Deciding between moral priorities and COVID-19 avoiding behaviors: A moral foundations vignette study

Grading by AI makes me feel fairer? How different evaluators affect college students' perception of fairness

Introduction

In the field of education, new technologies have enhanced the objectivity and scientificity of educational evaluation. However, concerns have been raised about the fairness of evaluators, such as artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. This study aimed to assess college students' perceptions of fairness in educational evaluation scenarios through three studies using experimental vignettes.

Methods

Three studies were conducted involving 172 participants in Study 1, 149 in Study 2, and 145 in Study 3. Different evaluation contexts were used in each study to assess the influence of evaluators on students' perception of fairness. Information transparency and explanations for evaluation outcomes were also examined as potential moderators.

Results

Study 1 found that different evaluators could significantly influence the perception of fairness under three evaluation contexts. Students perceived AI algorithms as fairer evaluators than teachers. Study 2 revealed that information transparency was a mediator, indicating that students perceived higher fairness with AI algorithms due to increased transparency compared with teachers. Study 3 revealed that the explanation of evaluation outcomes moderated the effect of evaluator on students' perception of fairness. Specifically, when provided with explanations for evaluation results, the effect of evaluator on students' perception of fairness was lessened.

Discussion

This study emphasizes the importance of information transparency and comprehensive explanations in the evaluation process, which is more crucial than solely focusing on the type of evaluators. It also draws attention to potential risks like algorithmic hegemony and advocates for ethical considerations, including privacy regulations, in integrating new technologies into educational evaluation systems. Overall, this study provides valuable theoretical insights and practical guidance for conducting fairer educational evaluations in the era of new technologies.

Incivility in COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Discourse and Moral Foundations: Natural Language Processing Approach

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy poses a substantial threat to efforts to mitigate the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. To combat vaccine hesitancy, officials in the United States issued vaccine mandates, which were met with strong antivaccine discourse on social media platforms such as Reddit. The politicized and polarized nature of COVID-19 on social media has fueled uncivil discourse related to vaccine mandates, which is known to decrease confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the moral foundations underlying uncivil COVID-19 vaccine discourse. Moral foundations theory poses that individuals make decisions to express approval or disapproval (ie, uncivil discourse) based on innate moral values. We examine whether moral foundations are associated with dimensions of incivility. Further, we explore whether there are any differences in the presence of incivility between the r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism subreddits.

METHODS

Natural language processing methodologies were leveraged to analyze the moral foundations underlying uncivil discourse in 2 prominent antivaccine subreddits, r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism. All posts and comments from both of the subreddits were collected since their inception in March 2022. This was followed by filtering the data set for key terms associated with the COVID-19 vaccine (eg, "vaccinate" and "Pfizer") and mandates (eg, "forced" and "mandating"). These key terms were selected based on a review of existing literature and because of their salience in both of the subreddits. A 10% sample of the filtered key terms was used for the final analysis.

RESULTS

Findings suggested that moral foundations play a role in the psychological processes underlying uncivil vaccine mandate discourse. Specifically, we found substantial associations between all moral foundations (ie, care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation) and dimensions of incivility (ie, toxicity, insults, profanity, threat, and identity attack) except for the authority foundation. We also found statistically significant differences between r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism for the presence of the dimensions of incivility. Specifically, the mean of identity attack, insult, toxicity, profanity, and threat in the r/lockdownskepticism subreddit was significantly lower than that in the r/coronaviruscirclejerk subreddit (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that moral foundations may play a substantial role in the presence of incivility in vaccine discourse. On the basis of the findings of the study, public health practitioners should tailor messaging by addressing the moral values underlying the concerns people may have about vaccines, which could manifest as uncivil discourse. Another way to tailor public health messaging could be to direct it to parts of social media platforms with increased uncivil discourse. By integrating moral foundations, public health messaging may increase compliance and promote civil discourse surrounding COVID-19.

The Moral Foundations of Vaccine Passports

The debate around vaccine passports has been polarising and controversial. Although the measure allows businesses to resume in-person operations and enables transitioning out of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some have expressed concerns about liberty violations and discrimination. Understanding the splintered viewpoints can aid businesses in communicating such measures to employees and consumers. We conceptualise the business implementation of vaccine passports as a moral decision rooted in individual values that influence reasoning and emotional reaction. We surveyed support for vaccine passports on a nationally representative sample in the United Kingdom in 2021: April (n = 349), May (n = 328), and July (n = 311). Drawing on the Moral Foundations Theory-binding (loyalty, authority, and sanctity), individualising (fairness and harm), and liberty values-we find that individualising values are a positive predictor and liberty values a negative predictor of support for passports, suggesting adoption hinges on addressing liberty concerns. Longitudinal analysis examining the trajectory of change in support over time finds that individualising foundations positively predict changes in utilitarian and deontological reasoning over time. In contrast, a fall in anger over time predicts increased support towards vaccine passports. Our study can inform business and policy communication strategies of existing vaccine passports, general vaccine mandates, and similar measures in future pandemics.

Moral Foundations Predict Perceptions of Moral Permissibility of COVID-19 Public Health Guideline Violations in United States University Students

In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic has become highly politicized and highly moralized. The current study explored whether participants’ (N = 118) endorsements of binding (promoting group cohesion) versus individualizing (promoting care for individuals) moral foundations explained partisan differences in views and behaviors regarding COVID-19. Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire before they indicated how morally permissible they thought it was to violate COVID-19 mandates, report others’ violations, or not get vaccinated. Additionally, they indicated their own prevention behaviors. Results show that endorsement of both individualizing and binding foundations explain partisan differences in moral permissibility ratings. Political conservatism predicted greater endorsement of binding foundations which in turn predicted seeing COVID-19 violations and not getting vaccinated as more morally permissible, and predicted fewer self-reported prevention behaviors. Endorsement of individualizing foundations predicted seeing violations as less morally permissible and reporting others’ violations as more morally permissible.