Search

Moral dumbfounding occurs when people defend a moral judgment, without reasons in support of this judgment. The phenomenon has been influential in moral psychology, however, despite its influence, it remains poorly understood. Based on the notion that cognitive load enhances biases and shortcomings in human judgment when elaboration is beneficial, we hypothesized that under cognitive load, people would be less likely to provide reasons for a judgment and more likely to be dumbfounded (or to change their judgment). In a pre-registered study (N = 1686) we tested this prediction. Our findings suggest that cognitive load reduces reason-giving, and increases dumbfounding (but does not lead to changes in judgments). Our results provide new insights into the phenomenon of moral dumbfounding while also advancing theory in moral psychology

Study 4 ​Background The uncertainty manipulation used in Study 1 seemed to be ineffective. In Studies 4 and 5, we trial two alternative uncertainty manipulations. Rather than a task requiring participants to think about feeling uncertain, we propose a task that may be challenging to participants, causing them to feel uncertain. Study 4 employs the Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, 2005). ​ Design Study 4 is a 2x2 Factorial design. IV1 is uncertainty with two levels: uncertain and control. IV2 is threat, operationalised as article type with two levels: positive and negative. Primary Dependent variable is “worldview defense” however measures of Anger and Sadness will also be taken. Need for Closure and Self-esteem will be additionally measured as potential moderator variables. With "worldview defense" as the dependent variable, we predict the following: • H1: There will be a main effect for threat (with higher "worldview defense" scores recorded in the threat condition than in the no threat condition) • H2: There will be a main effect for uncertainty (with participants in the uncertainty condition recording higher "worldview defense" scores than participants who provide reasons or select "nothing wrong") • H3: There will be an interaction between the IVs, such that the main effect for dumbfounding will be most pronounced in the Threat condition. ​ Study 4a (numerical) ​ Materials and Procedure ​ Uncertainty manipulation: cognitive reflection task Uncertainty will be manipulated using the Cognitive Reflection Task. Participants in the uncertainty condition will be presented with the original CRT items (Frederick, 2005). Participants in the control group will be presented with easier versions of the items (where the intuitive response is the correct response). The items read as follows: ​ Uncertainty group 1. The bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost 2. If it takes 5 machines, 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how much time would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets 3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? ​ Control Group 1. The bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1, how much does the ball cost 2. If it takes a machine, 1 minute to make 1 widget, how much time would it take this machine to make 10 widgets? 3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch increases in size by the same amount. If it takes 20 days for the patch to cover the half of the lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover the entire lake? After participants have completed these items they will be provided with feedback on their performance on these questions, along with the correct answers. Following this a manipulation check question will be included asking participants How uncertain do you feel right now? where 1 = Extremely uncertain and 7 = Extremely certain. ​ Worldview threat/defense Following the Salience manipulation Students read the following article purportedly published in the College Tribune (Newspaper from UCD). The positive article reads as follows: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. I had been looking for an opportunity to take some classes elsewhere and there happened to be a course at University of Limerick that was relevant for my major. So, I signed up for the course, bought the textbook, and went to University of Limerick twice a week for a period of three months. Lectures were well taught and there was ample room to ask questions. It was fun attending the seminars. We had to complete assignments in small groups and it was great working together with these University of Limerick students. Interactions with teachers and students were excellent, so I did not have to adapt to another environment or something like that. The teaching was not very different from teaching at UCD, so I passed the exam with no difficulty. If you are interested in doing so, I certainly would like to recommend to take a course somewhere outside of UCD someday! The negative article reads: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. That was a complete disaster! During lectures all students were talking out loud, so I hardly could follow the lectures. Seminars hit an all time low. I was getting the impression that everyone over there were just serving their time. The standards of these University of Limerick students are really low: No one prepares anything and no one asks interesting questions. Worst of all was the fact that I had to complete assignments with a couple of those students. It was very hard working together with those kind of people! If they showed up at all, they only made stupid remarks. Fortunately, things are much better here at UCD. The students over here are motivated and really interested in discussions. The only positive thing of my University of Limerick experience was that I passed the exam, so that I do not have to see these University of Limerick students again! ​ "Worldview defense" measure How angry do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all angry, 7 = very angry) How hostile do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all hostile, 7 = very hostile) How furious do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all furious, 7 = very furious) How infuriated do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all infuriated, 7 = very infuriated) How sad do you feel at this moment (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) How disappointed do you feel at this moment? (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the general idea of the person in the article (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the remarks of the person with respect to content (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) ​ Need for Closure Scale (Kruglanski, Atash, De Grada, Mannetti, & Pierro, 2013) ​ Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) ​ Study 4b (verbal) Study 4b will follow the same procedure as Study 4a, but our uncertainty manipulation will be a verbal task rather than a numerical task. All other materials and procedures will remain unchanged. ​ Materials and Procedure ​ Uncertainty manipulation: verbal cognitive reflection task Uncertainty will be manipulated using three items from the Verbal Cognitive Reflection Task (Sirota, Dewberry, Juanchich, Kostovičová, & Marshall, 2018). Participants in the uncertainty condition will be presented with the original V-CRT items. Participants in the control group will be presented with easier versions of the items (where the intuitive response is the correct response). The items read as follows: ​ Uncertainty group 1. If you were running a race, and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place would you be in now? correct answer: 2nd, intuitive answer: 1st 2. Luke's father has three sons. The first two are called April and May. What is the name of the third son correct answer: Luke, intuitive answer: June 3. In a one-storey pink house, there was a pink person, a pink cat, a