Scale Effects in Moral Relevance Assessment.

Area of Science:

• Moral Psychology
• Decision-Making Research
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• Moral judgment research frequently uses bipolar rating scales.
• The number of response options (odd vs. even) on these scales is often overlooked.
• Scale design may implicitly influence participant interpretation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how the number of response options on rating scales affects moral relevance judgments.
• To explore the implicit presuppositions communicated by scale design.
• To challenge the assumption that expressed judgments directly reflect stable moral commitments.

Main Methods:

• Experimental manipulation of the number of response options (odd vs. even) on moral judgment scales.
• Presentation of moral judgment problems to participants.
• Statistical analysis to assess the impact of scale design on expressed judgments.
• Testing and refutation of alternative explanations like trivial measurement distortion.

Main Results:

• The number of response options significantly and qualitatively altered moral relevance judgments.
• Scale effects were demonstrated experimentally, refuting trivial measurement distortion.
• Evidence suggests specific factors contribute to these scale-dependent effects.

Conclusions:

• Expressed moral judgments are often constructed ad hoc, not necessarily reflecting stable underlying moral commitments.
• Scale design is a critical methodological consideration in moral psychology and decision-making research.
• Findings have implications for the interpretation of existing research and the design of future studies.