Moral typecasting theory divides targets into agents, patients, and neutral roles for experimental comparison

Evidence

Participants were then presented with pairs of targets and indicated how they would divide up the pills between them. There were seven targets: two good agents (Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa), two neutral targets (high school teacher, radiology technician), two patients (orphan, date rape victim), and one bad agent (serial killer Ted Bundy). Each target was paired with every other target, yielding a total of 21 pairs. — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting, 141

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Interesting stimulus choice - noting the good agents are both (controversially) religious/spiritual figures, and the patients are those perceived as passive victims. The date rape victim as ‘patient’ pairs conceptually with the reader’s interest in victim vs. agent framing of religious groups.
  • XREF: The paired-comparison forced-choice method and agent/patient typology connect to the reader’s interest in whether ‘religious’ vs ‘ideological’ labels change how a group is typed - as patient (victimized) vs agent (perpetrator). — connects to: Study 1 manipulated agent category through contrasting crime and charity vignettes — Mansur Khamitov, Jeff D. Rotman, and Jared Piazza, Perceiving the Agency of Harmful…, 220; Perceiving someone as a moral agent may preclude perceiving them as a moral patient — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 21; Moral typecasting predicts neutral agents are victimized, contradicting just-world logic — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 105 (+9 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 141

Broader Connections