pink fish, a pink computer, a pink chair, a pink table, a pink telephone, a pink shower – everything was pink! What colour were the stairs probably? correct answer: no stairs in a one-storey house, intuitive answer: pink ​ Control group 1. If you were running a race, and you are passed by the person in last place, what place would you be in now? correct answer: last 2. Luke's has four children. Each child is named after a season. The first three are called Spring, Summer and Autumn. What is the name of the fourth child correct answer: Winter 3. In a one-storey pink house, there was a pink person, a pink cat, a pink fish, a pink computer, a pink chair, a pink table, a pink telephone, a pink shower – everything was pink! What colour was the front door probably? correct answer: pink As in study 4a, participants will be provided with feedback on their performance on these questions, along with the correct answers to these questions. Following this a manipulation check question will be included asking participants How uncertain do you feel right now? where 1 = Extremely uncertain and 7 = Extremely certain. Participants will then complete the remaining measures (Worldview defense, Need for Closure etc.), as per Study 4a. ​ References Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (4), 25–42. Kruglanski, A. W., Atash, M. N., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (2013). Need for Closure Scale (NFC). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (SES). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Sirota, M., Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., Kostovičová, L., & Marshall, A. C. (2018). Measuring Cognitive Reflection without Maths: Development and Validation of the Verbal Cognitive Reflection Test. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfe79 ​ Study 5 ​ Background The uncertainty manipulation used in Study 1 seemed to be ineffective. In Studies 4 and 5, we trial two alternative uncertainty manipulations. Rather than a task requiring participants to think about feeling uncertain, we propose a task that may be challenging to participants, causing them to feel uncertain. Study 5 employs the Wason Selection Task (Evans, 2016). ​ Design Study 5 is a 2x2 Factorial design. IV1 is uncertainty with two levels: uncertain and control. IV2 is threat, operationalised as article type with two levels: positive and negative. Primary Dependent variable is “worldview defense” however measures of Anger and Sadness will also be taken. Need for Closure and Self-esteem will be additionally measured as potential moderator variables. With "worldview defense" as the dependent variable, we predict the following: • H1: There will be a main effect for threat (with higher "worldview defense" scores recorded in the threat condition than in the no threat condition) • H2: There will be a main effect for uncertainty (with participants in the uncertainty condition recording higher "worldview defense" scores than participants who provide reasons or select "nothing wrong") • H3: There will be an interaction between the IVs, such that the main effect for dumbfounding will be most pronounced in the Threat condition. ​ Materials and Procedure ​ Uncertainty manipulation: Wason Selection Task Uncertainty will be manipulated using the Wason Selection Task (Evans, 2016). Participants in the uncertainty condition will be presented with the abstract form of the WST. Participants in the control group will be presented with easier versions of the WST where the task is embedded in a specific context, such that the contextual information allows better performance. ​ Uncertainty group Participants will be presented with four 'virtual' cards (containing the following 'A' 'K' '3' and '7') with the following instructions: If a card has an A on one side, then it must have a 3 on the other. Which cards do you need to turn over to test if this rule has been violated? ​ Control group Participants will be presented with four 'virtual' cards (depicting 'a beer', 'a soft drink', '22 years old' and '16 years old') with the following instructions: “if a person drinks an alcoholic drink, they must be over the age of 18. Which cards do you need to turn over to test if this rule has been violated? After participants have completed these items they will be provided with feedback on their performance, along with the correct answers. Following this a manipulation check question will be included asking participants How uncertain do you feel right now? where 1 = Extremely uncertain and 7 = Extremely certain. ​ Worldview threat/defense Following the Salience manipulation Students read the following article purportedly published in the College Tribune (Newspaper from UCD). The positive article reads as follows: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. I had been looking for an opportunity to take some classes elsewhere and there happened to be a course at University of Limerick that was relevant for my major. So, I signed up for the course, bought the textbook, and went to University of Limerick twice a week for a period of three months. Lectures were well taught and there was ample room to ask questions. It was fun attending the seminars. We had to complete assignments in small groups and it was great working together with these University of Limerick students. Interactions with teachers and students were excellent, so I did not have to adapt to another environment or something like that. The teaching was not very different from teaching at UCD, so I passed the exam with no difficulty. If you are interested in doing so, I certainly would like to recommend to take a course somewhere outside of UCD someday! The negative article reads: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. That was a complete disaster! During lectures all students were talking out loud, so I hardly could follow the lectures. Seminars hit an all time low. I was getting the impression that everyone over there were just serving their time. The standards of these University of Limerick students are really low: No one prepares anything and no one asks interesting questions. Worst of all was the fact that I had to complete assignments with a couple of those students. It was very hard working together with those kind of people! If they showed up at all, they only made stupid remarks. Fortunately, things are much better here at UCD. The students over here are motivated and really interested in discussions. The only positive thing of my University of Limerick experience was that I passed the exam, so that I do not have to see these University of Limerick students again! ​ "Worldview defense" measure How angry do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all angry, 7 = very angry) How hostile do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all hostile, 7 = very hostile) How furious do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all furious, 7 = very furious) How infuriated do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all infuriated, 7 = very infuriated) How sad do you feel at this moment (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) How disappointed do you feel at this moment? (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the general idea of the person in the article (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the remarks of the person with respect to content (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) ​ References Kruglanski, A. W., Atash, M. N., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (2013). Need for Closure Scale (NFC). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (SES). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Valina, M., Seone, G., Ferraces, M., & Martin, M. (1996). Wason Selection Task, content effect, instruction effect or both. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2065.6323

