A time for moral actions: Moral identity, morality-as-cooperation and moral circles predict support of collective action to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in an international sample

Boggio, P. S., Nezlek, J. B., et al. (2022).

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

122(4), 937-956.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000391

Abstract

Understanding what factors are linked to public health behavior in a global pandemic is critical to mobilizing an effective public health response. Although public policy and health messages are often framed through the lens of individual benefit, many of the behavioral strategies needed to combat a pandemic require individual sacrifices to benefit the collective welfare. Therefore, we examined the relationship between individuals’ morality and their support for public health measures. In a large-scale study with samples from 68 countries worldwide (Study 1; N = 46,576), we found robust evidence that moral identity, morality-as-cooperation, and moral circles are each positively related to people’s willingness to engage in public health behaviors and policy support. Together, these moral dispositions accounted for 9.8%, 10.2%, and 6.2% of support for limiting contact, improving hygiene, and supporting policy change, respectively. These morality variables (Study 2) and Schwartz’s values dimensions (Study 3) were also associated with behavioral responses across 42 countries in the form of reduced physical mobility during the pandemic. These results suggest that morality may help mobilize citizens to support public health policy.

----------------

Here is a summary of this research.  I could not find a free pdf.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the world, and it has required individuals to make sacrifices for the collective good. The authors of this study were interested in understanding how individuals' moral identities, their beliefs about morality, and their sense of moral community might influence their willingness to support collective action to fight the pandemic.

The authors conducted a study with a sample of over 46,000 people from 68 countries. They found that people who had a strong moral identity, who believed that morality is about cooperation, and who had a broad sense of moral community were more likely to support collective action to fight the pandemic. These findings suggest that individuals' moral identities and beliefs can play an important role in motivating them to take action to benefit the collective good.

The authors conclude that their findings have important implications for public health campaigns. They suggest that public health campaigns should focus on appealing to people's moral identities and beliefs in order to motivate them to take action to fight the pandemic.

Here are some of the key findings of the study:

• People with a strong moral identity were more likely to support collective action to fight the pandemic.
• People who believed that morality is about cooperation were more likely to support collective action to fight the pandemic.
• People who had a broad sense of moral community were more likely to support collective action to fight the pandemic.

These findings suggest that individuals' moral identities and beliefs can play an important role in motivating them to take action to benefit the collective good.

The impact of economic inequality on conspiracy beliefs

Salvador Casara, B. G., Suitner, C., & Jetten, J.

(2022). Journal of Experimental Social 

Psychology, 98, 104245.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104245

Abstract

Previous literature highlights the crucial role of economic inequality in triggering a range of negative societal outcomes. However, the relationship between economic inequality and the proliferation of conspiracy beliefs remains unexplored. Here, we explore the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs as an outcome of objective country-level (Study 1a, 1b, 1c), perceived (Study 2), and manipulated economic inequality (Studies 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b). In the correlational studies, both objective and perceived economic inequality were associated with greater conspiracy beliefs. In the experiments, participants in the high (compared to the low) inequality condition were more likely to endorse conspiratorial narratives. This effect was fully mediated by anomie (Studies 3a, 3b) suggesting that inequality enhances the perception that society is breaking down (anomie), which in turn increases conspiratorial thinking, possibly in an attempt to regain some sense of order and control. Furthermore, the link between economic inequality and conspiracy beliefs was stronger when participants endorsed a conspiracy worldview (Studies 4a, 4b). Moreover, conspiracy beliefs mediated the effect of the economic inequality manipulation on willingness to engage in collective action aimed at addressing economic inequality. The results show that economic inequality and conspiracy beliefs go hand in hand: economic inequality can cause conspiratorial thinking and conspiracy beliefs can motivate collective action against economic inequality.

From the General Discussion

It is also important to consider whether economic inequality triggers the endorsement of general or more specific conspiracy beliefs. Data from Studies 3a and 3b showed that the manipulation of economic inequality affects the endorsement of a wide range of conspiracy beliefs— general conspiracy beliefs as well as conspiracies that relate to the specific fictional society. In Studies 4a and 4b, we found that inequality enhanced the belief in conspiracies perpetrated by different groups in the specific fictional society (i.e., politicians, scientists, multinational companies, and pharmaceutical industries) while it did not affect participants’ conspiracy worldview. Future research should focus on the impact of economic inequality on the endorsement of specific versus more general conspiracy theories. It may well be the case that the relation between economic inequality and conspiracy belief endorsement is stronger when participants consider specific conspiracy beliefs that blame an outgroup for heightened anomie that results from economic inequality. Such conspiracy beliefs best serve the function of mobilizing collective ingroup action that might hold the promise of providing people with a sense of collective agency (or control; see Bukowski et al., 2017).

