New Paper! We find that subjects think you are less at risk of COVID infection when engaged in morally good actions, and more likely to catch COVID while doing morally bad things. In other words, risk judgments are systematically skewed. https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/d64a8">https://osf.io/preprints...

We present subjects with vignettes where the exposure is always identical, but the reasons for the exposure vary. I.e., Joe always gets caught in an elevator with neighbors, but might be headed out to buy drugs, or to help an elderly friend. 2

In two experiments we find risk is judged higher when moral valence of the action is judged lower. We got interested bc of infographics worried about fun outdoor activities like going to the beach or the pool, but not about drs/grocery stores. 3
https://www.texmed.org/TexasMedicineDetail.aspx?id=54216">https://www.texmed.org/TexasMedi...

This follows previous work finding that moral judgment impacts risk judgment. Thomas et al. find that people think children are at greater risk of harm when their parents leave them alone intentionally (yoga) vs unintentionally (hit by a car). 4 https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/2/1/10/112682/No-Child-Left-Alone-Moral-Judgments-about-Parents">https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/...

My wonderful co-authors are social psychologists and philosophers of science: Daniel P. Relihan, Ashley Thomas, Peter H. Ditto, Kyle Stanford, and James O. Weatherall. 5

The effect in our paper is small, but congruent with previous work. Possible implications for public health messaging: 1) risk messaging should track real risk, not morality, and 2) risk messaging should (maybe) focus on morally good activities like going to church or protests.