Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Using trait and moral theories to understand belief in pure evil and belief in
pure good
Russell J. Webster a, *, Nicolette Morrone a, Matt Motyl b, Ravi Iyer b
a
b
The Pennsylvania State University, Abington College, United States of America
CivilPolitics.org, United States of America
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Belief in pure good
Belief in pure evil
Morality
Moral foundations
Traits
Big 5
HEXACO
People differ greatly in their beliefs in pure good (BPG) and beliefs in pure evil (BPE), but little is known about
how people develop such beliefs. In two studies using nationwide convenience samples (Ns = 384 and 345), we
used trait (Big 5; HEXACO) and moral (moral foundations theory; Kohlberg’s theory of moral development)
theories to uncover potential underpinnings of BPG and BPE. After controlling for demographics and ideology,
traits (Agreeableness) and moral foundations (Care/Harm) reliably predicted BPG in both studies. The Big 5 and
HEXACO more inconsistently predicted BPE, although lower Openness related to BPE across both studies.
Greater endorsement of the Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation moral foundations uniquely pre
dicted greater BPE across both studies. Further, BPE correlated with (but did not uniquely predict) lower
postconventional moral thinking; BPG did not relate to postconventional moral thinking. These results should
help researchers formulate more specified developmental pathways for BPE and BPG.
For centuries, scholars and lay people alike have grappled with
fundamental questions about human nature, including whether pure
evil or pure good exist. Only recently have researchers systematically
examined people’s perceptions about the existence of good and evil.
Research has now shown that belief in pure evil (BPE; the tendency to
attribute harm doing to dispositionally sadistic individuals) and belief in
pure good (BPG; essentially, belief in pure altruism) are unidimensional
constructs that uniquely predict prosocial and antisocial orientations
toward other people (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2014; Saucier et al., 2018;
Vasturia, Webster, & Saucier, 2018; Webster & Saucier, 2013, 2015,
2017; Webster, Vasturia, & Saucier, in press).
BPG is essentially belief in pure altruism: the belief that there are
people out there, although few in number, who selflessly, impartially,
and non-violently try to help others (Webster & Saucier, 2013). In
thinking about individuals who personify BPG, Mother Theresa may
come to mind. People who score higher in BPG exhibit a more prosocial
orientation toward others, from decisions about criminal punishment to
domestic/foreign policy (e.g., more greatly opposing the death penalty,
while more greatly supporting criminal rehabilitation and social welfare
programs; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Also, expectedly, people who score
higher in BPG report much greater levels of empathy. Webster and
Saucier (2017) also showed that people who scored higher in BPG only
praised a hero (who helped physically apprehend an alleged criminal)
who acted in an altruistic, rather than egotistic, manner. Thus, people
who report greater BPG are seem very attuned to how people render
help.
BPE is a simplified explanation for why people hurt others: bad
things happen because there are inherently bad people in the world.
More specifically, BPE is the tendency to attribute harmdoing to dis
positionally sadistic and narcissistic individuals (Webster & Saucier,
2013). Thus, BPE could be considered a more specific instance of the
correspondence bias/fundamental attribution error (see Malle, 2006).
People who score higher in BPE exhibit more of an antisocial/aggressive
orientation toward others, from decisions about criminal punishment to
domestic/foreign policy (e.g., more greatly supporting the death pen
alty, while more greatly opposing criminal rehabilitation and social
welfare programs; see Saucier et al., 2018; Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster
& Saucier, 2013, 2015, 2017; Webster et al., in press). Expectedly,
people who score higher in BPE seem motivated by a strong belief in a
dangerous world (Webster & Saucier, 2013). Indeed, even when there is
a viable, alternative explanation (e.g., brain tumor) for criminals’ vio
lent actions, people higher in BPE still more harshly perceive and punish
them (Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster et al., in press). Although collo
quially, people may perceive good and evil as “two sides of the same
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rjw5548@psu.edu (R.J. Webster).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110584
Received 16 July 2019; Received in revised form 15 November 2020; Accepted 23 November 2020
Available online 4 February 2021
0191-8869/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
(2009) model, lower levels of Agreeableness precede views of the world
as a competitive jungle and social dominance orientation.
It is also possible that higher levels of Openness would predict BPG.
People who report greater BPG also tend to think more deeply about the
causes for other people’s behavior (i.e., score higher in attributional
complexity; Webster & Saucier, 2013), which may reflect both higher
levels of A (e.g., empathy/perspective taking) as well as Openness (e.g.,
intellectualism, curiosity, imagination).1
In Study 1, participants completed a Big 5 measure of personality; for
comparison, in Study 2, we employed the more recently developed
HEXACO (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeable
ness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) model (see, e.g.,
Ashton & Lee, 2001, 2007). The HEXACO model has been widely used
since its inception (see http://hexaco.org/references). The HEXACO
model’s major change was adding a sixth fundamental trait: HonestyHumility. Honesty-Humility comprises four subtraits: sincerity, fair
ness, greed avoidance, and modesty. Thus, Honesty-Humility composes
both unique subtraits (e.g., greed) and subtraits that were part of pre
vious Big 5 variables, especially Agreeableness (modesty); indeed,
Honesty-Humility and the Big 5 measure of Agreeableness do moder
ately correlate (Ashton & Lee, 2005). The HEXACO’s model modified
Agreeableness factor comprises forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and
patience. We would predict that HEXACO’s Honesty-Humility and
Agreeableness factors would both moderately correlate with BPG;
nevertheless, S2 will importantly assess whether both factors uniquely
predict BPG.
The HEXACO model also reconceptualizes Neuroticism into
Emotionality. Emotionality emphasizes physical and psychological
insecurity more with subtraits like fearfulness, dependence, and senti
mentality. Meanwhile, traditional Neuroticism in the Big 5 model seems
more focused on emotional stability and experience of a broader range
of negative emotions. Thus, we will see how Neuroticism in Study 1 and
Emotionality in Study 2 uniquely predict, in particular, BPE.
coin”, past research shows that BPE and BPG do not consistently intercorrelate.