These results have important implications. First, those who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories are sometimes viewed as driven by irrationality — a vision that is indeed supported by a vast literature about the negative consequences of conspiracy beliefs (e.g., Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Van der Linden, 2015). Other findings show that conspiracy beliefs are associated with dispositional constructs that are prodromal of mental disease, such as schizotypy and delusional thinking (Barron et al., 2018; Darwin et al., 2011). However, factors that trigger conspiracy beliefs are not always irrational and they may be driven by anomie-prompted socio-structural perceptions about societies, such as economic inequality. 

The research is here.

Disrupting the System Constructively: Testing the Effectiveness of Nonnormative Nonviolent Collective Action

Shuman, E. (2020, June 21). 

PsyArXiv

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rvgup

Abstract

Collective action research tends to focus on motivations of the disadvantaged group, rather than on which tactics are effective at driving the advantaged group to make concessions to the disadvantaged. We focused on the potential of nonnormative nonviolent action as a tactic to generate support for concessions among advantaged group members who are resistant to social change. We propose that this tactic, relative to normative nonviolent and to violent action, is particularly effective because it reflects constructive disruption: a delicate balance between disruption (which can put pressure on the advantaged group to respond), and perceived constructive intentions (which can help ensure that the response to action is a conciliatory one). We test these hypotheses across four contexts (total N = 3650). Studies 1-3 demonstrate that nonnormative nonviolent action (compared to inaction, normative nonviolent action, and violent action) is uniquely effective at increasing support for concessions to the disadvantaged among resistant advantaged group members (compared to advantaged group members more open to social change). Study 3 shows that constructive disruption mediates this effect. Study 4 shows that perceiving a real-world ongoing protest as constructively disruptive predicts support for the disadvantaged, while Study 5 examines these processes longitudinally over 2 months in the context of an ongoing social movement. Taken together, we show that nonnormative nonviolent action can be an effective tactic for generating support for concessions to the disadvantaged among those who are most resistant because it generates constructive disruption.

From the General Discussion

Practical Implications

Based on this research, which collective action tactic should disadvantaged groups choose to advance their status? While a simple reading of these findings might suggest that nonnormative nonviolent action is the “most effective” form of action, a closer reading of these findings and other research (Saguy & Szekeres, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2020; Thomas & Louis, 2014) would suggest that what type of action is most effective depends on the goal. We demonstrate that nonnormative nonviolent action is effective for generating support for concessions to the protest that would advance its policy goals from those who were more resistant. On the other hand, other prior research has found that normative nonviolent action was more effective at turning sympathizers into active supporters (Teixeira et al., 2020; Thomas & Louis, 2014)16. Thus, which action tactic will be most useful to the disadvantaged may depend on the goal: If they are facing resistance from the advantaged blocking the achievement of their goals, nonnormative nonviolent action may be more effective. However, if the disadvantaged are seeking to build a movement that includes members of the advantaged group, then normative nonviolent action will likely be more effective. The question is thus not which tactic is “most effective”, but which tactic is most effective to achieve which goal for what audience.

The research is here.

There are no good choices

Ezra Klein
vox.com
Originally published 14 Sept 20

Here is an excerpt:

In America, our ideological conflicts are often understood as the tension between individual freedoms and collective actions. The failure of our pandemic response policy exposes the falseness of that frame. In the absence of effective state action, we, as individuals, find ourselves in prisons of risk, our every movement stalked by disease. We are anything but free; our only liberty is to choose among a menu of awful options. And faced with terrible choices, we are turning on each other, polarizing against one another. YouTube conspiracies and social media shaming are becoming our salves, the way we wrest a modicum of individual control over a crisis that has overwhelmed us as a collective.

“The burden of decision-making and risk in this pandemic has been fully transitioned from the top down to the individual,” says Dr. Julia Marcus, a Harvard epidemiologist. “It started with [responsibility] being transitioned to the states, which then transitioned it to the local school districts — If we’re talking about schools for the moment — and then down to the individual. You can see it in the way that people talk about personal responsibility, and the way that we see so much shaming about individual-level behavior.”

