Imagining wrong: Fictitious contexts mitigate condemnation of harm more than impurity

Area of Science:

• Moral Psychology
• Social Psychology

Background:

• Public reactions to media suggest fictional contexts influence moral judgments.
• The 'fictive pass asymmetry' hypothesis posits differential moral condemnation based on violation type and context.

Purpose of the Study:

• To test the fictive pass asymmetry hypothesis across five experiments.
• To investigate whether fictional contexts mitigate moral condemnation of harm versus purity violations.
• To explore the role of character assessment in these judgments.

Main Methods:

• Five experiments (N=1834) using undergraduate and online samples.
• Participants evaluated vignettes depicting harm or purity violations in real-life, imagined, film, or video game contexts.
• Moderated mediation and presumption of desire were analyzed.

Main Results:

• Fictional contexts significantly mitigated moral condemnation of harm violations compared to purity violations.
• Purity violations in fictional contexts were judged more negatively as they were perceived as more diagnostic of bad character.
• Perceived wrongness of fictional purity violations was mediated by perceived cue to and cause of poor moral character.

Conclusions:

• The study supports the fictive pass asymmetry hypothesis, demonstrating context-dependent moral judgment.
• Moral judgments are influenced by whether violations are seen as indicative of character.
• Findings have implications for moral theories, media psychology, and regulation.