Materials created for a session on using RMarkdown

Study 3 Background Study 3 will be a partial replication and extension of Study 2, however the uncertainty threat will not be directly manipulated. Instead we will include a moral dumbfounding task for all participants. Building on the assumptions that informed the predictions of Study 2, we hypothesise that participants who provide dumbfounded responses will experience a greater threat to meaning than participants who provide reasons for their judgement, manifesting in greater "worldview defense" through fluid compensation. Design: Study 3 is a 3x2 Factorial design. IV1 is level of dumbfounding with levels: dumbfounded, providing reasons, nothing wrong. IV2 is threat, operationalised as article type with two levels: positive (no threat) and negative (threat). Primary Dependent variable is “worldview defense” however measures of Anger and Sadness will also be taken. Need for Closure and Self-esteem will be additionally measured as potential moderator variables. With "worldview defense" as the dependent variable, we predict the following: H1: There will be a main effect for threat (with higher "worldview defense" scores recorded in the threat condition than in the no threat condition) H2: There will be a main effect for Dumbfounded responding (with participants who are dumbfounded recording higher "worldview defense" scores than participants who provide reasons or select "nothing wrong") H3: There will be an interaction between the IVs, such that the main effect for dumbfounding will be most pronounced in the Threat condition. Moral dumbfounding task: Participants will then be presented with the target moral scenario, either the “Julie and Mark” (Incest) vignette, or the "Jennifer" (Cannibalism) vignette (See below), taken from the original moral dumbfounding study (Haidt, Björklund, & Murphy, 2000). Participants will be asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale, how right or wrong the behaviour of Julie and Mark was (where, 1 = Morally wrong; 4 = Neutral; 7 = Morally right). They will then be provided with an open ended response option and asked to provide a reason for their judgement. They then rate their confidence in their judgement. Following this, participants will be presented with a series of counter-arguments, which refute commonly used justifications for rating the behaviour as “wrong” (see below). After each counter-argument, participants will be asked “Do you (still) think it is wrong?”, with a binary “yes/no” response option; and then they will be asked “Do you have a reason for your judgement?”, with three possible response options “Yes, I have a reason”, “No I have no reason”, and “Unsure”. Measuring Dumbfounding Dumbfounding will be measured using the critical slide. The critical slide contains a statement defending the behaviour and a question as to how the behaviour could be wrong “Julie and Mark’s behaviour did not harm anyone, how can there be anything wrong with what they did?”. There are three possible answer options: (a) “There is nothing wrong”; (b) an admission of not having reasons (“It’s wrong but I can’t think of a reason”); and finally a judgement with accompanying justification (c) “It’s wrong and I can provide a valid reason”. The order of these response options will be randomised. Participants who select (c) will be prompted on the following slide to type a reason. The selecting of option (b), the admission of not having reasons, will be taken to be a dumbfounded response. Follow-up Measures Following the critical slide, participants will rate the behaviour, and their confidence in their judgement again. They will also be asked to indicate, on a 7-point Likert scale, how much they had changed their mind. They will also asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale how difficult they found the memory task. Following this a post-discussion questionnaire, taken from Haidt et al. (2000) will be administered (see below). Materials Dumbfounding Dumbfounding vignettes Julie and Mark (Taken from Haidt et al., 2000) Julie and Mark, who are brother and sister are travelling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. Jennifer Jennifer works in a medical school pathology lab as a research assistant. The lab prepares human cadavers that are used to teach medical students about anatomy. The cadavers come from people who had donated their body for the general use of the researchers in the lab. The bodies are normally cremated, however, severed cuts may be disposed of at the discretion of lab researchers, One night Jennifer is leaving the lab when she sees a body that is going to be discarded the next day. Jennifer was a vegetarian, for moral reasons. She thought it was wrong to kill animals for food. But then, when she saw a body about to be cremated, she thought it was irrational to waste perfectly edible meat. So she cut off a piece of flesh, and took it home and cooked it. The person had died recently of a heart attack, and she cooked the meat thoroughly, so there was no risk of disease Dumbfounding: counter-arguments Julie and Mark Do you not agree that any concerns regarding reproductive complications are eased by their using of two forms of contraception? Do you accept that they are both consenting adults, and that they both consented and enjoyed it? And do you concede that nobody else was affected by their actions? Jennifer The body had been donated for research, it was to be discarded the next day. You must agree then that it had obviously fulfilled its purpose? Do you accept that the body was already dead? And do you accept that there was no risk of disease? Dumbfounding: Critical Slides Julie and Mark Julie and Mark’s actions did not harm anyone, or negatively affect anyone. How can there be anything wrong with what they did? (a) It’s wrong and I can provide a valid reason. (b) It’s wrong but I can’t think of a reason. (c) There is nothing wrong. Jennifer Jennifer's actions did not harm anyone, or negatively affect anyone. How can there be anything wrong with what she did? (a) It’s wrong and I can provide a valid reason. (b) It’s wrong but I can’t think of a reason. (c) There is nothing wrong. Worldview threat/defense Following the Salience manipulation Students read the following article purportedly published in the College Tribune (Newspaper from UCD). The positive article reads as follows: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. I had