Search

Turiel and colleagues divided norms into two kinds: Moral norms and conventional norms. Moral norms are universal, concerned with welfare, justice, fairness, equality and/or rights, and rule/authority independent. Conventional norms are local, rule/authority dependent, and concerned with maintaining social coordination, preserving tradition, and avoiding punishment. This account has been challenged, and the existence of a crisp distinction remains debatable. In this paper, I defend a version of the moral/conventional distinction on the basis that people generally judge norms concerned with welfare violations as moral, and that they distinguish between the morality of the action and that of the agent. I argue that we can make sense of the mixed data because people differ in how they perceive harm. Harm perception, rather than “objective” harm, is the relevant variable in knowing how people judge norms. To illustrate this, I explore why people perceive norms differently and how the moral/conventional distinction is reflected not only between cultures, but within them too. This should prompt us to reimagine the moral/conventional distinction to account for this diversity in perceptions. Doing away with the distinction risks misrepresenting both inter- and intra-cultural diversity in perceptions of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies showed that when reading a scenario depicting a harmless moral violation in the domain of purity, people nevertheless implicitly infer that harm was involved. In this study, we assessed whether this "implicit completion" process found in the perception of immoral actions is also present in people with autism spectrum disorder. In two experiments, we found an implicit activation of harm representations in response to all kinds of moral violations in neurotypical adults as well as in adults with autism. These results suggested that the perception of moral violations is relatively preserved in people with autism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is needed to identify the determinants of motivation to quit smoking among non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults who smoke menthol cigarettes and reside in communities covered by menthol cigarette bans. Objectives: This study examined the associations between motivation to quit smoking and a range of individual-level predictors, including measures of demographics, harm/risk perception of menthol cigarettes, and awareness of a ban on menthol cigarettes in Los Angeles County unincorporated communities. Self-identified NHB adults who currently smoke menthol cigarettes (N=50; M=47.2 years; SD=13.7; 46% female) were recruited in Los Angeles County unincorporated communities. Participants completed an interviewer-administered cross-sectional survey between January to September 2021. Results: Participants (74%) reported an annual household income of less than $25,000. Participants' mean age at cigarette initiation was 15.7 years old (SD=5.68). Most (88%) were aware of the ordinance banning menthol cigarette sales. Employing multivariable linear regression analysis, harm/risk perception of menthol cigarettes (B=14.69, p<0.01) and awareness of the local menthol ban (B=26.18, p<0.05) were found to be independently associated with motivation to quit smoking. Conclusions: Findings from this community-based sample suggest that among NHB adults who smoke menthol cigarettes, motivation to quit smoking is influenced by their perception of menthol cigarettes as harmful and awareness of local policy banning the sale of menthol cigarettes. Findings underscore the need for community-centered and culturally grounded interventions to facilitate quitting among NHB adults who smoke in order for communities covered by menthol bans to achieve health equity in reducing preventable racial inequities due to menthol cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National estimates of electronic vaping product (EVP) use exist, but little is known about young adult EVP users who interact with the healthcare setting. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of 18–25 year olds receiving care in our ambulatory medical practice. Population differences were evaluated with the chi square test reporting unadjusted odds ratios (ORs). Results: Response rate was 16.6% (n = 1,017/6,119). The prevalence of ever EVP use was 46.0% of whom 13.9% used every day. Each additional day of alcohol use (past 30 days) was associated with increased odds of being an EVP user (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.09), and cannabis use (past 30 days) was associated with a higher odds of being an EVP user compared to non-cannabis users (OR = 40.0, 95% CI 17.4 − 111.8). Observing a biological parent (OR = 2.89, 95% CI 1.98–4.24), step parent (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.02–4.19) and full sibling (OR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.78–3.00) using inhaled substances (past 30 days) was associated with increased odds of being an ever EVP user. Ever EVP users had lower odds than never users to report that EVPs with nicotine are "a little" or "a lot" more harmful than smoking "regular" tobacco cigarettes (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37 − 0.76). Conclusion: Our survey is limited by a low response rate but confirms observed associations between EVP use and substance use and social influences. Our data also suggest that professionals should regularly screen for EVP use among young people, especially those with exposure to family members who used inhaled substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug policies aimed at youth often adopt "scare tactics" approaches, which highlight harms of substances to dissuade youth from using them. However, the success of deterrent approaches remains widely debated, and some scholars have cautioned that these approaches may do more harm than good. Methods: Drawing on a sample of adolescents from the 2016 Monitoring the Future study, we investigated the influence of perceived drug harmfulness alongside several other risk factors for substance use. Logistic regression models assessed the relative influence of perceived harmfulness, access, peer use, and disapproval on youths' past year use of marijuana, crack cocaine, and powder cocaine. Results: Perceived drug harmfulness was no longer associated with the use of marijuana and crack cocaine when considering other risk factors. Perceptions of harmfulness were only related to powder cocaine use. In addition, the impact of peer use, access, and disapproving attitudes varied by substance examined. Conclusions: Regarding marijuana and crack cocaine, we find evidence against the deterrence perspective and show that focusing solely on the harms of using a substance may not be an effective policy approach in reducing the use of these substances among adolescents. Programs may also perhaps increase their efficacy by adopting substance-specific approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]