moral-conventional distinction in mature moral competence. J. Cogn. Cult. 10:1–21–26
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto P, Haidt J 2012. Understanding libertarian morality: the psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLOS ONE 7:8e42366
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jago AS, Kreps TA, Laurin K 2019. Collectives in organizations appear less morally motivated than individuals. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148:122229–44
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kende A, Lantos NA, Belinszky A, Csaba S, Lukács ZA 2017. The politicized motivations of volunteers in the refugee crisis: intergroup helping as the means to achieve social change. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 5:1260–81
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kidder CK, Crites SL Jr 2014. What makes it moral? Objectivity in moral and non-moral attitudes Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Austin, TX:
  39. Kohlberg L. 1976. Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive developmental approach. Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues T Lickona 31–53 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kouchaki M, Smith IH, Savani K 2018. Does deciding among morally relevant options feel like making a choice? How morality constrains people's sense of choice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115:5788–804
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Landy JF, Goodwin GP. 2015. Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:4518–36
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lipka M, Gramlich J. 2019. 5 facts about the abortion debate in America. Pew Research Center Aug. 30. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/30/facts-about-abortion-debate-in-america/
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Luttrell A, Petty RE, Briñol P, Wagner BC 2016. Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65:82–93
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Luttrell A, Philipp-Muller A, Petty RE 2019. Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychol. Sci. 30:81136–50
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Malle B. 2021. Moral judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:293318
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mazzoni D, van Zomeren M, Cicognani E 2015. The motivating role of perceived right violation and efficacy beliefs in identification with the Italian water movement. Political Psychol 36:3315–30
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Milesi P, Alberici AI. 2018. Pluralistic morality and collective action: the role of moral foundations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat 21:223556
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority New York: Harper & Row
  49. Morgan GS. 2011. Toward a model of morally convicted behavior: investigating mediators of the moral conviction-action link PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago
  50. Morgan GS, Skitka LJ. 2020. Evidence for meta-ethical monism: Moral conviction predicts perceived objectivity and universality across issues Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology New Orleans, LA:
  51. Morgan GS, Skitka LJ, Wisneski DC 2010. Moral and religious convictions and intentions to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 10:1307–20
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mueller AB, Skitka LJ. 2018. Liars, damned liars, and zealots: the effect of moral mandates on transgressive advocacy acceptance. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 9:6711–18
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mullen E, Monin B. 2016. Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:363–85
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Mullen E, Nadler J. 2008. Moral spillovers: the effect of moral violations on deviant behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:51239–45
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mullen E, Skitka LJ. 2006. Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90:629–43
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Nucci LP. 2001. Education in the Moral Domain Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  57. Nucci LP, Turiel E. 1978. Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children. Child Dev 90:2400–7
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Osnos E. 2012. Abortion and politics in China. The New Yorker June 15. http://www.newyorker.com/news/evan-osnos/abortion-and-politics-in-china
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology L Berkowitz 123–205 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Reagan LJ. 1997. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 18671973 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Reifen Tagar M, Morgan GS, Halperin E, Skitka LJ 2014. When ideology matters: moral conviction and the association between ideology and policy preferences in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44:2117–25
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Rest JR, Narvaez D, Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ 1999. Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  63. Rhee JJ, Schein C, Bastian B 2019. The what, how, and why of moralization: a review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 13:12e12511
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Rozin P. 1999. The process of moralization. Psychol. Sci. 10:3218–21
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Rozin P, Markwith M, Stoess C 1997. Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: the transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychol. Sci. 8:267–73
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Rozin P, Singh L. 1999. The moralization of cigarette smoking in the United States. J. Consumer Psychol. 8:3321–37
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Ryan TJ. 2014. Reconsidering moral issues in politics. J. Politics 76:2380–97Demonstration that moral conviction varies within issue domains and not only across them.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ryan TJ. 2019. Actions versus consequences in political arguments: insights from moral psychology. J. Politics 81:242640
