Harm, Affect, and the Moral/Conventional Distinction.

248 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Moral Psychology Handbook (2010, background): “Recently, however, a growing body of evidence has emerged that challenges the research tradition on the distinction between moral and conventional norms in psychology (Gabennesch, 1990; Haidt et al., 1993; Kelly et al., 2007).”
The Perceived Objectivity of Ethical Beliefs: Psychological Findings and Implications for Public Policy (2010, background): “basis of morality (see e.g., Kelly et al. 2007 ).”
Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. (2011, unknown): “Kelly, Stich, Haley, Eng, and Fessler (2007) found that participants did condone harm as morally appropriate when they perceived it as an accepted practice in a particular social-relational context, such as the case of 17th-century sailors being beaten for insubordination.”