A recent study published in the Journal of Personality revealed a surprising level of agreement on the traits that define morally exceptional individuals, such as empathy, guilt-proneness, and moral identity.
Researchers William Fleeson and colleagues set out to explore the characteristics that distinguish morally exceptional individuals from those considered morally average or immoral. There are ongoing debates about what constitutes moral exceptionality, especially in a society where moral actions are often judged inconsistently. Previous research has highlighted various traits, such as empathy, integrity, and a sense of universal moral values, as common among morally exceptional individuals. However, there remains considerable controversy regarding the specific attributes that define these individuals.
Study 1 involved 259 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), all of whom were U.S. residents aged 18 or older. Participants first completed questionnaires on demographics, political attitudes, moral judgment, and religiosity. They were then asked to nominate three individuals they knew who fit into the categories of immoral, morally average, and morally exceptional.
Next, participants evaluated these individuals using a series of assessments designed to measure various moral and personality traits, such as moral attentiveness, guilt-proneness, self-importance of moral identity, self-control, and moral behaviors. These measures were randomized to prevent any order effects.
Study 1 found a strong consensus among participants on characteristics that distinguish morally exceptional individuals from those who are morally average or immoral, with traits like guilt-proneness, reflective moral attentiveness, moral identity internalization, and self-control being more pronounced in those perceived as morally exceptional.
However, there were notable disagreements in how participants rated traits such as religiosity and perceptual moral attentiveness. These differences were influenced by individual beliefs, such as political orientation and levels of moral relativism. For example, conservative participants tended to rate morally exceptional individuals as more religious and higher in self-control, whereas liberal participants emphasized traits like empathy and fairness. Participants with higher moral relativism showed less agreement on traits associated with moral exceptionality, suggesting a more individualized interpretation of morality.
Study 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1 by refining the methodology and exploring additional characteristics. The study again involved 259 MTurk participants, who followed a similar nomination process but completed all assessments for one target before moving to the next to reduce potential biases from direct comparisons. The measures included those from Study 1, such as assessments of moral identity, attentiveness, and political and moral attitudes.
New measures, like empathy and moral foundations, were introduced to capture a broader range of moral characteristics, while utilitarianism and guilt-proneness were omitted to focus on traits more directly related to moral perception. This change aimed to deepen the understanding of how different moral traits are prioritized in moral judgment.
The findings of Study 2 largely confirmed those from Study 1, with empathy, moral identity, and moral attentiveness being consistently rated higher in individuals perceived as morally exceptional. Empathy emerged as a particularly strong marker of moral exceptionality. There was also a strong consensus on moral concerns related to harm and fairness, highlighting their importance in moral judgment.
However, there was lower agreement on traits related to authority, loyalty, purity, and religiosity, with significant variability in ratings across different moral categories. These differences were again influenced by political orientation; conservatives were more likely to associate moral exceptionality with authority, loyalty, and purity, while liberals prioritized empathy, harm, and fairness.
Additionally, individual differences in religiosity and social dominance orientation (SDO) affected perceptions, with more religious participants emphasizing religious traits and those with higher SDO placing less emphasis on empathy and more on authority and loyalty.
Study 3 further explored moral exceptionality by addressing potential biases in participant selection and expanding the range of moral categories. Participants were asked to select acquaintances from their daily lives for an unrelated purpose before later categorizing them based on moral qualities. This approach aimed to reduce potential bias by ensuring participants did not initially think of moral qualities when selecting individuals, thereby minimizing preconceived notions about moral exceptionality.
Study 3 also introduced a fourth category, “morally above average,” to refine the spectrum of moral judgment and capture more subtle differences in perceptions. The measures included similar assessments of moral identity, attentiveness, and personality traits, with a greater emphasis on understanding the processes that enable moral actions and actual enactment of moral behaviors.
The results of Study 3 reaffirmed the strong consensus on core traits such as empathy, moral attentiveness, and moral identity associated with moral exceptionality. The introduction of the “morally above average” category revealed nuanced differences, showing that this group shared some, but not all, traits with the morally exceptional, suggesting a gradient in moral perception. There were disagreements around moral principles like authority and purity, with conservatives more likely to view these traits as characteristic of moral exceptionality. Beyond political orientation, beliefs such as right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and SDO also influenced judgments.
For example, participants high in RWA emphasized authority and loyalty, viewing these as critical to moral exceptionality, while those high in SDO placed less emphasis on empathy and moral identity, reflecting a preference for social hierarchy over egalitarian principles. Personal religiosity also continued to influence perceptions, with more religious participants associating moral exceptionality with traditional and religious values.
Overall, the studies highlight that while there is general agreement on core traits of moral exceptionality, individual beliefs—such as political orientation, religiosity, moral relativism, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation—significantly shape how people perceive and prioritize different moral qualities.
One limitation is the study’s reliance on self-reported data, which may introduce biases, particularly in how participants select and rate their nominees.
The research “Consensus, Controversy, and Chaos in the Attribution of Characteristics to the Morally Exceptional”, was authored by William Fleeson, R. Michael Furr, Eranda Jayawickreme, Dillon Luke, Mike Prentice, Caleb J. Reynolds, and Ashley Hawkins Parham.
