Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chip Colwell, Associate Research Professor of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver

The burying ground looks like an abandoned lot.

Holding the remains of upward of 22,000 enslaved and free people of color, the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground in Richmond, Virginia, established in 1816, sits amid highways and surface roads. Above the expanse of unmarked graves loom a deserted auto shop, a power substation, a massive billboard. The bare ground of the cemetery is strewn with weeds.

In contrast, across the way sits Shockoe Hill Cemetery. Established in 1822, it remains a peaceful cemetery with grass, large trees and bright marble headstones. This cemetery was created for white Christians.

I am an archaeologist who studies how the past shapes public life. Several years ago, I wrote with colleagues about the legacies of stolen human remains of African Americans in museums. During this time, I learned more about how African Americans often had to bury their dead in unsanctioned spaces that received few protections.

As I dug into this history, what struck me the most was that the different treatment of African Americans in death paralleled their long mistreatment in life. Places like Shockoe have not been accidentally forgotten.

Although its purpose has endured and graves survive, Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground, the largest burial ground for enslaved and free people of color in the United States, has witnessed deliberate acts of violence. As the historian Ryan K. Smith writes, Shockoe “was not, as some would say, abandoned – it was actively destroyed.”

African burying grounds found and lost

This issue of protecting Black cemeteries first came to popular attention in 1991, when the African Burial Ground in downtown New York City was rediscovered and nearly obliterated by a construction project. It was preserved only through the valiant efforts of African American leaders and scientists.

In recent years, similar threats to Black cemeteries and questions about preservation have been reported at the Whitney Plantation in Louisiana, the Morningstar Tabernacle No. 88 in Maryland and a rediscovered graveyard in Florida, among many others.

Like these other cemeteries, the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground has long faced constant perils, from grave robbing to construction projects.

Lenora McQueen, whose ancestor Kitty Cary was buried there in 1857, has been leading the effort to protect the cemetery. McQueen’s tireless work – like the efforts needed at any disregarded Black cemetery in the country – has ranged from collaborating with city officials to purchase part of the site, establishing a marker and mural, and assembling a team to earn the burying ground the recognition of the National Register of Historic Places.

Smith has detailed how, ever since Richmond’s founding in the 1730s, people of European and African descent in the city lived divided lives. By the early 1800s, officials formalized different cemeteries for Richmond’s different ethnic and racial communities.

A 1-acre cemetery for free Black people and another one for enslaved people were situated near the city poorhouse and gunpowder depot. Yet, these grounds were hallowed to the African American community. Burial rituals included long processions, biblical-inflected homilies, spirituals and public displays of grief.

However, the violations of these graves were easy enough. The cemetery was neither fenced nor formally tended. In the 1830s, medical schools began robbing the burying ground for cadavers. At the close of the Civil War, retreating Confederates exploded the gunpowder magazine, reportedly destroying a section of the cemetery.

City officials formally closed the cemetery in 1879, and the site’s systematic destruction began, despite constant objections of Black residents. Road and construction projects cut through the burial grounds. An African American editor at the time denounced the “people who profited by the desecration of the burial ground … when graves were dug into, bones scattered, coffins exposed and the hearts of the surviving families made to bleed by the desecration of the remains of their loved ones.”

In the years that followed, a railroad track and an elevated highway were built on portions of the cemetery. In 1960, Richmond city officials sold a portion of the burying ground to Shell, and a gas station was built atop the remains of human beings.

The struggle to preserve Shockoe

In 2011, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources conducted a survey to determine the eligibility of the deserted auto shop for the National Register of Historic Places. It did not even consider the history of the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground beneath and around the building as part of the site’s evaluation.

Six years later, McQueen learned that her ancestor was interred at the burying ground. Horrified by the cemetery’s state of disarray, she became its leading advocate. Eventually, McQueen put together a team of scholars and preservationists to pursue their own study of the site’s eligibility for the national register. They found the cultural landscape – the traces of human activity that give a place its history and meaning – to be highly significant.

Additionally, the site’s history of destruction was a vital record of the unequal treatment shown toward Black burying grounds in the U.S. The team formally pursued its own nomination to the National Register of Historic places.

