The Immorality Bias: Why “John Flurbed Mary” Seems Wrong

Seven experiments reveal the immorality bias: in morally ambiguous situations, people automatically jump to conclusions of wrongdoing. In Experiment 1, ambiguous acts (e.g., “A woman leaves work early to meet a man who is not her husband”) were rated as more immoral when people reported initial interpretations rather than most likely explanations. In Experiments 2-5, neutral nonsense actions (e.g., “John flurbed”) were judged as immoral to the extent that their context matched the dyadic moral template through the presence of a patient (“John flurbed Mary”; Experiments 2 and 3), intentionality (“John intentionally flurbed Mary”; Experiment 4), and suffering (“John intentionally flurbed Mary, who cried”; Experiment 5). The immorality bias is stronger under time pressure (Experiment 6), and process-dissociation reveals its automaticity (Experiment 7). The immorality bias suggests that intuitive moral judgment can be understood as a heuristic—one that hinges upon the dyadic moral template.Master of Art