been looking for an opportunity to take some classes elsewhere and there happened to be a course at University of Limerick that was relevant for my major. So, I signed up for the course, bought the textbook, and went to University of Limerick twice a week for a period of three months. Lectures were well taught and there was ample room to ask questions. It was fun attending the seminars. We had to complete assignments in small groups and it was great working together with these University of Limerick students. Interactions with teachers and students were excellent, so I did not have to adapt to another environment or something like that. The teaching was not very different from teaching at UCD, so I passed the exam with no difficulty. If you are interested in doing so, I certainly would like to recommend to take a course somewhere outside of UCD someday! The negative article reads: Last year, I took a course at University of Limerick. That was a complete disaster! During lectures all students were talking out loud, so I hardly could follow the lectures. Seminars hit an all time low. I was getting the impression that everyone over there were just serving their time. The standards of these University of Limerick students are really low: No one prepares anything and no one asks interesting questions. Worst of all was the fact that I had to complete assignments with a couple of those students. It was very hard working together with those kind of people! If they showed up at all, they only made stupid remarks. Fortunately, things are much better here at UCD. The students over here are motivated and really interested in discussions. The only positive thing of my University of Limerick experience was that I passed the exam, so that I do not have to see these University of Limerick students again! "Worldview Defense" Measure How angry do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all angry, 7 = very angry) How hostile do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all hostile, 7 = very hostile) How furious do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all furious, 7 = very furious) How infuriated do you feel at this moment? (1 = not at all infuriated, 7 = very infuriated) How sad do you feel at this moment (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) How disappointed do you feel at this moment? (1 = very weak, 7 = very strong) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the general idea of the person in the article (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) To what extent do you disagree or agree with the remarks of the person with respect to content (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Need for Closure Scale (Kruglanski, Atash, De Grada, Mannetti, & Pierro, 2013) 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = slightly agree; 5 = moderately agree; 6 = strongly agree I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential for success. Even after I've made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion. I don't like situations that are uncertain. I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways. I like to have friends who are unpredictable. I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament. I enjoy the uncertainty of going into a new situation without knowing what might happen. When dining out, I like to go to places where I have been before so that I know what to expect. I feel uncomfortable when I don't understand the reason why an event occurred in my life. I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes. I hate to change my plans at the last minute. I would describe myself as indecisive. When I go shopping, I have difficulty deciding exactly what it is I want. When faced with a problem I usually see the one best solution very quickly When I am confused about an important issue, I feel very upset. I tend to put off making important decisions until the last possible moment. I usually make important decisions quickly and confidently. I have never been late for an appointment or work. I think it is fun to change my plans at the last moment. My personal space is usually messy and disorganized. In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong. I have never known someone I did not like. I tend to struggle with most decisions. I believe orderliness and organization are among the most important characteristics of a good student. When considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides could be right. I don't like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions. I prefer to socialize with familiar friends because I know what to expect from them. I think that I would learn best in a class that lacks clearly stated objectives and requirements. When thinking about a problem, I consider as many different opinions on the issue as possible. I don't like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it. I like to know what people are thinking all the time. I dislike it when a person's statement could mean many different things. It's annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind. I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life. I prefer interacting with people whose opinions are very different from my own. I like to have a plan for everything and a place for everything. I feel uncomfortable when someone's meaning or intention is unclear to me. I believe that one should never engage in leisure activities. When trying to solve a problem I often see so many possible options that it's confusing. I always see many possible solutions to problems I face. I'd rather know bad news than stay in a state of uncertainty. I feel that there is no such thing as an honest mistake. I do not usually consult many different options before forming my own view. I dislike unpredictable situations. I have never hurt another person's feelings. I dislike the routine aspects of my work (studies). Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Strongly disagree I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. I feel that I have a number of good qualities All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure** I am able to do things as well as most other people. I feel I do not have much to be proud of** I take a positive attitude towards myself. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself I wish I could have more respect for myself** I certainly feel useless at times. At times I think I am no good at all.