We argue that BPE and BPG are important constructs, as they address
fundamental questions/perceptions about (the inherent evilness and
goodness of) humanity and have meaningful applications and implica
tions for a wide array of interpersonal/intergroup phenomena, as
explained above. Thus, it is important to explore how people come to
develop such beliefs. By knowing BPE’s/BPG’s possible antecedents/
causes, we can over time potentially change such beliefs. For example, if
a society values prosociality, they could attempt to engender BPG levels
in early childhood. These two cross-sectional studies offer some pre
liminary insight into this question by applying trait (Big 5; HEXACO)
and moral psychological theories (moral foundations theory; Kohlberg’s
theory of moral development) to examine potential underpinnings of
BPE and BPG.
1. The foundations of BPE and BPG: a trait approach
Personality traits are internal, enduring characteristics that underpin
much of people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across time and en
vironments (Funder, 1991). Thus, traits are generally treated as exoge
nous variables (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Lewis & Bates, 2011), so it
was most reasonable to treat them as predictor variables in these two
studies. The Big 5/Five Factor Model is the most established and wellknown theoretical trait paradigm (McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae and
Costa Jr., 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five argues that there
are five fundamental higher-order factors/traits—Openness, Conscien
tiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism—that comprise
a series of lower-order subtraits.
In
our
pre-registration
document
(https://osf.io/tf9za/?
view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25), we hypothesized
that conscientiousness—which is composed of subtraits like organized,
self-disciplined, and cautious—would best predict BPE given BPE’s
apparent emphasis on rule following and dutifulness. BPE consistently
relates to support for greater criminal punishment, even when there is a
clear biological explanation for a perpetrator’s violent behavior. Thus,
people who report greater BPE come down harshly on those who break
rules or who are not following their duty as responsible citizens of the
world. Further, BPE is strongly related to a greater belief in a dangerous
world (Webster & Saucier, 2013); per Duckitt and Sibley’s (2009) dual
process model, higher C along with lower O (what they term “social
conformity” personality) precede/predict belief in a dangerous world.
BPE may also then relate to lower levels of Openness given Duckitt
and Sibley’s (2009) model. Openness includes such traits as intellectual,
independent, creative, and curious. Indeed, people higher in BPE do not
tend to think as deeply about the causes for other people’s behaviors
(score lower on attributional complexity; Webster & Saucier, 2013),
thereby suggesting a lack of intellectualism and curiosity.
We also considered that greater Neuroticism would predict higher
BPE. Neuroticism, in essence, is emotional instability, which includes
subtraits like anxious, insecure, and angry (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
People who more strongly believe in pure evil seem extremely anxious
about the state of the world given that they more strongly believe in a
dangerous world and score higher on pessimism (Webster & Saucier,
2013).
Meanwhile, in our preregistration document (https://osf.io/tf9za/?
view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25), we hypothesized
that Agreeableness—which is composed of subtraits like empathic,
altruistic, trusting, and modest—would by far most strongly predict
BPG. BPG is the belief that there need to be more people in the world
who selflessly, impartially, and non-violently help others; the essence of
BPG aligns with all agreeable subtraits. People scoring higher in BPG
also report greater empathy as well as stronger opposition to a
“Darwinian” approach to intergroup relations (i.e., do not see the world
as a very competitive place and score lower on social dominance
orientation; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Indeed, in Duckitt and Sibley’s
2. The foundations of BPE and BPG: moral theories
How people evaluate whether actions are moral—in essence, right vs.
wrong—also likely underpin people’s beliefs about the existence of good
and evil. Haidt and colleagues (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Haidt & Joseph,
2004; see also Graham et al., 2018, for a more recent review) surveyed
the psychological and anthropological literature to look for crossculturally common, but not necessarily universal, dimensions on
which people assess whether actions are moral. From this survey, they
created Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which asserts that we can
evaluate cultures’ and individuals’ moral philosophies along five
different dimensions or foundations:
1. Care/harm: “This foundation is related to our long evolution as
mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike)
the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and
nurturance” (www.moralfoundations.org). That is, this dimension
considers how actions promote or do not promote the safety/welfare
of others.
2. Fairness/cheating: “This foundation is related to the evolutionary
process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights,
and autonomy” (www.moralfoundations.org). That is, this dimen
sion considered how actions promote (or do not promote) equality
and justice for all.
3. Ingroup Loyalty/betrayal: “This foundation is related to our long
history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies
virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active
anytime people feel that it’s ‘one for all, and all for one’” (www.mora
lfoundations.org). That is, this dimension considers how actions
1
2
We thank a Reviewer for this theorizing.
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
promote (or do not promote) patriotism and self-sacrifice for the
ingroup.
4. Authority/subversion: “This foundation was shaped by our long
primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies vir
tues of leadership and followership, including deference to legiti
mate authority and respect for traditions” (www.moralfoundations.
org). That is, this dimension considers how much actions promote
(or do not promote) legitimate authority and tradition.
5. Sanctity/degradation: “This foundation was shaped by the psychol
ogy of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of
striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It un
derlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be
desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not
unique to religious traditions)” (www.moralfoundations.org). That
is, this dimension considers how much actions desecrate the body
and soul (i.e., how actions may violate the “body as a temple”
principle).
People who score higher in BPE seem to have lower cognitive
complexity and likely emphasize obedience to authority and internali
zation of rules; thus, at least as Kohlberg conceptualized, such in
dividuals would exhibit moral thinking in line with stages 3 and 4,
which emphasize authority, rules, and the law. People who score higher
in BPG seem to have higher cognitive complexity and emphasize a more
empathic approach to interpersonal and intergroup relations. Such in
dividuals would likely be reasoning at stages 5 and 6. As Kohlberg
(1976) explained, people are driven “to make and abide by laws for the
welfare of all and for the protection of all people’s rights” (at stage 5).
