We often form beliefs about others based on narratives they tell about their own moral actions. When constructing such moral narratives, narrators balance multiple goals, such as conveying accurate information about what happened (\'informational goals\') and swaying audiences\' impressions about their moral characters (\'reputational goals\'). Here, we ask to what extent audiences\' detection of narrators\' reputational goals guide or prevent them from making moral character judgments intended by narrators. Across two pre-registered experiments, audiences read narratives written by real narrators about their own moral actions. Each narrator was incentivized to write about the same action twice while trying to appear like a morally good or bad person (positive and negative reputational goals). Audiences detected narrators\' reputational goals with high accuracy and made judgments about moral character that aligned with narrators\' goals. However, audiences were more suspicious toward positive than negative reputational goals, requiring more evidence of high informational goals. These results demonstrate how audiences\' inferences of reputational goals can both support and hinder narrators: accurate goal recognition increases the chance that audiences will make judgments intended by narrators, but inferred positive reputational goals can lead to doubts about accuracy. More generally, this provides a novel approach to studying how moral information about people is transmitted through naturalistic narratives.

This research addresses the important issue of the connection between corruption and gender-based violence, an area that has gained increasing attention in recent years. It provides a new perspective by comparing the perception of victims of monetary corruption versus sexual corruption. Through an experimental study, we exposed participants to a fictitious scenario in which they witnessed an event of sex-based (vs. money-based) extortion. The results showed that the victims\' decision to cave into the extortion (both money or sex-based) led to higher feelings of moral outrage and blame toward them, and a weaker moral perception. Moreover, victims were considered less moral and more prone to reputational damage when described as caving into sex-based (vs. money-based) extortion. Finally, a moderated mediation model showed that the reputational damage suffered by the woman also significantly mediated the relation between the decision to cave into the extortion and the helping intentions toward her, but only when the corruption involved sexual payment. These findings provide insights into the perception of victims of both money-based and sex-based extortion, highlighting the significant role of reputational damage and stigma in the context of sextortion.

UNASSIGNED: This study investigates the psychological mechanisms in virtual reality (VR) games, focusing on the interplay between character morality, self-attribution, presence, guilt, and their collective impact on player enjoyment. Based on Affective Disposition Theory, it hypothesizes that players\' moral judgments of characters significantly affect their engagement and enjoyment of VR narratives.
UNASSIGNED: A post-test between-subjects experiment was conducted with 97 participants to examine the influence of character morality on guilt through the mediation of self-attribution, and how these factors affect players\' sense of presence and overall enjoyment in VR games.
UNASSIGNED: The findings indicate that self-attribution significantly mediates the relationship between character morality and guilt. Additionally, the sense of presence enhances enjoyment, with a stronger sense of \'being there\' amplifying the emotional impact of players\' moral decisions.
UNASSIGNED: This study highlights the full mediating effect of self-attribution in the context of VR gaming, intensifying players\' emotional responses to moral dilemmas. The results suggest that VR game designers should consider the moral implications of game narratives and character actions to create more emotionally engaging and ethically reflective gaming experiences. These insights have significant implications for VR game design and ethics, promoting greater ethical sensitivity among players.

Four experiments investigated the perceived virtue of curiosity about religion. Adults from the United States made moral judgments regarding targets who exhibited curiosity, possessed relevant knowledge, or lacked both curiosity and knowledge about religion and comparison topics (e.g., science). Participants attributed greater moral goodness to targets who displayed curiosity compared with targets who were ignorant or knowledgeable about the domain. This preference was consistent across Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and other Christian participants but was absent when atheists evaluated religious curiosity. Perceptions of effort partially mediated judgments: Participants viewed curious characters as exerting more effort and consequently rated them as more moral. To test causality, we manipulated perceptions of effort and showed that participants viewed curious characters who exerted effort as particularly moral. This work fosters novel insights into the perceived virtue of curiosity and further illuminates similarities and differences between religious and scientific cognition.