Data files accompanying studies investigating Moral Dumbfounding

This three-study project explores the role of national identification in the relationship between pandemic threat and authoritarianism. In particular, we investigate if the threat caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased authoritarian tendencies and if this link can partially explained by increased national identification. This is consistent with a social cohesion model of authoritarianism, which suggests that these tendencies reflect people's desire to identify with in-groups. This work is part of a larger project exploring the social and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CREP Project Number: #19-55 This replication was chosen by Jack Bugler and Sinead Healy as the topic of their Final Year Project which is a necessary component of their undergraduate degree. Both undergraduates are in their final year of study in the course BA of Psychology and Sociology in The University of Limerick. This replication was chosen by Jack Bugler and Sinead Healy as the topic of their Final Year Project which is a necessary component of their undergraduate degree. Both undergraduates are in their final year of study in the course BA of Psychology and Sociology in The University of Limerick.This page contains the materials and procedures for a replication+ of Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013) being conducted by as part of the final year projects of 2 University of Limerick students Jack Bugler and Sinead Healy.

A seminal study by Triplett provided initial evidence for the social facilitation effect, and over the last century research has demonstrated this effect across a range of settings. However, despite the importance of Triplett’s study no research has replicated the original study paradigm. Furthermore, in the context of research advances and methodological rigour, some elements of the original study weaken the validity of the observed findings. We address these critical limitations and replicate the original study, employing a standardized study protocol to minimise potential confounds, such as practice effects. A minimum of 400 school-aged children will be recruited. Using a purpose-built apparatus, participants will complete each trial twice — once alone and once in competition with another participant. Trial order will be standardized. The results of this study will extend research on social facilitation by replicating the original study paradigm and exploring potential age and gender effects.

Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022. In this article the author name ‘Agustin Ibanez’ was incorrectly written as ‘Augustin Ibanez’. The original article has been corrected.

Reducing the spread of infectious viruses (e.g., COVID-19) can depend on societal compliance with effective mitigations. Identifying factors that influence adherence can inform public policy. In many cases, public health messaging has become highly moralized, focusing on the need to act for the greater good. In such contexts, a person’s moral identity may influence behavior and serve to increase compliance through different mechanisms: if a person sees compliance as the right thing to do (internalization) and/or if a person perceives compliance as something others will notice as the right thing to do (symbolization). We argue that in societies that are more politically polarized, people’s political ideology may interact with their moral identity to predict compliance. We hypothesized that where polarization is high (e.g., USA), moral identity should positively predict compliance for liberals to a greater extent than for conservatives. However, this effect would not occur where polarization is low (e.g., New Zealand). Moral identity, political ideology, and support for three different COVID-19 mitigation measures were assessed in both nations (N = 1,980). Results show that while moral identity can influence compliance, the political context of the nation must also be taken into account