Thus, we reasoned that DIT scores will likely negatively relate to BPE
and positively relate to BPG.
3. The five-factor theory of personality
McCrae and Costa Jr.’s (1999) five-factor theory (FFT) of personality
provides a framework to contextualize the current studies (see Fig. 1).
The key exogenous variables in the model are called “basic tendencies”,
that is, the central factors/traits to human personality. Of course,
McCrae and Costa’s FFT defines these basic tendencies as the Big 5
factors; however, they note that “trait researchers may discover another
factor…of personality of comparable scope…. At that point it will be
time to modify FFT” (McCrae and Costa Jr., 1999, p. 147). Hence, this
model can easily accommodate the HEXACO factors. The biological
bases component of the model underscores that the Big 5 (Bouchard &
McGrue, 2002) and HEXACO (Lewis & Bates, 2014) factors evince a
strong genetic/heritable contribution.
These basic tendencies then influence characteristic adaptations,
which are essentially perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and values about
how and why the world works (or should work); these characteristic
adaptations result in objective biography, that is, observable choices or
behaviors. Moral reasoning/attitudes are examples of such character
istic adaptations. Indeed, multiple studies have examined the effects of
the Big 5 on endorsement of the moral foundations (e.g., Alper & Yilmaz,
2019; Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, & Peterson, 2010; Lewis & Bates, 2011).
All these studies showed that higher Agreeableness relates to greater
endorsement of the individualizing foundations, even in non-Western,
industrialized countries (Alper & Yilmaz, 2019). However, the re
lationships between the other Big 5 factors and the moral foundations
are inconsistent across samples (something we discuss further in the
General Discussion). Regardless, the current studies add to the bur
geoning literature combining the predictive power of personality traits
and moral attitudes (e.g., Athota, Budhwar, & Malik, 2019; Lewis &
Bates, 2011; Međedović & Petrović, 2016), in this case, in predicting
BPE and BPG.
In the FFT of personality, BPE and BPG would also serve as more
attitudinally specific characteristic adaptations. We would not construct
them as part of objective biography; but, choices about whether to
nullify the death penalty or decisions about criminal punishment would
be part of such biography (see Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster & Saucier,
2013; Webster & Saucier, 2015; Webster et al., in press). Finally,
external influences—which are environmental influences like cultural
norms and life events—are perhaps the purest “social psychology”
component of the model. External influences are assumed to influence
characteristic adaptations but can have bidirectional or reciprocal re
lationships with objective behavior. We do not measure objective
behavior in the current studies, but we do discuss theoretical implica
tions of our studies in the General Discussion.
In sum, the aim of these two studies was to uncover potential un
derpinnings of BPE and BPG. Study 1 (S1) examined the unique effects of
the Big 5 traits and moral foundations on BPE and BPG. In Study 2 (S2),
we examined the effect of the HEXACO traits, moral foundations, and
post-conventional moral thinking on BPE and BPG.
The Care and Fairness dimensions comprise the “individualizing”
foundations, as they reflect securing, protecting, and strengthening the
individual in society. The Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity dimensions
comprise the “binding” foundations, as they reflect securing, protecting,
and strengthening society—especially through restraining or restricting
individuals’ behavior (Graham et al., 2013, 2018).
The moral foundations, as its very name implies, assess about how
people fundamentally decide what is right vs. wrong, and the founda
tions should serve as the underpinning (i.e., foundation) of more specific
beliefs (thinking in terms of attitudinal specificity), including the exis
tence/nature of good and evil in human beings. We expected that the
binding moral foundations (Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity) would
most strongly predict BPE. People higher in BPE more strongly believe
that the world is a very dangerous place and would more strongly
endorse the ingroup and authority foundations as protection from
“evildoers”; cohesive and loyal ingroups, combined with a strong sets of
rules/laws, can best protect people from “evil” (cf. Van Leeuwen & Park,
2009). Additionally, evil is something that is dispositionally impure.
From a spiritual or religious standpoint, evildoers’ souls are “unsav
able”: they enjoy hurting others and will always be inclined to hurt
others without reasonable provocation.
Meanwhile, the individualizing moral foundations (Care and Fair
ness) should most strongly relate to BPG. First, per BPG’s definition (that
humans should selflessly, impartially, and peacefully help others as
much as we can), people scoring higher in BPG appear very concerned
about the safety/welfare of the individual. Second, BPG is essentially
belief in pure altruism, and the Fairness dimension emphasizes the
importance of justice and reciprocal altruism. Indeed, people scoring
higher in BPG report higher levels of empathy and more strongly oppose
attitudes that support the social hierarchy (e.g., social dominance
orientation; Webster & Saucier, 2013). Thus, the Fairness foundation
would also likely help underpin BPG.
We employed MFT in both Study 1 and Study 2; but, we did not only
want to use the MFT as the only theory from moral psychology. That is,
we reasoned it would be beneficial to employ another operationalization
of moral reasoning/judgment. Kohlberg’s (1976, 1984) model of moral
reasoning of course dominated psychology for decades (until, perhaps,
MFT). Kohlberg asserted that individuals progress through six devel
opmental stages, from more rudimentary (preconventional, which em
phasizes obedience and avoidance of punishment) to more mature
(postconventional, which emphasizes abstract reasoning and individual,
utilitarian principles of justice) moral reasoning. Based on Kohlberg’s
theorizing, researchers created a moral reasoning/judgment question
naire, the Defining Issues Test (DIT), which purportedly assesses pro
gression through the developmental stages (Rest, Cooper, Coder,
Masanz, & Anderson, 1974; Rest, Thoma, Narvaez, & Bebeau, 1997).
