Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41498609›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2026

Others Like Me: How Issue-Position Groups Distort the Function of Morality by Manufacturing Consensus.

Jennifer Cole Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jennifer Cole WrightDepartment of Psychology, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7878-0252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morality is centered within the person-someone who experiences herself at the center of life, she is called upon to live in a way that is "good." She does this in partnership with others in groups with systems of shared beliefs, values, and practices that require conformance. Yet, even the most conforming groups contain differing ideas and viewpoints. Such differences may strike us as dangerous and threatening, activating intolerance. If we encounter strong consensus within our group, we may feel emboldened to fight against the threat, an important corrective to the possibility of harmful beliefs, values, activities, or practices taking hold within the group. Unfortunately, consensus can be manipulated, most dangerously through our proclivity for "grouping" with others who are "like us," especially when this is narrowly defined by a particular issue. Issue-position grouping creates consensus, which can hypercharge intolerance with a moral mandate and encourage the villainization of those who disagree. And this has become more prevalent now that we have easy access to online spaces that cater to and encourage it. And though beyond the scope of this article to offer solutions, I highlight a few key insights that may help us protect against this trend.

Indexed as

ConsensusMoralsHumansSocial Groupissue‐position groupsmeta‐ethicsmoralitynon‐normativetolerance

Identifiers

PMID41498609
PMCPMC12924169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.