Abstrakt
The "moral circle" specifies the entities toward which a person feels moral responsibility. Different relational models imply different types of responsibility, e.g., to take care of, guide, obey, share equally, or allocate proportionally, which may alter an entity's placement. A total of 596 university students in three countries/cultures (Turkey = 395, US = 122, Czech Republic = 99) rated 35 target items on a scale of 0 (no moral responsibility at all) to 6 (feel very strong responsibility) in response to questions framed in terms of the different RMs. A 3x5 ANOVA showed a main effect of RM, F4,581 = 6.41, p
English > Czech, p < .01). There was no significant interaction between RM and culture. Scores for targets rated low in closeness were compared across RMs and cultures using 3x5 ANOVA, which showed a main effect of RM, F4,581 = 5.57, p < .001, η2 = .037, as well as a marginal effect of culture, F2, 581 = 3.03, p = .049, η2 = .01, and a significant interaction, F8, 581 = 2.42, p = .014, η2 = .032. Responsibility ratings for low closeness targets were significantly higher in EM than in other relational models (EM did not significantly differ from MP, p = .496). Conclusion: EM framing of moral responsibility leads to a wider moral circle than other frames, specifically by including more targets rated as low in closeness.