Does Caring Breed Contempt? Examining the Hypothesis That Activation of a “Parental” Mindset Causes Harsher Moral Judgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research (most of which is correlational) has suggested that activation of the parental care motivational system may lead people to make harsher moral judgments of social norm violators. We tested this hypothesis in 8 studies (total N = 1790). Seven of the studies were true experiments in which participants made moral judgments after being randomly assigned to either conditions designed to temporarily activate the parental care system or to a control condition. In one of these experiments, participants viewed photographs of either cute animals or furniture and in 6 additional experiments, participants engaged in an autobiographical writing task in which they recalled and wrote about a time they either cared for a child or—in the control conditions that varied across these experiments—had a different experience. In the final non-experimental study, women were recruited in public places and made moral judgments, the harshness of these judgments was compared between those accompanied by a young child versus not accompanied by a young child. The effects (and non-effects) of these procedures on moral judgments were inconsistent across the 8 studies and an internal meta-analysis of the 7 true experiments provided no compelling evidence that the experimental manipulations influenced moral judgments. We hope that these results offer some guidance to future researchers on what methods might—and might not—be effective in activating the parental care system and can support future work on the influence of parental care on moral cognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".