But in shifting so much responsibility to individuals, our government has revealed the limits of individualism.

The risk calculation that rules, and ruins, lives

Think of coronavirus risk like an equation. Here’s a rough version of it: The danger of an act = (the transmission risk of the activity) x (the local prevalence of Covid-19) / (by your area’s ability to control a new outbreak).

Individuals can control only a small portion of that equation. People can choose safer activities over riskier ones — though the language of choice too often obscures the reality that many have no economic choice save to work jobs that put them, and their families, in danger. But the local prevalence of Covid-19 and the capacity of authorities to track and squelch outbreaks are collective functions.

The info is here.

Disrupting the System Constructively: Testing the Effectiveness of Nonnormative Nonviolent Collective Action

Shuman, E. (2020, June 21).
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rvgup

Abstract

Collective action research tends to focus on motivations of the disadvantaged group, rather than on which tactics are effective at driving the advantaged group to make concessions to the disadvantaged. We focused on the potential of nonnormative nonviolent action as a tactic to generate support for concessions among advantaged group members who are resistant to social change. We propose that this tactic, relative to normative nonviolent and to violent action, is particularly effective because it reflects constructive disruption: a delicate balance between disruption (which can put pressure on the advantaged group to respond), and perceived constructive intentions (which can help ensure that the response to action is a conciliatory one). We test these hypotheses across four contexts (total N = 3650). Studies 1-3 demonstrate that nonnormative nonviolent action (compared to inaction, normative nonviolent action, and violent action) is uniquely effective at increasing support for concessions to the disadvantaged among resistant advantaged group members (compared to advantaged group members more open to social change). Study 3 shows that constructive disruption mediates this effect. Study 4 shows that perceiving a real-world ongoing protest as constructively disruptive predicts support for the disadvantaged, while Study 5 examines these processes longitudinally over 2 months in the context of an ongoing social movement. Taken together, we show that nonnormative nonviolent action can be an effective tactic for generating support for concessions to the disadvantaged among those who are most resistant because it generates constructive disruption.

From the General Discussion

Based on this research, which collective action tactic should disadvantaged groups choose to advance their status? While a simple reading of these findings might suggest that nonnormative nonviolent action is the “most effective” form of action, a closer reading of these findings and other research (Saguy & Szekeres, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2020; Thomas & Louis, 2014) would suggest that what type of action is most effective depends on the goal. We demonstrate that nonnormative nonviolent action is effective for generating support for concessions to the protest that would advance its policy goals from those who were more resistant. On the other hand, other prior research has found that normative nonviolent action was more effective at turning sympathizers into active supporters (Teixeira et al., 2020; Thomas & Louis, 2014)16. Thus, which action tactic will be most useful to the disadvantaged may depend on the goal: If they are facing resistance from the advantaged blocking the achievement of their goals, nonnormative nonviolent action may be more effective. However, if the disadvantaged are seeking to build a movement that includes members of the advantaged group, the nonnormative nonviolent action will likely be more effective. The question is thus not which tactic is “most effective”, but which tactic is most effective to achieve which goal for what audience.

Is Technology Value-Neutral? New Technologies and Collective Action Problems

John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions
Originally published December 3, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Value-neutrality is a seductive position. For most of human history, technology has been the product of human agency. In order for a technology to come into existence, and have any effect on the world, it must have been conceived, created and utilised by a human being. There has been a necessary dyadic relationship between humans and technology. This has meant that whenever it comes time to evaluate the impacts of a particular technology on the world, there is always some human to share in the praise or blame. And since we are so comfortable with praising and blaming our fellow human beings, it’s very easy to suppose that they share all the praise and blame.

Note how I said that this has been true for ‘most of human history’. There is one obvious way in which technology could cease to be value-neutral: if technology itself has agency. In other words, if technology develops its own preferences and values, and acts to pursue them in the world. The great promise (and fear) about artificial intelligence is that it will result in forms of technology that do exactly that (and that can create other forms of technology that do exactly that). Once we have full-blown artificial agents, the value-neutrality thesis may no longer be so seductive.

We are almost there, but not quite. For the time being, it is still possible to view all technologies in terms of the dyadic relationship that makes value-neutrality more plausible.

The article is here.