3
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
Fig. 1. The Five-Factor Model of Personality (adapted from McCrae & Costa Jr., 1999). The shaded area reflects the part of the model examined in the cur
rent studies.
4. Study 1
• Care (e.g., “Compassion for those who are suffering is the most
crucial virtue”; alpha = 0.75).
• Fairness (e.g., “Justice is the most important requirement for a so
ciety”; alpha = 0.68).
• Ingroup Loyalty (e.g., “I am proud of my country’s history”; alpha =
0.71).
• Authority (e.g., “Respect for authority is something all children need
to learn”; alpha = 0.77).
• Sanctity (e.g., “Chastity is an important and valuable virtue”; alpha
= 0.84).
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
A nationwide convenience sample of 384 participants (157 women,
227 men; Mage = 46.47; age range 19–70; 88.3% Caucasian; 35% had
obtained a graduate degree) voluntarily completed the materials online
(via www.YourMorals.org) for no compensation. A group of professors
and graduate students from multiple institutions created YourMorals.
org to collect data about morality, ethics, and values. Participants can
be directed to yourmorals.org from a variety of internet sources (Face
book, political websites, journal articles, the moral foundations theory
website).
The N represents the listwise N of everyone who completed the
measures of interest. Sample size could not predetermined, as we did not
have control over recruitment (i.e., who completed the measures and
when). However, the smallest effect size that we can detect with 80%
power is r = 0.15 (https://www.anzmtg.org/stats/PowerCalculato
r/PowerCorrelation), which is a small effect size according to Cohen.
Thus, if there are any meaningful (small or above) effects, we should be
able to detect them with our sample size. We uploaded a Word document
with the general hypotheses and projected analysis on OSF (https://osf.
io/tf9za/?view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25).
The
data files and analysis script are available on the project’s OSF site, too.
Participants responded to the moral foundation items on a 0 (Not At
All Relevant) to 5 (Extremely Relevant) Likert-type scale.
While the MFQ is a more recently-developed scale, several crosscultural studies have validated the factor structure of the scale
(Davies, Sibley, & Liu, 2014; Du, 2019; Matsuo, Sasahara, Taguchi, &
Karasawa, 2019; Milsson & Erlandsson, 2015; Yilmaz, Harma, Bahçe
kapili, & Cesur, 2016). Additionally, the alpha for the Fairness scale is
slightly below the guideline for acceptable internal consistency (0.70),
which mirrors past research (Tamul et al., 2020); however, Graham
et al. (2011) argue that “Although the alphas are not as high as many
other scales, they indicate a reasonable internal consistency given that
our goal was to gauge an expansive range of moral concerns with a small
number of items” (p. 371). Further, the alphas for all MFQ scales were >
0.70 in S2.
4.1.2. Materials
Participants voluntarily completed the measures below in a nonspecified order, as respondents can choose to take as many or as few
of the measures on YourMorals.org. We scored measures as the average
response per item with higher values expressing higher levels of the
construct of interest.
4.1.2.2. BPE and BPG. Participants completed Webster and Saucier’s
(2013) 28-item belief in pure good scale (e.g., “Selfless people help anyone
in need, even their rivals”; alpha = 0.91) and 22-item belief in pure evil
scale (e.g., “Evil people are so narcissistic and full of themselves”; alpha =
0.95). Participants responded to BPG and BPE items on a 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale.
4.1.2.1. Moral foundations. Participants completed Graham et al.’s
(2011) 30-item moral foundations questionnaire (MFQ), with 6 items
assessing each of the five foundations:
4.1.2.3. Big Five. Participants completed John and Srivastava’s (1999)
44-item Big Five Personality Inventory:
4
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
• Extraversion (e.g., “Is talkative”; 8 items, alpha = 0.87).
• Agreeableness (e.g., “Is helpful and unselfish with others”; 9 items,
alpha = 0.82).
• Conscientiousness (e.g., “Does a thorough job”; 9 items, alpha =
0.85).
• Neuroticism (e.g., “Is depressed, blue”; 8 items, alpha = 0.81).
• Openness (e.g., “Is original, comes up with new ideas”; 10 items,
alpha = 0.87)
of the Big 5 and MFQ scores modestly increased (by 5% and 4%); but, the
overall pattern of significance nominally changed (Sanctity significantly
predicted BPG without covariates).
Overall, the results mostly supported our predictions. Expectedly,
Conscientiousness uniquely related to greater BPE, while Openness was
only a marginal predictor. Unexpectedly, Neuroticism did not correlate
with BPE. Nevertheless, confirming our predictions, the binding moral
foundations—particularly Authority and Sanctity— uniquely related to
greater BPE. As for BPG, Agreeableness was the best predictor, as hy
pothesized. Consistent with our predictions, the individualizing foun
dations—specifically, Care/Harm—uniquely related to BPG.
In conceptually replicating S1, S2 examined the unique effects of the
HEXACO traits, the moral foundations, and postconventional moral
thinking on BPE and BPG.
Participants responded to Big Five items on a 1 (Disagree Strongly) to
5 (Agree Strongly) Likert-type scale.
4.1.2.4. Political orientation. Participants responded to a single item on
a 1 (Very Liberal) to 7 (Very Conservative) scale.
4.1.2.5. Religiosity. Participants responded to a single item describing
their religious attendance on a 0 (Never) to 5 (More Than Once a Week)
Likert-type scale.
5. Study 2
4.1.2.6. Education. Participants responded to a single item on a 1 (Some
High School) to 9 (Completed Graduate or Professional Degree) Likerttype scale.
5.1.1. Participants
A nationwide convenience sample of 345 American participants (180
women, 164 men, 1 Other Gender; Mage = 36.81; age range 21–85; 76%
Caucasian; 25.6% had obtained a professional or graduate degree)
completed the materials online as part of a larger battery of question
naires.3 We recruited participants through Mechanical Turk, Amazon’s
recruitment tool or “crowdsourcing marketplace”. MTurk workers tend
to be “slightly more demographically diverse than are standard Internet
samples and are significantly more diverse than typical American col
lege samples” (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011, p. 3). Participants
earned $1.50.