In 2022, Shockoe Hill Burying Ground Historic District was successfully listed is on the national register.

Even with this success, the threats continue. Being listed on the national register provides prestige, grant opportunities and reviews for federal projects, but few guaranteed protections. In the same year Shockoe was listed on the national register, utility lines were installed in the area without consulting heritage officials.

A high-speed rail project, if implemented as planned, could violate the cemetery’s historical landscape. Designs for a memorial, while well intentioned, might further harm the site and threaten its national register status if it is not treated as a cemetery with graves.

What the Shockoe Hill African Burying Ground reveals is the need for the U.S. to provide dignity to all its citizens, in life and in death. A cemetery does not need famous inhabitants or marble tombstones to be significant.

As McQueen has said of her ancestor’s eternal resting ground, “Burial spaces are sacred.”

I have sat in on some meetings about the burial ground’s preservation as a heritage expert, at the request of the descendant Lenora McQueen.

– ref. The disgraceful history of erasing Black cemeteries in the United States – https://theconversation.com/the-disgraceful-history-of-erasing-black-cemeteries-in-the-united-states-264864

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael Liemohn, Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan

When I imagine the future of space commerce, the first image that comes to mind is a farmer’s market on the International Space Station. This doesn’t exist yet, but space commerce is a growing industry. The Space Foundation, a nonprofit organization for education and advocacy of space, estimates that the global space economy rose to US$613 billion in 2024, up nearly 8% from 2023, and 250 times larger than all business at farmer’s markets in the United States. This number includes launch vehicles, satellite hardware, and services provided by these space-based assets, such as satellite phone or internet connection.

Companies involved in spaceflight have been around since the start of the Space Age. By the 1980s, corporate space activity was gaining traction. President Ronald Reagan saw the need for a federal agency to oversee and guide this industry and created the Office of Space Commerce, or OSC.

So, what exactly does this office do and why is it important?

As a space scientist, I am interested in how the U.S. regulates commercial activities in space. In addition, I teach a course on space policy. In class, we talk about the OSC and its role in the wider regulatory landscape affecting commercial use of outer space.

The OSC’s focus areas

The Office of Space Commerce, an office of about 50 people, exists within the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. To paraphrase its mission statement, its chief purpose is to enable a robust U.S. commercial interest in outer space.

OSC has three main focus areas. First, it is the office responsible for licensing and monitoring how private U.S. companies collect and distribute orbit-based images of Earth. There are many companies launching satellites with special cameras to look back down at the Earth these days. Companies offer a variety of data products and services from such imagery – for instance, to improve agricultural land use.

A second primary job of OSC is space advocacy. OSC works with the other U.S. government agencies that also have jurisdiction over commercial use of outer space to make the regulatory environment easier. This includes working with the Federal Aviation Administration on launch licensing, the Federal Communications Commission on radio wavelength usage and the Environmental Protection Agency on rules about the hazardous chemicals in rocket fuel.

This job also includes coordinating with other countries that allow companies to launch satellites, collect data in orbit and offer space-based services.

In 2024, for example, the OSC helped revise the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, one of the main documents restricting the shipping of advanced technologies out of the country. This change removed some limitations, allowing American companies to export certain types of spacecraft to three countries: Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

The OSC also coordinates commercial satellites’ flight paths in near-Earth space, which is its third and largest function. The Department of Defense keeps track of thousands of objects in outer space and issues alerts when the probability of a collision gets high. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Space Policy Directive-3, which included tasking OSC to take this role over for nongovernment satellites – that is, those owned by companies, not NASA or the military. The Department od Defense wants out of the job of traffic management involving privately owned satellites, and Trump’s directive in 2018 started the process of handing off this task to OSC.

To prevent satellites from colliding, OSC has been developing the traffic coordination system for space, known as TraCSS. It went into beta testing in 2024 and has some of the companies with the largest commercial constellations – such as SpaceX’s Starlink – participating. Progress on this has been slower than anticipated, though, and an audit in 2024 revealed that the plan is way behind schedule and perhaps still years away.

