Social media is far more than a tool for communication, it is a digital social environment at scale. Unlike any other space before it, social media platforms expose us to the judgements of others. From expressions of admiration to condemnation, we are immersed in the opinions of others with unprecedented frequency. In this article, we explore how such online environments hold the potential to distort our perception of societal consensus on core moral issues and influence our understanding of what is considered right and wrong in society.
How do we make moral judgments? Are people cold, calculating Vulcans? Or are they affectively hot hedonists? Researchers often present morality as a war between vying ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ processes, but in this two-part blog post I argue that the distinction is a false choice. Morality is both hot and cold, but not in the way previous research leads people to believe.
Free will is big news these days. It is turning up in the New York Times, NPR, Slate, car commercials, and in two excellent 2009 pieces in this very blog (found here and here).In the first part of this three part series, my colleague Ellie Shockley described how rational thinking may drive political attitudes and voting behavior. In the second part of the series, Matt Moytl described how emotion may drive political attitudes and voting behavior. In the final part of this series, I discuss how emotions and reasons are not necessarily in conflict.