Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?
Abstract
Attitudes held with strong moral conviction (moral mandates) were predicted to have different interpersonal consequences than strong but nonmoral attitudes. After controlling for indices of attitude strength, the authors explored the unique effect of moral conviction on the degree that people preferred greater social (Studies 1 and 2) and physical (Study 3) distance from attitudinally dissimilar others and the effects of moral conviction on group interaction and decision making in attitudinally homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups (Study 4). Results supported the moral mandate hypothesis: Stronger moral conviction led to (a) greater preferred social and physical distance from attitudinally dissimilar others, (b) intolerance of attitudinally dissimilar others in both intimate (e.g., friend) and distant relationships (e.g., owner of a store one frequents), (c) lower levels of good will and cooperativeness in attitudinally heterogeneous groups, and (d) a greater inability to generate procedural solutions to resolve disagreements.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Moral attitudes are more durable and resistant to temptation, and are associated with stronger reactions to dissimilar others.
“For example, moral attitudes are more durable and resistant to temptation [13], and are associated with stronger reactions to dissimilar others [23], both of which are indicators of attitude strength [58].”
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 [23]
Different people construe different issues in moral (or non-moral) terms-termed moral mandates.
“Moreover, there is evidence that different people construe different issues in moral (or non-moral) terms—termed moral mandates [23].”
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 [23]
The current work extends the research by Skitka and colleagues by showing that evaluating an issue as moral (or not) varies not only across individuals, but within individuals within seconds as a function of the construal the person is applying.
“Thus, the current work extends the research by Skitka and colleagues [23] by showing that evaluating an issue as moral (or not) varies not only across individuals, but within individuals within seconds as a function of the construal the person is applying.”
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 [23]
Actions that are highly moralized (e.g., smothering a baby) or mundane (e.g., wearing a sweater vest) may allow for less flexibility.
“In contrast, actions that are highly moralized (smothering a baby) or mundane (wearing a sweater vest) may allow for less flexibility [23].”
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 [23]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 97 · Cited by 828
- Authors
- Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 895-917
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2166301207
- Cited by
- 828
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 25.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- moral conviction, attitude strength, interpersonal distance, social distance, physical distance, group interaction, group decision making, good will, cooperativeness, disagreement resolution
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Induced, Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude, Capital Punishment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Surveys and Questionnaires, Psychological Distance
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