Elevating OSC

Deep in the text of Trump’s Aug. 13, 2025, executive order called Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry, there’s a directive to elevate OSC to report directly to the office of the secretary of commerce. This would make OSC equivalent to its current overseer, NOAA, with respect to importance and priority within the Department of Commerce. It would give OSC higher stature in setting more of the rules regarding commercial use of space, and it would make space commerce more visible across the broader economy.

So, why did Trump include this line about elevating OSC in his Aug. 13 executive order?

Back in 2018, Trump issued Space Policy Directive-2 during his first term, which included a task to create the Space Policy Advancing Commerce Enterprise Administration, or SPACE. SPACE would have been an entity reporting directly to the secretary of commerce. While it was proposed as a bill in the House of Representatives later that year, it never became law.

The Aug. 13 executive order essentially directs the Department of Commerce to make this move now. Should the secretary of commerce enact the order, it would bypass the role of Congress in promoting OSC. The 60-day window that Trump placed in the executive order for making this change has closed, but with the government shutdown it is unclear whether the elevation of OSC might still occur.

Troubles for OSC

While all of this sounds good for promoting space as a place for commercial activity, OSC has been under stress in 2025. In February, the Department of Government Efficiency targeted NOAA for cuts, including firing eight people from OSC. Because about half of the people working in OSC are contractors, this represented a 30% reduction of force.

In March, Trump’s presidential budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed a cut of 85% of the $65 million annual budget of OSC. In July, space industry leaders urged Congress to restore funding to OSC.

The Aug. 13 executive order appeared to be good news for OSC. On Sept. 9, however, Bloomberg reported that the Department of Commerce requested a 40% rescission to OSC’s fiscal year 2025 budget.

Rescissions are “clawbacks” of funds already approved and appropriated by Congress. The promised funding is essentially put on hold. Once proposed by the president, rescissions have to be voted on by both chambers of Congress to be enacted. This must occur within 45 days, or before the end of the fiscal year, which was Sept. 30.

This rescission request came so close to that deadline that Congress did not act to stop it. As a result, OSC lost this funding. The loss could mean additional cutbacks to staff and perhaps even a shrinking of its focus areas.

Will OSC be elevated? Will OSC be restructured or even dismantled? The future is still uncertain for this office.

Michael Liemohn receives or has received funding from NASA, NSF, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the European Union. He is currently the President-Elect of the Space Physics and Aeronomy section of the American Geophysical Union and has served in other leadership roles with that society.

– ref. Office of Space Commerce faces an uncertain future amid budget cuts and new oversight – https://theconversation.com/office-of-space-commerce-faces-an-uncertain-future-amid-budget-cuts-and-new-oversight-265710

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lee Ann Rawlins Williams, Clinical Assistant Professor of Education, Health and Behavior Studies, University of North Dakota

Heavy teaching loads, shrinking university budgets and expanding workload expectations have fueled stress and burnout among professors and other university employees in recent years.

Now, an increasingly polarized political climate, as well as emerging concerns around university funding cuts, self-censorship and academic freedom, has created new pressures for university and college employees.

The result is an academic profession caught in the crosscurrents of culture and politics, with implications that extend far beyond the classroom.

What faculty say

Since June 2025, I have spoken with 33 faculty members across disciplines and institutions in the U.S. about how they are managing their careers and day-to-day lives at work and home.

Their accounts reveal common themes: persistent anxiety about job security, uncertainty around how to teach controversial subjects, and frustration that institutional support is often fragmented or short-lived.

“We’re asked to make room for students’ struggles, but are rarely acknowledged when we crack under the same weight,” one professor told me.

A 2024 National Education Association survey found that 33% of 900 public administration faculty are “often” or “always” physically exhausted, while 38% of faculty say they are “often” or “always” emotionally exhausted.

Another 40% of faculty from this survey say they are simply “worn out.”

Other research shows that growing workloads and constant role juggling are taking a toll on faculty members’ well-being and ability to teach effectively.

Burnout among educators can have ripple effects on the university and college students they teach, leading to students feeling less motivated and engaged in school.