We did remove 99 participants who had >5% missing data (Dong &
Peng, 2013; Schafer, 1999). Next, we removed 42 participants for
impossibly fast completion rates (> 2 s per item; Curran, 2016). Then,
we removed 10 participants who reported that English was not their first
language. Finally, as explained below, we sent our dataset to the Uni
versity of Alabama’s Center for the Study of Ethical Development to
calculate participants’ post-conventional moral thinking score. The
Center has a multistep process of recommending participant deletion
(rate-and-rank consistency, meaningless items, missing data, nondifferentiation of rates or ranks; https://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu
/about-the-dit.html); their analysts recommended removing 36 more
participants.
Sample size was not specifically predetermined. However, the
smallest effect size that we can detect with 80% power is r = 0.15 (htt
ps://www.anzmtg.org/stats/PowerCalculator/PowerCorrelation),
which is a small effect size according to Cohen. Thus, if there are any
meaningful (small or above) effects, we should be able to detect them
with our sample size. We did not amend our original OSF document (htt
ps://osf.io/tf9za/?view_only=455273e9a3b64245bb7d1cd8d99edf25)
when we conducted S2, as we reasoned that the studies were similar
enough in scope. The data files and analysis script are available on the
project’s OSF site, too.
5.1. Method
4.2. Results and discussion
4.2.1. Belief in pure evil
Correlations between all variables of interest are in Table 1.
Regarding the Big 5, higher Conscientiousness and lower Openness
scores related to greater BPE; next, regarding the moral foundations,
lower Fairness and higher Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity scores related
to greater BPE.
We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of
the Big 5 trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPE.2 We entered any
significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (as well as BPG scores), Big
Five personality trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scale scores in
Step 3. We entered MFQ scale scores in Step 3, as the Big 5 traits likely
antedate MFQ scores (cf. Lewis & Bates, 2011). See Table 2 for results.
This analysis showed that Conscientiousness uniquely predicted BPE,
while Openness was a marginal predictor. Next, only scores the Au
thority and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPE.
Running the model without covariates increased the predictive
contribution of the Big 5 and MFQ scores (by 6% and 14%, respectively);
but, the overall pattern of significance nominally changed (Openness
went from being a marginal to a significant predictor).
4.2.2. Belief in pure good
On a bivariate level, higher Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Openness related greater BPG; meanwhile, higher scores on the Care,
Fairness, and Sanctity moral foundations related to greater BPG.
We then ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique ef
fects of the Big 5 trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPG. We entered
any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (as well as BPE scores),
Big Five personality trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scale scores
in Step 3. See Table 2 for results of the two regression models. This
analysis showed that Agreeableness only uniquely predicted BPG;
meanwhile, only scores on the Care moral foundation uniquely pre
dicted BPG.
In running the model without covariates, the predictive contribution
5.1.2. Materials
Participants completed all measures in the order presented below.
We scored measures as the average response per item with higher values
expressing higher levels of the construct of interest.
5.1.2.1. HEXACO. Participants completed Ashton and Lee’s (2009) 60-
2
In our pre-registration document, we originally planned to conduct struc
tural equation models, but we felt that hierarchical regression models would
more simply and directly test our hypotheses about how the personality traits
and moral foundations predict BPE/BPG (in lieu of fully opening the narrative
to how personality factors and moral foundations relate to each other; cf. Lewis
& Bates, 2011).
3
There is some overlap between the measures used here in Study 2 and
another study examining how BPE and BPG predict ethical consumer decisionmaking (Webster et al., 2020). The current study does not address consumer
ethics in any way and is answering novel, empirical questions about how per
sonality traits and moral foundations predict BPE and BPG.
5
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
Table 1
Intercorrelations between variables of interest (Study 1).
Variables
1. BPE
2. BPG
Demographics
3. Age
4. Religious Attendance
5. Gender
6. Political Conservatism
7. Education
Big 5 Traits
8. Extraversion
9. Neuroticism
10. Agreeableness
11. Conscientiousness
12. Openness
Moral Foundations
13. Harm
14. Fairness
15. Ingroup Loyalty
16. Authority
17. Sanctity
M
3.26
4.90
SD
1.22
.88
1
.20
2
46.47
1.22
0.59
2.79
6.45
15.87
1.70
0.49
1.77
2.23
.25
.16
-.07
.39
.04
2.92
2.81
3.60
3.40
4.03
0.87
0.84
0.63
0.73
0.62
3.48
3.59
2.29
2.26
1.67
0.90
0.77
0.89
0.97
1.15
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.19
.29
-.08
-.07
.10
.03
.06
.08
.26
-.01
.31
.08
.09
.01
.04
-
.00
-.03
.03
.25
-.11
-.06
-.02
.41
.12
.12
.04
-.18
.18
.28
.10
.05
.01
.12
.00
.01
-.11
-.09
-.03
-.06
-.04
-.03
-.05
-.13
.13
-.20
.00
-.12
.08
.11
.15
-.23
.17
.18
.29
-.33
-.35
-.01
.18
.19
.01
-
-.08
-.11
.36
.48
.47
.43
.19
.08
.08
.22
.10
.05
.12
.28
.18
.02
-.12
.28
.28
.53
-.27
-.12
.04
.08
-.01
-.44
-.56
.46
.60
.58
.02
-.03
.11
.07
.08
.00
.01
.14
.00
.04
.13
.09
-.12
-.09
-.07
.30
.20
.16
.06
.09
.01
.01
.21
.27
.24
.23
.27
-.13
-.24
-.10
13
14
15
16
.56
-.12
-.20
-.07
-.16
-.29
-.24
.67
.54
.67
-
Note. BPE = belief in pure evil. BPG = belief in pure good.
