Emile Boullineau The Judgmentalism Project

Motivated Violation Construction (MVC)

Moral Violations Are Made, Not Found: A Theory of Motivated Violation Construction

Emile Boullineau Independent researcher

Published in New Ideas in Psychology, 84, 101313 (2027). Published online 20 October 2026.

Download accepted manuscript (PDF) Version of record Cite Preprint (SSRN)

In brief

Most accounts of moral judgement begin once a violation exists and ask how harshly people judge it. Motivated Violation Construction begins earlier. It proposes that, for behaviour whose moral status is genuinely ambiguous, an observer who already dislikes, fears, envies or opposes the actor is more likely to classify the behaviour as morally wrong in the first place. A favourable stance works the other way. The motive acts at classification, before severity is weighed. The central prediction is that motivation should change whether behaviour is classified as a violation more than how wrong it is judged once classified, and that this asymmetry should be strongest where behaviour is most ambiguous.

Figure 1. Where motivation acts.Two rows. Standard view, detect then judge: ambiguous behaviour leads to classification (is this a moral violation?) and then evaluation (how wrong is it?); motivation (dislike, threat, envy, group allegiance) feeds only evaluation. Motivated Violation Construction: the same steps, with motivation feeding classification strongly and evaluation weakly. Prediction: motivation shifts classification more than severity.STANDARD VIEW: DETECT, THEN JUDGEMotivation(dislike, threat, envy,group allegiance)Ambiguous behaviourClassification:is this a moral violation?Evaluation:how wrong is it?MOTIVATED VIOLATION CONSTRUCTIONMotivation(dislike, threat, envy,group allegiance)Ambiguous behaviourClassification:is this a moral violation?Evaluation:how wrong is it?Prediction: motivation shifts classification more than severity.Figure 1. Where motivation acts.Two rows. Standard view, detect then judge: ambiguous behaviour leads to classification (is this a moral violation?) and then evaluation (how wrong is it?); motivation (dislike, threat, envy, group allegiance) feeds only evaluation. Motivated Violation Construction: the same steps, with motivation feeding classification strongly and evaluation weakly. Prediction: motivation shifts classification more than severity.STANDARD VIEW: DETECT, THEN JUDGEAmbiguous behaviourClassification:is this a moralviolation?Evaluation:how wrong is it?Motivation(dislike, threat,envy, groupallegiance)MOTIVATED VIOLATION CONSTRUCTIONAmbiguous behaviourClassification:is this a moralviolation?Evaluation:how wrong is it?Motivation(dislike, threat,envy, groupallegiance)Prediction: motivation shiftsclassification more than severity.
Figure 1 Where motivation acts. In the standard view it adjusts severity after a violation is detected. In Motivated Violation Construction it acts at classification.

Abstract

Moral psychology treats moral violations as features of behaviour that observers detect and then evaluate. This paper introduces Motivated Violation Construction (MVC): the proposal that observers may classify ambiguous behaviour as morally wrong when that classification supports a prior negative evaluation. MVC shifts whether behaviour enters the moral domain, rather than merely intensifying evaluation after entry. Factors such as threat, dislike, envy/status resentment, or group allegiance are proposed to lower the classification threshold under negative motivation. Positive stances raise it. The paper focuses on violation construction under negative motivation, where moral content is added rather than withheld. MVC concerns the point at which behaviour is classified as wrong, before its severity is evaluated. MVC is distinct from motivated reasoning, which shapes how people judge behaviour already seen as wrong, and from moralisation, which concerns shifts in what a society treats as moral issues. Four predictions are advanced. Negative motivation increases, and positive motivation decreases, the frequency with which identical behaviour is classified as a violation. When the behaviour is genuinely ambiguous, this effect is strongest. It weakens where moral consensus is clear. Differences in classification track the observer’s motives rather than the behaviour. Motivation affects classification more strongly than severity, and this asymmetry is moderated by ambiguity. Each prediction has operationalisations and procedural falsifiability conditions, with a registered manipulation check on the evaluative-stance induction.

Why it matters

Disagreements about wrongdoing often look like disagreements about severity. MVC proposes that many begin earlier, in whether an act counts as wrongdoing at all. The paper sets out three contexts where its conditions (motivation plus ambiguity) could operate. In political polarisation, partisans may construct violations from an opponent’s ambiguous behaviour that a non-motivated observer would read as legitimate disagreement. In close relationships, accumulated negative sentiment may lower the threshold at which a partner’s ambiguous behaviour counts as wrong. In online moral discourse, where context is stripped away and group identity is amplified, motivated classification may operate especially readily. These are provisional applications. Whether MVC operates in them is an empirical question.

Relation to evaluative rigidity

MVC sits within the programme’s broader interest in evaluative rigidity, but its argument does not depend on the wider programme. Its claim is narrower: motivation can shape whether ambiguous behaviour is classified as a violation before severity is weighed. Evaluative rigidity may then operate downstream, on behaviour already classified as a violation. Trait Judgmentalism, the programme’s first paper, addresses that downstream stage.

The research programme

Related empirical work

A preregistered study applies the theory’s logic (classification before evaluation) to four large language models given different personas. It concerns language models and does not test MVC in people. A study with human participants is in preparation.

Same Prompt, Not the Same Instrument (preprint)Preregistration (OSF)The Screen Decides the Verdict (NeurIPS 2026 poster)

Cite

APA

Boullineau, E. (2027). Moral violations are made, not found: A theory of motivated violation construction. New Ideas in Psychology, 84, 101313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2026.101313

BibTeX

@article{boullineau_mvc_2027,
author  = {Boullineau, Emile},
title   = {Moral Violations Are Made, Not Found: A Theory of Motivated Violation Construction},
journal = {New Ideas in Psychology},
year    = {2027},
volume  = {84},
eid     = {101313},
doi     = {10.1016/j.newideapsych.2026.101313}
}

Author’s accepted manuscript. © 2026. This manuscript version is made available under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence. The version of record is published in New Ideas in Psychology, 84, 101313: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2026.101313. Preprint (April 2026): SSRN 10.2139/ssrn.6521118 and Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.19423437.