Researchers have identified that perceptions of moral character are highly idiosyncratic and largely shaped by individual biases. This research was published in the Journal of Personality.
Understanding what it means to possess strong moral character has intrigued psychologists for years. Moral character, often considered a subset of personality traits that reflect a disposition to act in virtuous and ethically admirable ways, is traditionally measured through self-reports, informant reports, or observed behavior. However, each of these methods has its limitations, especially since moral traits are not only highly evaluative but can also be somewhat internalized, making it difficult to capture a complete picture of a person’s moral character.
Victoria Pringle and colleagues sought to address these limitations by decomposing moral character impressions into three distinct components: Shared Moral Character (the common ground between self- and informant reports), Moral Identity (how individuals uniquely perceive their morality), and Moral Reputation (how others uniquely perceive an individual’s morality). This approach considers the unique insights offered by both self-perception and external judgments.
In the first study, researchers recruited 266 undergraduate students from the University of Toronto Mississauga. Participants completed surveys assessing key moral traits such as fairness, honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness, and kindness. To get a fuller picture, each student also had people close to them—referred to as informants—fill out similar surveys about the student’s moral character.
The researchers then analyzed the differences and similarities between how the students viewed themselves and how others saw them. To reduce bias, they controlled for positivity (the tendency to view oneself or others favorably) and acquiescence (the tendency to agree with statements regardless of content).
The results showed that there was little overlap between how students saw their own moral character and how others saw them, with common perceptions explaining less than one-fifth of the overall impressions. The way students saw themselves had a more significant impact, accounting for about one-quarter of the overall impression.
On the other hand, how others uniquely viewed the students’ morality contributed much less. Individual biases, particularly the tendency to see things positively, played a major role in shaping these impressions. Students who were seen as having strong moral character by both themselves and their informants tended to be more honest, agreeable, and conscientious, and were generally respected by others, although this didn’t necessarily translate to making strong first impressions or feeling better about themselves.
In the second study, 192 participants from the community and McGill University were recruited. Each participant was asked to bring along someone who knew them well to a lab session, ensuring that there were reliable external perspectives on their moral character. As in the first study, participants and their informants completed surveys about the participants’ moral traits. Additionally, participants took part in a behavioral exercise called the Public Goods game, where they had to decide how much money to contribute to a communal fund, which served as a measure of their prosocial behavior.
The overlap between self-perceptions and others’ views of moral character was again found to be minimal. Self-perceptions remained the strongest influence, while others’ views contributed only marginally. Biases, especially the tendency to view things positively, were still a significant factor. Participants who were seen as more moral by both themselves and their informants were more likely to behave generously in the Public Goods game and were respected and influential in the eyes of others, though this didn’t necessarily affect how they were perceived upon first meeting or their overall well-being.
Overall, these results show that moral character is not a monolithic construct but rather a multifaceted one that varies depending on perspective.
One limitation is the reliance on self and informant reports, which might not fully capture the complexity of moral character, as these methods are still susceptible to various biases.
The research, “What is the moral person like? An examination of the shared and unique perspectives on moral character,” was authored by Victoria Pringle, Jessie Sun, and Erika N. Carlson.
