Summary: Whether we view moral goodness or moral badness as innate and biological or as learned and changeable shapes how forgiving and generous we are toward others’ misbehavior.
Source: Columbia University
Hannibal. Voldemort. Skeletor. Gargamel. Villains like these feel irredeemable. But imagine someone suggests the Joker became violent because of his environment and could, in time, change. Would that shift how you judge him?
A new study from Columbia University shows that our explanations for other people’s misdeeds — whether we frame them as rooted in biology or as learned and reversible — influence how willing we are to give those people the benefit of the doubt.
The research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, reports that adults are less likely to act generously toward people described as “bad” for biological or innate reasons. By contrast, when bad behavior is framed as learned or influenced by context — suggesting the possibility of change — adults are more likely to be charitable. Children, however, did not reliably distinguish between characters whose moral failings were described in essentialist versus non-essentialist terms.
The findings have practical implications for how society talks about wrongdoing and treats people who commit transgressions, including those who have been incarcerated.
“If people want to take something away from this study and apply it to their own lives, it is to be mindful of how they talk about others and their transgressions,” said Larisa Heiphetz, assistant professor of psychology and the study’s lead investigator. “Encounters with moral transgressions are common, and the language we use to describe those acts can strongly influence how we treat the people who commit them.”
Across age groups, the study found an interesting asymmetry: both children and adults tended to view moral goodness as more of an innate, stable trait than moral badness. In other words, goodness was more often seen as something people are born with, whereas badness was more likely to be perceived as potentially changeable.
Funded by Columbia University, the Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy, and the John Templeton Foundation, this work joins a growing body of research on psychological essentialism — the tendency to think of certain human traits as inherent, immutable, and biologically based. Earlier research has shown that people frequently attribute many characteristics to fixed, innate origins, and this study examines how such beliefs operate specifically in the moral domain.
To probe these ideas, Heiphetz and Columbia students asked children and adults about a range of morally positive and morally negative traits and then tested whether those perceptions predicted behavior. Participants were given small material resources — stickers for children, entries in a lottery for adults — and introduced to pairs of fictional characters who shared the same bad moral trait but differed in explanation. One character’s badness was described in essentialist terms (for example, “born bad”); the other’s badness was described in non-essentialist terms (for example, a behavior learned from people around them).
When asked to share possessions, children tended to divide resources equally between characters regardless of how their badness was described. Adults, however, were more generous to the character whose bad behavior was framed as learned and potentially reversible. Remarkably, even when adults were explicitly told that neither character would ever change, they still allocated more resources to the non-essentialist character — indicating that descriptive framing influences generosity beyond beliefs about future change.
These results underscore the power of language and explanatory framing. How we describe the causes of wrongdoing — emphasizing biological inevitability versus situational and social influences — can directly affect willingness to forgive, help, or withhold resources from others.
Larisa Heiphetz joined Columbia University in 2016 after earning her PhD at Harvard and completing postdoctoral work at Boston College. She has received the Early Career Research Contributions Award from the Society for Research in Child Development and the International Social Cognition Network Early Career Award, and she served as a Visiting Scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation in 2019–2020. Heiphetz teaches courses in social cognition, moral psychology, and the application of psychological research to everyday life.
Source:
Columbia University
Media Contacts:
Jessica Guenzel – Columbia University
Image Source:
The image is credited to Nicoletta Barolini/Columbia University.
Original Research: Closed access
“Moral essentialism and generosity among children and adults.” Larisa Heiphetz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000587
Abstract
Moral essentialism and generosity among children and adults
People often view traits in essentialist terms — as innate, immutable, and biological. Prior work has focused on broad domains; this study examines specific components within the moral domain (goodness versus badness) and whether such views influence behavior. Although children reported more overall essentialism than adults, both groups described goodness in more essentialist terms than badness. Across experiments, essentialist descriptions of a recipient’s badness reduced adult generosity: adults gave fewer resources to people described as innately bad and more to those whose badness was presented as learned. This effect persisted even when participants were told that the targets would never change, suggesting that framing alone affects behavior. The findings highlight the importance of considering essentialist thinking about specific moral components and suggest that framing wrongdoing as situational and changeable may promote more forgiving, prosocial responses.