Most people endorse norms that stipulate that each individual has the right to be unharmed and treated as an equal (universal-rights values). But there is considerable variance in the extent to which people also include in their conceptions of “right” and “wrong” whether someone has disobeyed authority, been unchaste, or failed to stand by their partner or team. Prohibiting these sorts of behaviors reflects the moral values of respect, obedience, purity and loyalty — norms aimed at preserving relationships and groups, referred to as “binding values”.
Binding values can be at odds with universal-rights values, since they place conditions on care and mandate treating people unequally. The capacity of binding values to undermine universal-rights values likely contributes to our findings across several studies showing that binding values are linked to a range of attitudes and actions most people would not consider “morally praiseworthy,” including Machiavellianism:
Binding values are also linked to blame and stigmatization of victims – as described in our New York Times piece “Who Blames the Victim?” which covers the following studies:
My dissertation research was advised by Dr. Liane Young and conducted at the Morality Lab at Boston College and the Harvard Center for Brain Science. In this work, we investigated the cognitive mechanisms and consequences associated with these diverse views on morality. In the final part of my dissertation, I examined the moral domain of fairness using a behavioral and fMRI approach, and found similar diversity there:
To further pinpoint the cognitive and neural processes behind links between moral values and attitudes and actions, I examined the roles of representations of causation and theory-of-mind.
This involves a psycholinguistics approach, including investigation of the moral dimension of implicit verb causality:
Niemi, L., Hartshorne, J., Gerstenberg, T., Young, L. (submitted). Moral values pervade causal attribution: Evidence from the implicit verb causality task and explicit judgments.
Other research focuses on how individual differences in beliefs about right and wrong relate to reasoning about crimes and people’s mental health. A description of some of this work is included in the following commentaries, papers, or chapters:
Niemi, L. (2018). The morally relevant consequences of disgust in the context of sexual assault. In N. Strohminger & V. Kumar (Eds.) The Moral Psychology of Disgust.
Work in progress:
Niemi, L., Stanley, M., Hartshorne, J., Gerstenberg, T. & Young, L. (R&R). Moral values pervade causal attribution: Evidence from the implicit verb causality task and explicit judgments.
Niemi, L., Woodbridge, M., Young, L., Cordes, S. (R&R). Partisan mathematical processing of political polling statistics: It’s the expectations that count.
Henne, P., Niemi, L., Pinillos, A, De Brigard, F., Knobe, J. (submitted). A counterfactual explanation of the omission effect.
Stanley, M., Henne, P., Niemi, L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., De Brigard, F. (submitted). Making morality suit yourself: How recalling personal violations of moral principles prompts their rejection.
MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION
Niemi, L. & Young, L. (in revision). A conceptual semantics analysis of contamination and injury reveals new boundaries between impurity and harm.
Niemi, L. & Cordes, S. (in revision). The arts and economic vitality: Leisure time interest in art predicts entrepreneurship and innovation at work.
Nizzi, M-Ch. & Niemi, L. (in preparation). Impaired sense of self predicts suicidal thoughts and behaviors in survivors of sexual assault.
Niemi, L. & Young, L. (in preparation). Being and judging an agent or a patient of sexual assault.