Endorsement of the moral foundations specified by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) can sometimes fail to relate negatively to certain dispositions indicative of bad moral character. This evidence has fueled some concerns over whether the moral foundations in MFT are \"moral.\" To increase understanding of how moral foundations relate to moral character, we proposed the \"asymmetry hypothesis.\" This hypothesis states that \"good\" character is a more powerful predictor of each moral foundation than \"bad\" character. Put differently, there is an asymmetry in the strength (not merely direction) with which the moral foundations relate to encompassing indicators of good versus bad character. This is important because it suggests that links between the moral foundations and moral character will be somewhat concealed by focusing on bad character and/or not considering encompassing indicators of good character. A sample of college participants (N = 514) rated their endorsement of moral foundations and completed two sets of measures that represented encompassing indicators of both good and bad character. The data supported the asymmetry hypothesis: Each encompassing good-character assessment was a stronger predictor of each moral foundation than its corresponding encompassing bad-character assessment. Furthermore, variance unique to any good-character assessment had about moderate relations with each moral foundation, but variance unique to any bad-character assessment had no more than small relations with each moral foundation. The study provides a more nuanced understanding of how moral character relates to moral foundations and highlights utility in considering moral character as multidimensional.

Conspiracy theories often feature moral concerns and thrive when societal institutions are perceived as untrustworthy. However, limited research exists exploring whether moral concerns are associated with conspiracy thinking and if this link is strengthened when institutional trust is low. Two studies employing correlational (N = 423) and experimental (N = 381) designs found that liberty moral concerns, and to a lesser extent binding concerns, are associated with increased conspiratorial thinking, particularly when institutional trust is low. Moral concerns about liberty may contribute to increased conspiratorial thinking and low institutional trust may play a key role in exacerbating this link.

This paper examines how humans judge the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate human attributes, specifically focusing on two key dimensions of human social evaluation: morality and competence. Furthermore, it investigates the impact of exposure to advanced Large Language Models on these perceptions. In three studies (combined N = 200), we tested the hypothesis that people will find it less plausible that AI is capable of judging the morality conveyed by a behavior compared to judging its competence. Participants estimated the plausibility of AI origin for a set of written impressions of positive and negative behaviors related to morality and competence. Studies 1 and 3 supported our hypothesis that people would be more inclined to attribute AI origin to competence-related impressions compared to morality-related ones. In Study 2, we found this effect only for impressions of positive behaviors. Additional exploratory analyses clarified that the differentiation between the AI origin of competence and morality judgments persisted throughout the first half year after the public launch of popular AI chatbot (i.e., ChatGPT) and could not be explained by participants\' general attitudes toward AI, or the actual source of the impressions (i.e., AI or human). These findings suggest an enduring belief that AI is less adept at assessing the morality compared to the competence of human behavior, even as AI capabilities continued to advance.

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This \"basic morality bias\" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

How obeying orders impacts moral decision-making remains an open question, despite its significant societal implications. The goal of this study was to determine if cognitive conflict, indexed by mid-frontal theta activity observed before an action, is influenced by the context of obedience. Participants came in pairs and were assigned roles as either agent or victim. Those in the agent role could either decide freely or follow the experimenter\'s instructions to administer (or refrain from administering) a mildly painful electric shock to the victim in exchange for a small monetary reward. Mid-frontal theta activity was recorded before the agent made their keypress. Results indicated that mid-frontal theta activity was reduced when participants obeyed the experimenter\'s orders compared to when they acted of their own volition, even though the outcomes of the actions were similar. This finding suggests that obeying orders diminishes cognitive conflict preceding moral decisions that could harm another person. This study sheds light on a potential mechanism explaining how obedience can blurr morality and lessen our natural aversion to harming others.

This article explores the experiences of Mexican American mothers who, confronted with the troubled emotions and behaviors of their adolescent children, felt compelled to seek help from mental health clinicians. Their experience is situated in the context of both psychiatrization, or the tendency to treat social problems as mental illness, and the landscape of contemporary mothering in the U.S., where maternal determinism, mother-blame, and the demand for intensive parenting hold sway. In this context, the moral crisis of mental health care-seeking for their children forces mothers to reconcile multiple competing stakes as they navigate the overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, moral-cultural worlds constituted by family and community, as well as mental health care providers. At the same time, it allows them an opportunity to creatively \"reenvision\" their ways of being mothers and persons. Their stories and struggles shed new light on contemporary conversations about psychiatrization, everyday morality, and mothering.