Correlations significant at p ≤ .05 are bolded. Correlations with BPE and BPG are highlighted for readability.
Participant sex coded as 0 = “female” and 1 = “male”.
Given N = 384, 95% CI for r = ±0.10.
Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Predicting Belief in Pure Evil and Belief in Pure Good (Study 1)
Predictors
Outcome: BPE
β (beta)
β (beta)
β (beta)
Outcome: BPG
β (beta)
2
Step 1: Demographics
BPG / BPE
Age
Religious Attendance
Gender
Conservatism
Education
.21
.18
-.03
.40
-
Step 2: Big Five
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
.14
-.08
Step 3: Moral Foundations
Harm
Fairness
Ingroup Loyalty
Authority
Sanctity
Total R2
Outcome: BPE
p-value
.07
.03
.17
.23
ΔR = .24
ΔR2 = .02
ΔR2 = .07
.33
p-value
Outcome: BPG
β (beta)
p-value
2
< .001
< .001
.52
< .001
-
.12
.14
.27
.04
.003
.08
.25
-.12
.18
.64
.02
.001
.04
.02
.27
.26
ΔR2 = .08
ΔR2 = .21
.30
< .001
.02
.41
.04
.06
.46
.74
< .001
< .001
.37
-.04
.01
ΔR = .13
ΔR2 = .13
ΔR2 = .11
.37
.01
.007
< .001
.41
< .001
.47
.21
.40
.05
.05
< .001
.48
.92
.39
-.04
.21
ΔR2 = .18
ΔR2 = .15
.33
< .001
.34
.32
< .001
.43
< .001
Note: All steps were significant at p ≤ .05. Significant betas are bolded for readability.
The second and fourth columns present results with no covariates in the model.
BPE = belief in pure evil; BPG = belief in pure good.
item HEXACO Personality Inventory (10 items for each trait).
• Agreeableness (e.g., “I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who
have badly wronged me”; alpha = 0.78).
• Conscientiousness (e.g., “I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid
scrambling at the last minute”; alpha = 0.82).
• Openness (e.g., “I’m interested in learning about the history and
politics of other countries”; alpha = 0.78).
• Honesty-Humility (e.g., “I wouldn’t use flattery to get a raise or
promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed”; alpha =
0.82).
• Emotionality (e.g., “I would feel afraid if I had to travel in bad
weather conditions”; alpha = 0.77).
• Extraversion (e.g., “I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall”;
alpha = 0.86).
Participants responded to items on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale.
6
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of
the HEXACO trait scores and MFQ scale scores on BPG. We entered any
significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (including BPE scores),
HEXACO trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ scores in Step 3. This
analysis showed that Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientious
ness uniquely predicted BPG (comparison of the 95% CIs showed that no
trait better predicted BPG).
Honesty-Humility and Openness approached significance. Next, both
the Care and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPG.
Running the model without covariates modestly altered the pattern
of results. Without covariates, both Honesty-Humility and Extraversion
scores predicted BPG, which appeared to increase the R2 by 6%. The
pattern of significance for MFQ scores did not change, although without
covariates, the predictive contribution of the MFQ scores modestly
increased (3%).
Overall, the results mostly supported our predictions. Unexpectedly,
Honesty-Humility uniquely related to lower BPE, while—consistent
with predictions—Emotionality and Openness were also unique pre
dictors. The binding moral foundations—specifically, Authority and
Sanctity—uniquely related to greater BPE, as predicted. As for BPG,
Agreeableness was a unique predictor, as predicted; more unexpectedly,
Emotionality and Conscientiousness were also unique predictors.
Consistent with our predictions, the individualizing foundations—spe
cifically, Care/Harm—uniquely related to BPG; yet, the Sanctity/
Degradation moral foundation also uniquely predicted BPG.
5.1.2.2. Moral foundations. As in S1, participants completed Graham
et al.’s (2011) 30-item moral foundations questionnaire (MFQ).
•
•
•
•
•
Care (alpha = 0.73)
Fairness (alpha = 0.79)
Ingroup Loyalty (alpha = 0.79)
Authority (alpha = 0.83)
Sanctity (alpha = 0.91)
5.1.2.3. BPE and BPG. As in S1, participants completed Webster and
Saucier’s (2013) BPG (alpha = 0.93) and BPE (alpha = 0.98) scales.
5.1.2.4. Defining Issues Test-Version 2 (DIT-2). To measure people’s
level of postconventional moral reasoning, researchers adapted Kohl
berg’s theory to create the Defining Issues Test (DIT) in the 1970s (Rest
et al., 1974), which has been subsequently revised (Rest, Thoma, Nar
vaez, & Bebeau, 1997). About 400 articles have been published using the
DIT (Thoma, 2006), and around 500 researchers use the DIT every year
(as cited in Bailey, 2011). Participants read a set of five ethical dilemmas
(e.g., “a father contemplates stealing food for his starving family from
the warehouse of a rich man hoarding food”; see http://ethicaldeve
lopment.ua.edu/about-the-dit.html) and respond to standardized items
asking what the actor in the scenario should do and why. The University
of Alabama’s Center for the Study of Ethical Development analyzes the
data. We report participants’ “N2 score”, which represents the extent to
which participants prefer postconventional (vs. preconventional) moral
thinking (see http://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/information-provide
d-by-the-dit.html).