As a scholar of education, health and behavior studies, I know that when universities and colleges invest in supporting their faculty’s mental health and well-being, they’re not just helping their employees. They are protecting the quality of education that their students receive.

When politics enters the classroom

Surveys spanning 2017 through 2021 found that 6,269 faculty members have increasingly self-censored and avoided controversial topics or moderated their language when talking with their students and colleagues in order to avoid backlash from legislators, university boards or school administrators.

The result is a form of burnout, in which protecting one’s mental health and job security can mean speaking more carefully when teaching.

A January 2025 Inside Higher Ed survey published shortly before President Donald Trump’s second inauguration found that over half of 8,460 surveyed U.S. professors have altered what they said or wrote, whether it was course materials or emails, to avoid expressing a possibly controversial opinion.

Nearly half of surveyed professors have also withheld opinions in the classroom entirely, according to the same survey, which was conducted from December 2023 to February 2024.

Scholars call this a “chilling effect” on academic freedom, where self-censorship becomes part of daily decision-making.

In the current political climate, faculty in many institutions continue to express reluctance to speak openly, citing concerns about professional or public repercussions. Even though comprehensive research since January 2025 is still emerging, early findings already suggest a further narrowing of what feels safe to say.

One-third of faculty reported in January that they feel they have less freedom to express their views, reflecting an environment in which faculty members’ voices are increasingly constrained

Faculty I spoke with over the past few months described “navigating sensitive boundaries” in their lectures, avoiding having any discussion about race, gender and religion. They also talked about not using terms like diversity, equity and inclusion.

Watching what you say

For professors on contingent contracts – meaning they are not on a track to receive tenure, a secure work position that typically lasts a lifetime – the fear is heightened. The same is true for other faculty members like adjunct professors, who depend on short-term or renewable contracts.

Without the protection of tenure, even a single complaint or potential controversy can jeopardize a professor’s position – and recent cases of tenured professors suggest that even tenure no longer offers the same level of security it once did.

One adjunct professor put it bluntly: “When your next contract depends on staying in bounds, watching what you say is survival.”

For many instructors, the need to continually reassess how a comment, reading or assignment might be received changes the experience of teaching in subtle but meaningful ways.

Faculty members I spoke with described heightened anxiety, sleepless nights and a persistent fear that a misstep could derail their careers. This psychological strain, compounded by workload and financial stress, leaves little space for creativity, innovation or joy in teaching.

The downstream effects on students

Faculty members’ well-being is inseparable from how students experience college. Burnout and disengagement ripple outward, reducing students’ motivation and eroding the quality of students’ classroom interactions, as noted in a 2025 study.

When professors self-censor, students can also lose exposure to complex or controversial perspectives that might challenge their thinking and deepen discussions.

Restrictions on free expression and debate can also stifle students’ intellectual curiosity, curb engagement and hinder critical-thinking development.

Equally concerning is the long-term impact on innovation.

When academic freedom is restricted or self-censored, there is a greater potential that research questions will become more narrow, classroom discussions will flatten, and students will lose exposure to the breadth of perspectives that higher education promises.

A new kind of academic life

Faculty mental health is a pressing concern across higher education.

Expanding workloads, shifting public expectations and uncertainty around job security have created an environment of sustained strain.

The professors I have spoken with say they feeling caught between professional demands and personal limits, navigating burnout, self-censorship and ongoing attention to what they teach and say.

The cumulative effect is reshaping academic life, altering how faculty teach, communicate and engage with students, with a very careful eye on how others are perceiving them.

Lee Ann Rawlins Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. College faculty are under pressure to say and do the right thing – the stress also trickles down to students – https://theconversation.com/college-faculty-are-under-pressure-to-say-and-do-the-right-thing-the-stress-also-trickles-down-to-students-267400

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Yurou Wang, Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Alabama

Imagine a student using a writing assistant powered by a generative AI chatbot. As the bot serves up practical suggestions and encouragement, insights come more easily, drafts polish up quickly and feedback loops feel immediate. It can be energizing. But when that AI support is removed, some students report feeling less confident or less willing to engage.

