CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Moralized rationality: Relying on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of belief can be seen as a moral issue

Open access
Ståhl, Tomas, Zaal, Maarten P., Skitka, Linda J.·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0166332PMC PMC5112873
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the present article we demonstrate stable individual differences in the extent to which a reliance on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of beliefs is perceived as a moral virtue, and a reliance on less rational processes is perceived as a vice. We refer to this individual difference variable as moralized rationality. Eight studies are reported in which an instrument to measure individual differences in moralized rationality is validated. Results show that the Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS) is internally consistent, and captures something distinct from the personal importance people attach to being rational (Studies 1-3). Furthermore, the MRS has high test-retest reliability (Study 4), is conceptually distinct from frequently used measures of individual differences in moral values, and it is negatively related to common beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence (Study 5). We further demonstrate that the MRS predicts morally laden reactions, such as a desire for punishment, of people who rely on irrational (vs. rational) ways of forming and evaluating beliefs (Studies 6 and 7). Finally, we show that the MRS uniquely predicts motivation to contribute to a charity that works to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs (Study 8). We conclude that (1) there are stable individual differences in the extent to which people moralize a reliance on rationality in the formation and evaluation of beliefs, (2) that these individual differences do not reduce to the personal importance attached to rationality, and (3) that individual differences in moralized rationality have important motivational and interpersonal consequences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0166332

