UC Irvine

While risk is a factual probability that can be calculated rationally, intuitive and affective motivations can bias risk information processing. Furthermore, research on moral coherence illustrates that factual beliefs of the world often falls in line with one’s moral intuitions. Research has yet to explore whether and how perceptions of risk morally cohere. I investigated how moral judgments influence perceptions of risk, such that people conflate what is morally wrong with what is risky. Study 1 examined morality and risk judgments of political threats and found that greater moral condemnation of each threat was associated with higher perceived likelihood of related physical harm. Based on prior research indicating that intention behind an action is an important component of how the action is judged morally (e.g., manslaughter versus murder), Study 2 manipulated moral judgments by varying the intentions of actions and found that participants judged intentional actions as more immoral and riskier than the same actions unintentionally committed. Study 3 further investigated the role of intention by manipulating actions to have good, ambiguous, or bad intentions, and found that, overall, bad intentioned actions were seen as more immoral and riskier than the same actions with good or ambiguous intentions, whereas good and ambiguous intentioned actions tended not to differ in moral and risk judgments. Results provide initial evidence that moral judgments influence risk perception, such that perceptions of threat cohere along moral lines. These findings have implications for understanding risk assessment in political, legal, law enforcement, medical, and military contexts.