Moral conformity in online interactions: rational justifications increase influence of peer opinions on moral judgments |
| |
| Authors: | Meagan Kelly Lawrence Ngo Vladimir Chituc Scott Huettel |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;2. Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;3. Medical Scientist Training Program, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA;4. Department of Neurobiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA;5. Brain Imaging Analysis Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;6. Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;7. Center for Cognitive Neurosciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;8. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Over the last decade, social media has increasingly been used as a platform for political and moral discourse. We investigate whether conformity, specifically concerning moral attitudes, occurs in these virtual environments apart from face-to-face interactions. Participants took an online survey and saw either statistical information about the frequency of certain responses, as one might see on social media (Study 1), or arguments that defend the responses in either a rational or emotional way (Study 2). Our results show that social information shaped moral judgments, even in an impersonal digital setting. Furthermore, rational arguments were more effective at eliciting conformity than emotional arguments. We discuss the implications of these results for theories of moral judgment that prioritize emotional responses. |
| |
| Keywords: | Conformity morality reasoning emotion social media |
|
|