6. General discussion
Overall, the results generally supported our hypotheses for both how
personality traits (Big 5 in S1 and HEXACO in S2) and moral reasoning/
judgment predicted BPE and BPG above and beyond common de
mographic variables (gender, age, education, religiousness, political
conservatism). As predicted for BPG, higher levels of Agreeableness
uniquely related to BPG across both studies. Somewhat unexpectedly,
higher levels of Emotionality in S2 uniquely related to BPG, too. Perhaps
people higher in BPG may be predisposed to sentimentality and “worry”,
especially about the physical/psychological safety others and the state
of the world. However, this emotionality does not seem to translate into
seeing the world as an inherently dangerous or believing that some in
dividuals are unsavable. Part of the BPG construct is the belief that
people—and the world—can change for the better; indeed, while BPG is
not associated with belief in a dangerous world, BPG is associated with
greater optimism and support for criminal rehabilitative efforts
(Webster & Saucier, 2013).
As for the moral foundations, both studies confirmed that the indi
vidualizing foundation of Care/Harm uniquely predicted BPG. Higher
levels of Fairness did correlate with greater BPG but did not contribute
any unique variance in predicting BPG. Thus, sensibly, people scoring
higher in BPG seem to focus most on the physical/psychological safety of
others vs. concerns about fairness and reciprocity. Indeed, reciprocal
altruism implies a tit-for-tat approach to human relations, when in fact
people who report greater BPG believe that we should be helping others
regardless of whether others reciprocate in the future.
Interestingly, people who report greater BPG blanketly recommend
less stringent criminal punishment with regards to specific crimes, even
violent crimes (Webster & Saucier, 2013). However, after reading an
allegedly real news article about a specific incident (e.g., a woman being
stabbed or a mass shooter at a mall), BPG does not consistently correlate
with perceptions or punishment of the perpetrator (Vasturia et al., 2018;
Webster & Saucier, 2015). Perhaps when thinking more broadly about
punishing specific crimes (vs. specific criminals), people who report
greater BPG may apply their moral code of care (i.e., those virtues of
kindness and nurturance) in recommending less punishment and greater
rehabilitation; but, when faced with an allegedly real event, the rela
tionship between BPG and punishment is eliminated perhaps because
they are confronted with (allegedly) real victims and their moral
5.1.2.5. Political orientation. Participants responded to a single item on
a 1 (Very Liberal) to 7 (Very Conservative) scale.
5.1.2.6. Religiosity. Participants responded to a single item describing
their religious attendance on a 0 (Never) to 5 (More Than Once a Week)
Likert-type scale.
5.1.2.7. Education. Participants responded to a single item on a 1
(Grades 1–6) to 9 (PhD/EdD) Likert-type scale.
5.2. Results and discussion
5.2.1. Belief in pure evil
Correlations between all variables of interest are in Table 3.
Regarding the Big 5, higher Emotionality as well as lower HonestyHumility, Agreeableness, and Openness scores related to greater BPE;
next, regarding the moral foundations, higher Loyalty, Authority, and
Sanctity scores related to greater BPE. Lower N2 scores also related to
greater BPE.
We ran a multiple regression analysis to assess the unique effects of
the HEXACO trait scores and MFQ/N2 scale scores on BPE. We entered
any significant demographic correlates in Step 1 (including BPG scores),
HEXACO trait scores in Step 2, and then the MFQ/N2 scores in Step 3.
See Table 4 for results. This analysis showed that Honesty-Humility,
Emotionality, and Openness uniquely predicted BPE. Next, only the
Authority and Sanctity moral foundations uniquely predicted BPE.
Running the model without covariates nominally changed the
pattern of results. The pattern of significance did not change; however,
the predictive contribution of the Big 5 scores negligibly increased (1%),
while the predictive contribution of MFQ scores meaningfully increased
(9%).
5.2.2. Belief in pure good
On a bivariate level, higher scores on all six HEXACO traits related to
greater BPG; meanwhile, higher scores on the Care, Fairness, Authority,
and Sanctity moral foundations related to greater BPG.
7
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
Table 3
Intercorrelations between variables of interest (Study 2).
Variables
1. BPE
2. BPG
Demographics
3. Age
4. Rel. Attendance
5. Gender
6. Conservatism
7. Education
HEXACO Traits
8. Honesty-Humility
9. Emotionality
10. Extraversion
11. Agreeableness
12. Conscientiousness
13. Openness
Moral Foundations
14. Harm
15. Fairness
16. Ingroup Loyalty
17. Authority
18. Sanctity
Postconventional
Thinking
19. N2 Score
M
4.48
5.12
SD
1.38
0.89
1
.17
2
3
4
5
6
-
36.81
1.87
1.53
3.47
7.38
11.35
1.22
0.51
1.76
2.80
.09
.12
.05
.34
-.01
.26
.08
.18
.11
-.10
.05
.23
.14
-.06
-.02
.35
.17
-.04
-.11
4.82
4.37
4.30
4.47
5.54
5.05
1.22
1.17
1.35
1.18
0.98
1.14
-.17
.20
.05
-.15
-.01
-.29
.26
.18
.18
.29
.35
.14
.32
.07
.09
.12
.23
.09
-.04
.07
.16
.09
.02
-.17
4.57
4.59
3.39
3.63
3.23
0.90
0.82
0.96
1.04
1.41
.07
.00
.36
.49
.47
.39
.20
.14
.23
.29
.10
.07
.09
.11
.08
31.81
15.13
-.26
.02
.09
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.00
-
.27
.38
-.03
.03
.12
.03
.05
-.03
.13
.00
-.02
-.30
-.20
-.06
.12
-.06
.07
.06
.08
-.05
.38
.25
.10
-.29
-.13
-.09
-.15
.28
.32
.23
.20
.20
-.04
-.14
.32
.38
.47
.23
.15
-.10
-.01
.08
-.19
-.33
.25
.45
.47
-.12
.00
.02
.03
-.01
.28
.12
-.14
-.07
-.03
.33
.15
.09
.12
.21
.02
-.02
.22
.15
.15
-.18
.12
-.28
.06
.18
-.01
-.16
18
.34
-
.21
.14
.07
.10
.06
.19
.24
-.04
.00
-.01
.22
.26
-.24
-.32
-.28
.61
.14
.13
.16
.05
.04
-.04
.70
.57
.71
-
-.07
.12
.27
.06
.19
-.37
-.38
-.34
Note. BPE = belief in pure evil. BPG = belief in pure good.