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sabucedo J-M, Dono M, Alzate M, Seoane G 2018. The importance of protesters’ morals: moral obligation as a key variable to understand collective action. Front. Psychol. 9:418
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Schein C, Gray K. 2018. The theory of dyadic morality: reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 22:132–70
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, Jordan AH 2015. Landy and Goodwin confirmed most of our findings then drew the wrong conclusions. Commentary on Landy & Goodwin, 2015. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:4537–38
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sherif M. 1936. The Psychology of Social Norms New York: Harper
  73. Šimčikas | 2018
    Šimčikas S. 2018. Is the percentage of vegetarians and vegans in the U.S. increasing. Animal Charity Evaluators Aug. 16. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/is-the-percentage-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-in-the-u-s-increasing/
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Skitka LJ. 2002. Do the means always justify the ends or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:588–97
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Skitka LJ. 2014. The psychological foundations of moral conviction. Advances in Moral Psychology H Sarkissian, JC Wright 148–66 New York: Bloomsbury
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW. 2008. Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychol 29:29–54
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Lytle BL 2009. The limits of legitimacy: moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97:567–78Shows that moral conviction is independent of authority and is used to test authority legitimacy.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Mullen E 2008. Morality and justice: an expanded theoretical perspective and review. Advances in Group Processes 25 KA Hedgvedt, J Clay-Warner 1–27 Bingley, UK: Emerald
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Sargis EG 2005. Moral conviction: another contributor to attitude strength or something more. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:895–917Demonstration that moral conviction is distinct from other dimensions of attitude strength.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Skitka LJ, Hanson BE, Washburn AN, Mueller AB 2018. Moral and religious convictions: Are they the same or different things?. PLOS ONE 13:6e0199311Moral convictions and religious convictions are distinct constructs.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Skitka LJ, Hanson BE, Wisneski DC 2017. Utopian hopes or dystopian fears? Understanding the motivational underpinnings of morally motivated political engagement. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43:177–90
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Skitka LJ, Houston D. 2001. When due process is of no consequence: moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Soc. Justice Res. 14:305–26
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Skitka LJ, Liu J, Yang Y, Chen H, Liu L, Xu L 2013. Exploring the cross-cultural generalizability and scope of morally motivated intolerance. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4:324–31
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Skitka LJ, Morgan GS, Wisneski DC 2015. Political orientation and moral conviction: a conservative advantage or an equal opportunity motivator of political engagement?. Social Psychology and Politics J Forgas, W Crano, K Fiedler 57–74 New York: RoutledgePolitical liberals and conservatives are equally morally convicted across a host of different issues.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Skitka LJ, Mullen E. 2002. Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: a test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1419–29
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Skitka LJ, Wisneski DC. 2011. Moral conviction and emotion. Emot. Rev. 3:3328–30
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Smetana JG, Braeges JL. 1990. The development of toddlers’ moral and conventional judgments. Merrill-Palmer Q 36:3329–46
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Turiel E. 2006. Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development. Handbook of Moral Development M Killen, JG Smetana 7–35 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Turiel E 2012. The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  90. Van Bavel JJ, Packer DJ, Johnson Haas I, Cunningham WC 2012. The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLOS ONE 7:11e48693
    [Google Scholar]
  91. van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R 2012. On conviction's collective consequences: integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51:152–71
    [Google Scholar]
  92. van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R, Bettache K 2011. Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14:5735–53
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wisneski DC, Lytle BL, Skitka LJ 2009. Gut reactions: moral conviction, religiosity, and trust in authority. Psychol. Sci. 20:1059–63
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wisneski DC, Skitka LJ. 2017. Moralization through moral shock: exploring emotional antecedents to moral conviction. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43:139–50
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wright JC. 2012. Children's and adolescents' tolerance for divergent beliefs: exploring the cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction in our youth. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 30:4493–510
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wright JC, Cullum J, Schwab N 2008. The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:111461–76
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zaal MP, Laar CV, Ståhl T, Ellemers N, Derks B 2011. By any means necessary: the effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50:4670–89
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Zaal MP, Saab R, O'Brien K, Jeffries C, Barreto M, van Laar C 2017. You're either with us or against us! Moral conviction determines how the politicized distinguish friend from foe. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20:4519–39
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error