The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is a Refrigerator Good or Evil? The Moral Evaluation of Everyday Objects
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Participants randomly assigned to rate 70 stimuli including 20 mundane objects on moral goodness/badness judged the mundane objects positively relative to the mid-point of the scale in the moral condition.
“In a different paper, participants were randomly assigned to rate 70 stimuli—including a subset of 20 mundane objects (e.g., refrigerator, desk)—on how morally good or bad they thought the stimuli were or how much they liked or disliked the stimuli [45]. Although the mean ratings were not directly compared across these two conditions, the mundane objects were judged positively (relative to the mid”
From The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions (2012) · cites this paper as [45]
People can construe and evaluate a host of issues according to moral standards.
“the current research suggests that people can construe and evaluate a host of issues according to moral standards [45].”
From The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions (2012) · cites this paper as [45]
Citations
Cites
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 · Cited by 1,970 · cited 4×
“This hypothesis is motivated in part by research on automatic evaluation (Bargh & Chaiken, 1992; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia, & Chaiken, 2002; Ferguson, 2006) and mere exposure effects (Bornstein, 1989; Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968, 2001).”
BackgroundInfluentialMere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal
Zajonc, R. B. (2001) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154 · Cited by 1,299
Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01614.x · Cited by 851
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Bargh, J., & Chaiken, S. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893–912. · DOI
- Bargh, J., & Chartrand, T. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479. · DOI · Paper page
- Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16. · DOI
- Bartels, D. M., & Medin, D. L. (2007). Are morally-motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychological Science, 18, 24–28. · DOI
- Duckworth, K., Bargh, J., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S. (2002). The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli. Psychological Science, 13, 513–519. · DOI
- Eliade, M. (1957). The sacred and the profane. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.
- Farwell, L., & Weiner, B. (2000). Bleeding hearts and the heartless: Popular perceptions of liberal and conservative ideologies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 845–852. · DOI
- Ferguson, M. J. (2006). The automaticity of evaluation. In J. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychology Press.
- Greene, J., Sommerville, R., Nystrom, L., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. · DOI · Paper page
- Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. · DOI · Paper page
- Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. · DOI · Paper page
- Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670. · DOI
- Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003a). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91. · DOI
- Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. (2003b). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. · DOI · Paper page
- Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136. · DOI
- McGraw, A., Tetlock, P., & Kristel, O. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 219–229. · DOI
- Monahan, J., Murphy, S., & Zajonc, R. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462–466. · DOI
- Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States: Transmission of germs and of interpersonal influence. Ethos, 22, 158–186. · DOI
- Skitka, L., & Tetlock, P. (1993). Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1205–1223. · DOI
- Tetlock, P. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324. · DOI · Paper page
- Tetlock, P., Kristel, O., Elson, S., Green, M., & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870. · DOI · Paper page
- Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477. · DOI
- Weeks, W., Longenecker, J., McKinney, J., & Moore, C. (2005). The role of mere exposure effect on ethical tolerance. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 281–294. · DOI
- Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 2. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121
Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength
Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Wagner, B. C. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.003 · Cited by 107
Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., Haas, I. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048693 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarudi, I., Kreps, T., & Bloom, P.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jarudi, Izzat
- Venue
- Social Justice Research
- Published
- 2008-09-30
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 457-469
- ISSN
- 0885-7466 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6725
- OpenAlex
- W2169271770
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Social Justice Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Education › Values and Moral Education
- Keywords
- everyday objects, moral intuitions, automated assessment, mere exposure effect, political conservatism, age differences, affective states, moral judgment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
