In Western society, weight moralization is reflected in the belief that weight is controllable across the weight spectrum. However, the effect of holding such beliefs is unclear. We therefore propose that these beliefs affect people differently depending on their BMI. When confronted with negative, self-related feedback, people’s coping strategies are often reflected in the ways they relate to their self. We examine three such self-to-self relations (i.e., reassured, inadequate, and hated self). Extending prior research, we predict that weight controllability beliefs (...) are related to positive self-to-self relations for adults with a low, and to negative self-to-self relations for adults with a high BMI. Accordingly, we expected that weight controllability beliefs would be associated with defensive avoidance among people with a high, but not with a low BMI. We tested our hypotheses in a sample of 348 adults who participated in an online survey. Weight controllability beliefs were associated with increased defensive avoidance in people with high BMI, and with decreased defensive avoidance in adults with a low BMI. Forms of self-to-self relating fully mediated this association, demonstrating positive effects on adults with a low, and negative effects on adults with a high BMI. Additionally, in an open ending section, we found seven social settings that deprive people from satisfying their need to belong and to be accepted due to their weight. We discuss our findings against a call for a less moralized public discourse about overweight and obesity that is particularly relevant in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. (shrink)

Moralization is a social-psychological process through which morally neutral issues take on moral significance. Often linked to health and disease, moralization may sometimes lead to good outcomes; yet moralization is often detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. It is therefore important to be able to identify when moralization is inappropriate. In this paper, we offer a systematic normative approach to the evaluation of moralization. We introduce and develop the concept of ‘mismoralization’, which is when moralization is metaethically (...) unjustified. In order to identify mismoralization, we argue that one must engage in metaethical analysis of moralization processes while paying close attention to the relevant facts. We briefly discuss one historical example and two contemporary cases related to COVID-19 that we contend to have been mismoralized in public health. We propose a remedy of de-moralization that begins by identifying mismoralization and that proceeds by neutralizing inapt moral content. De-moralization calls for epistemic and moral humility. It should lead us to pull away from our tendency to moralize—as individuals and as social groups—whenever and wherever moralization is unjustified. (shrink)

Vaccine hesitancy persists despite vaccination’s important role in global health. As many vaccines provide social benefits through herd immunity, vaccination decisions can raise moral concerns. Two studies explored the role of moral convictions in vaccination decisions. Study 1 (N = 485) revealed higher vaccination intentions when individuals thought about vaccination in moral terms. Emotions and moral piggybacking positively predicted moral convictions. In Study 2 (N = 1,111), we evaluated the effects of emotional, moral, and scientific pro-vaccination arguments on moral convictions, (...) support for mandatory vaccination, and tolerance of dissenting views. While no group differences were observed, moral convictions were correlated with increased support for mandatory vaccination but also with a reduced tolerance of dissenting opinions. Overall, moral convictions play a small but significant role in vaccination-related decisions. While moral convictions have beneficial effects on compliance, it is crucial not to overlook the adverse consequences, which may lead to a growing societal divide. (shrink)