Correlations significant at p ≤ .05 are bolded. Correlations with BPE and BPG are highlighted for readability.
Participant gender coded as 1 = “male” and 2 = “female”.
Given N = 345, 95% CI for r = ±0.11.
compass is focused more on the victims’ suffering. Perhaps if a perpe
trator apologized and exhibited genuine remorse for their actions (e.g.,
Kleinke, Wallis, & Stadler, 1991), participants who report greater BPG
would more greatly apply the Care foundation and lessen the
punishment.
In S2, higher levels of Sanctity/Degradation also uniquely related to
BPG. Higher scores on the Sanctity dimension correlated with greater
BPG in both studies, but Sanctity only uniquely related to BPG in S2.
Sanctity does have moderate to strong religious undertones, and religi
osity variables (across behavioral, functional, and structural measures)
more consistently correlate with BPG (e.g., Webster & Saucier, 2013; see
also Study 1 in this paper). BPG also emphasizes striving for a sort of
“wholesomeness” about human nature, which seems to be reflected in
the Sanctity foundation. Thus, it does make sense (in hindsight) that the
Sanctity foundation would relate to BPG.
Given the personality and moral profile of BPG (particularly the
higher levels of Agreeableness and endorsement of the Care/Harm
foundation), BPG should serve a buffer to acting antisocially (immorally
or aggressively), while serving as a catalyst in helping others. Two
studies have shown that greater BPG uniquely predicted greater
endorsement of more prosocial consumer actions (e.g., eco-friendly/
green behaviors) and greater admonition of more questionable, pas
sive, and active (i.e., outright illegal) forms of consumer misconduct;
moreover, a third experiment showed that, regardless of price, BPG
uniquely predicted lower likeability/intentions to buy an environmen
tally unfriendly product and greater likeability/intentions to buy an
environmentally friendly product (Webster, Morrone, & Saucier, 2020).
A third study\
In predicting BPE, the Big 5 and HEXACO were somewhat inconsis
tent. In S1, higher levels of Conscientiousness uniquely related to BPE;
Openness was a marginal predictor. In any case, these Big 5 traits only
explained 2% of the variability in BPE. The HEXACO explained much
more variability in S2 at 14% (cf. Ashton & Lee, 2019). Higher levels of
Openness to experience and lower levels of Emotionality uniquely
related to BPE, as predicted. Neuroticism in S1 may not have related to
BPE, but Emotionality in S2 did, perhaps because of how these traits are
conceptualized. Traditional Neuroticism in the Big 5 model seems more
focused on emotional stability and experiencing a wider range of
negative emotions. In comparison, Lee and Ashton explain “Persons with
very high scores on the Emotionality scale experience fear of physical
dangers, [and] experience anxiety in response to life’s stresses” (http://h
exaco.org/scaledescriptions). People who score higher in BPE strongly
believe in a more dangerous world, and Emotionality perhaps better
captures this anxiety.
Lower levels of Honesty-Humility also uniquely related to BPE,
which was somewhat unexpected. Perhaps people higher in BPE will go
to any lengths, including more deceitfulness (e.g., pre-emptive strikes;
Webster & Saucier, 2013), to save the world from evildoers. Lastly, BPE
showed a larger correlation with the Big 5 measure of Conscientiousness
than the HEXACO. Of course, this difference could be due to measure
ment, although the two models conceptualize and measure conscien
tiousness similarly. Alternatively, there may be less of a relationship
between BPE and conscientiousness than we hypothesized; conceivably,
people higher in BPE may have greater expectations of others to be very
conscientious, but perhaps not be as stringent themselves.
As for the moral foundations, both S1 and S2 showed that higher
scores on all the binding foundations correlated with BPE, but only the
Authority and Sanctity dimensions uniquely related to BPE. That is, it
seems people who believe more in pure evil consider whether actions are
immoral based on how much actions violate perceived legitimate au
thority and saintly values, rather than violations of ingroup loyalty.
Perhaps when considering the nature of evildoers, such individuals are
inherently corrupted and only obedience to authority (not necessarily
loyalty to ingroups) will help right the world.
Ultimately, given the personality and moral profile of people who
report greater BPE (i.e., lower levels of Honesty-Humility and Openness,
higher levels of emotionality, greater endorsement of the Authority and
Sanctity foundations), how would such individuals act when given the
chance to behave immorally? Two studies on ethical consumer behavior
showed that BPE did not predict endorsement or admonition of ecofriendlier, questionable, or outright illegal consumer behaviors
(Webster et al., 2020). We reason that people who report greater BPE do
not recklessly engage in immoral actions (e.g., as people higher in psy
chopathy or sadism do; see Moshagen, Hilbig, & Zettler, 2018), but
8
R.J. Webster et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 173 (2021) 110584
Table 4
Hierarchical multiple regression results predicting belief in pure evil and belief in pure good (Study 2).
Predictors
Outcome: BPE
β (beta)
Step 1: Demographics
BPG/BPE
Age
Religious attendance
Gender
Conservatism
Education
Step 2: HEXACO
Honesty-Humility
Emotionality
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Step 3: Moral foundations
Harm
Fairness
Ingroup Loyalty
Authority
Sanctity
N2 score
Total R2
ΔR2 = 0.14
0.14
0.01
− 0.01
–
0.33
–
ΔR2 = 0.13
¡0.23
0.15
–
− 0.08
–
¡0.19
ΔR2 = 0.11
–
–
0.01
0.24
0.21
− 0.05
0.38
Outcome: BPE
p-Value
0.01
0.91
0.90
–
Purchase answer to see full
attachment