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. [1]Dunlap RE, McCright AM. A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environ. 2008; 50: 26– 35.
  2. [2]Heilbron JL. Censorship of Astronomy in Italy after Galileo In: McMullin E, editor. The Church and Galileo. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; 2005.
  3. [3]Morris H. Scientific Creationism. General Edition San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers; 1974.
  4. [4]Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R, Wojcik S, et al Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2012; 47: 55– 130.
  5. [6]Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellete LL, Braman D, et al The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate risks. Nat Clim Chang. 2012; 2: 732– 735.
  6. [8]Gibbs JC, Basinger KS, Grime RL, Snarey JR. Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Dev Rev. 2007; 27: 443– 500.
  7. [9]Nichols S, Folds-Bennett T. Are children moral objectivists? Children’s judgments about moral and response-dependent properties. Cogn. 2003; 90: B23– B32. 14599758
  8. [10]Skitka LJ. The psychological foundations of moral conviction In: Wright J, Sarkissian H, editors. Advances in Moral Psychology. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Press; 2014.
  9. [11]Turiel E. Social regulations and domains of social concepts In: Damon W, editor. New directions for child development (Vol. 1): Social cognition. New York: Gardner; 1978 pp. 45– 74.
  10. [12]Haidt J, Rosenberg E, Hom H. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003; 33: 1– 36.
  11. [13]Motyl M. "If he wins, I'm moving to Canada": Ideological migration threats following the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2014; 14: 123– 136.
  12. [14]Motyl M, Iyer R, Oishi S, Trawalter S, Nosek BA. How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2014; 51: 1– 14.
  13. [15]Kesebir P, Pyszczynski T. A moral-existential account of the psychological factors fostering intergroup conflict. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2011; 5: 878– 890.
  14. [16]Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Sargis EG. Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005; 88: 895– 917. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895 15982112 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [19]Meier BP, Fetterman AK, Robinson MD, Lappas CM. The myth of the angry atheist. J Psychol. 2015; 149: 219– 238. 10.1080/00223980.2013.866929 25590340 · DOI
  16. [21]Dennett D. Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Penguin; 2006.
  17. [24]Boudry M, Blancke S, Braeckman J. Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. Q Rev Biol. 2010; 85: 473– 482. 21243965
  18. [25]Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107: 12107– 12109. 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 20566872 PMC2901439 · DOI
  19. [26]Doran PT, Zimmerman MK. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS. 2009; 90: 21– 22.
  20. [27]Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 2004; 306: 1686 10.1126/science.1103618 15576594 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [28]Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against anti-vaccinationists. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 97– 99. 10.1056/NEJMp1010594 21226573 · DOI
  22. [29]Ronald P. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics. 2011; 188: 11– 20. 10.1534/genetics.111.128553 21546547 PMC3120150 · DOI
  23. [30]Society of toxicology (SOT) position paper. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol Sci. 2003; 71: 2– 8. 12520069
  24. [31]Jost JT, Amodio D. Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot. 2012; 36: 55– 64.
  25. [32]Jost JT, Krochik M. Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. Adv Motiv Sci. 2014; 1: 181– 231.
  26. [33]Mooney C. The republican brain: The science of why they deny science—and reality. Wiley; 2012.
  27. [36]Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization In: Goslin DA, editor. Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1969 pp. 347– 480.
  28. [37]Nucci L, Turiel E. Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children. Child Dev. 1978; 49: 400– 407.
  29. [38]Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 71: 390– 405. 8765488
  30. [40]Peirce CS. The fixation of belief. Pop Sci Mon. 1877; 12: 1– 15.
  31. [42]Rokeach M, McGovney WC, Denny MR. A distinction between dogmatic and rigid thinking. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1955; 51: 87– 93. 13242292
  32. [43]Cialdini RB. Influence: Science and practice. 5th edition Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
  33. [44]Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 66: 460– 473. 8169760
  34. [45]Proctor J. Religion as trust in authority: Theocracy and ecology in the United States. Ann Association Am Geogr. 2006; 96: 188– 196.
  35. [46]Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108: 814– 834. 11699120
  36. [47]Schwarz N, Clore GL. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983; 45: 513– 523.
  37. [48]Turiel E. The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
  38. [49]Wright JC, Cullum J, Schwab N. The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008; 34: 1461– 1476. 10.1177/0146167208322557 18685130 · DOI
  39. [50]Ellemers N, Pagliaro S, Barreto M, Leach CW. Is it better to be moral than smart?: The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95: 1397– 1410. 10.1037/a0012628 19025291 · DOI
  40. [51]Leach CW, Ellemers N, Barreto M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 93: 234– 249. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234 17645397 · DOI
  41. [52]Ståhl T, Ellemers N. Ironic effects of moral motivation: Why working towards a moral goal reduces subsequent perspective taking. Soc Cogn. 2016; 34: 133– 148.
  42. [54]Morgan GS. Toward a model of morally motivated behavior: Investigating mediators of the moral conviction-action link. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago. 2011.
  43. [55]Morgan GS, Skitka LJ, Wisneski D. Moral and religious convictions and intentions to vote in the 2008 Presidential election. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2010; 10: 307– 320.
  44. [56]Skitka LJ, Bauman CW. Moral conviction and political engagement. Polit Psychol. 2008; 29: 29– 54.
  45. [57]Van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R. On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. Br J Soc Psychol. 2012; 51: 52– 71. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x 22435846 · DOI
  46. [58]Zaal MP, Saab R, O’Brien K, Jeffries C, Barreto M, Van Laar C. You’re either with us or against us: Moral conviction determines how the politicized distinguish friend from foe. Group Process Intergroup Relat. In press.
  47. [59]Zaal MP, Van Laar C, Ståhl T, Ellemers N, Derks B. By any means necessary: The effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. Br J Soc Psychol. 2011; 50: 670– 689. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02069.x 21950478 · DOI
  48. [60]Conway P, Gawronski B. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013; 104: 216– 235. 10.1037/a0031021 23276267 · DOI · Paper page
  49. [61]Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6: 3– 5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106 · DOI · Paper page
  50. [63]Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto PH, Haidt J. Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological roots of an individualist ideology. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e42366. 22927928 PMC3424229
  51. [64]Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most out of your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005; 10: 173– 178.
  52. [65]Tomas AM, Oliver A. Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Two factors or methods effects? Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6: 84– 98.
  53. [66]Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria vs. new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6: 1– 55.
  54. [67]Farias M, Newheiser AK, Kahane G, de Toledo Z. Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013; 49: 1210– 1213. 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.008 24187384 PMC3807800 · DOI
  55. [68]Orenstein A. Religion and paranormal belief. J Sci Study Relig. 2002; 41: 301– 311.
  56. [69]Plante TG, Boccaccini M. The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychol. 1997; 45: 375– 387.
  57. [70]Aquino K, Reed A. The self-importance of moral identity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 83: 1423– 1440. 12500822
  58. [71]Mill JS. Utilitarianism. Crisp R, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 1861/1998.
  59. [73]Harris S. The moral landscape: How science can determine moral values. Free Press; 2010.
  60. [74]Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors., Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press, 1991 pp. 17– 59.
  61. [75]Jacoby LL. A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J Mem Lang. 1991; 30: 513– 541.
  62. [76]Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 96: 1029– 1046. 10.1037/a0015141 19379034 · DOI · Paper page
  63. [77]Carlsmith KM, Darley JM, Robinson PH. Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 83: 284– 299. 12150228
  64. [78]Pizarro DA, Tannenbaum D. Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. The Social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. APA Press; 2012.
  65. [79]Skitka LJ, Wisneski DC. Moral conviction and emotion. Emot Rev. 2011; 3: 328– 330.
  66. [80]Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 76: 574– 586. 10234846
  67. [81]Bastian B, Denson TF, Haslam N. The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS One. 2013; 8: 1– 10. PMC3633929 23626737
  68. [82]Tetlock PE, Kirstel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78: 853– 870. 10821194
  69. [83]Yzerbyt VY, Muller D, Judd CM. Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2004; 40: 424– 431.
  70. [86]Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.
  71. [87]Norenzayan A, Gervais WM. The origins of religious disbelief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2013; 17: 20– 25. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.006 23246230 · DOI · Paper page
  72. [88]Chaiken S, Giner-Sorolla R, Chen S. Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing In: Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA, editors. The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York: Guilford Press; 1996 pp. 553– 558.
  73. [90]Aramovich NP, Lytle BL, Skitka LJ. Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Soc Influ. 2012; 7: 21– 34.
  74. [91]Hornsey MJ, Majkut L, Terry DJ, McKimmie BM. On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003; 42: 319– 335. 10.1348/014466603322438189 14567840 · DOI
  75. [92]Harris JR. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. Free Press; 1998.
  76. [93]Pinker S. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. London: Penguin; 2002.
  77. [94]Turiel E. The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
  78. [95]Shweder RA, Much NC, Mahapatra M, Park L. The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering In: Brandt A, Rozin P, editors. Morality and health. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1997.
  79. [96]Gray K, Schein C, Ward AF. The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014; 143: 1600– 1615. 10.1037/a0036149 24635184 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ståhl, T., Zaal, M. P., & Skitka, L. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Ståhl, Tomas
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-11-16
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
e0166332
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0166332
PMC
PMC5112873
OpenAlex
W2550933928
Cited by
83
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (cc-by)
Funders
Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship (328485)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
individual differences, moral virtues, moral vices, belief formation, belief evaluation, irrational beliefs, moral motivation, charitable giving
MeSH terms
Adult, Culture, Emotions, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Judgment, Logic, Male, Morals, Psychological Distance, Reproducibility of Results

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