These outcomes raise the question: Can AI tools genuinely boost student motivation? And what conditions can make or break that boost?

As AI tools become more common in classroom settings, the answers to these questions matter a lot. While tools for general use such as ChatPGT or Claude remain popular, more and more students are encountering AI tools that are purpose-built to support learning, such as Khan Academy’s Khanmigo, which personalizes lessons. Others, such as ALEKS, provide adaptive feedback. Both tools adjust to a learner’s level and highlight progress over time, which helps students feel capable and see improvement. But there are still many unknowns about the long-term effects of these tools on learners’ progress, an issue I continue to study as an educational psychologist.

What the evidence shows so far

Recent studies indicate that AI can boost motivation, at least for certain groups, when deployed under the right conditions. A 2025 experiment with university students showed that when AI tools delivered a high-quality performance and allowed meaningful interaction, students’ motivation and their confidence in being able to complete a task – known as self-efficacy – increased.

For foreign language learners, a 2025 study found that university students using AI-driven personalized systems took more pleasure in learning and had less anxiety and more self-efficacy compared with those using traditional methods. A recent cross-cultural analysis with participants from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Poland who were studying diverse majors suggested that positive motivational effects are strongest when tools prioritize autonomy, self-direction and critical thinking. These individual findings align with a broader, systematic review of generative AI tools that found positive effects on student motivation and engagement across cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions.

A forthcoming meta-analysis from my team at the University of Alabama, which synthesized 71 studies, echoed these patterns. We found that generative AI tools on average produce moderate positive effects on motivation and engagement. The impact is larger when tools are used consistently over time rather than in one-off trials. Positive effects were also seen when teachers provide scaffolding, when students maintain agency in how they use the tool, and when the output quality is reliable.

But there are caveats. More than 50 of the studies we reviewed did not draw on a clear theoretical framework of motivation, and some used methods that we found were weak or inappropriate. This raises concerns about the quality of the evidence and underscores how much more careful research is needed before one can say with confidence that AI nurtures students’ intrinsic motivation rather than just making tasks easier in the moment.

When AI backfires

There is also research that paints a more sobering picture. A large study of more than 3,500 participants found that while human–AI collaboration improved task performance, it reduced intrinsic motivation once the AI was removed. Students reported more boredom and less satisfaction, suggesting that overreliance on AI can erode confidence in their own abilities.

Another study suggested that while learning achievement often rises with the use of AI tools, increases in motivation are smaller, inconsistent or short-lived. Quality matters as much as quantity. When AI delivers inaccurate results, or when students feel they have little control over how it is used, motivation quickly erodes. Confidence drops, engagement fades and students can begin to see the tool as a crutch rather than a support. And because there are not many long-term studies in this field, we still do not know whether AI can truly sustain motivation over time, or whether its benefits fade once the novelty wears off.

Not all AI tools work the same way

The impact of AI on student motivation is not one-size-fits-all. Our team’s meta-analysis shows that, on average, AI tools do have a positive effect, but the size of that effect depends on how and where they are used. When students work with AI regularly over time, when teachers guide them in using it thoughtfully, and when students feel in control of the process, the motivational benefits are much stronger.

We also saw differences across settings. College students seemed to gain more than younger learners, STEM and writing courses tended to benefit more than other subjects, and tools designed to give feedback or tutoring support outperformed those that simply generated content.

There is also evidence that general-use tools like ChatGPT or Claude do not reliably promote intrinsic motivation or deeper engagement with content, compared to learning-specific platforms such as ALEKS and Khanmigo, which are more effective at supporting persistence and self-efficacy. However, these tools often come with subscription or licensing costs. This raises questions of equity, since the students who could benefit most from motivational support may also be the least likely to afford it.

These and other recent findings should be seen as only a starting point. Because AI is so new and is changing so quickly, what we know today may not hold true tomorrow. In a paper titled The Death and Rebirth of Research in Education in the Age of AI, the authors argue that the speed of technological change makes traditional studies outdated before they are even published. At the same time, AI opens the door to new ways of studying learning that are more participatory, flexible and imaginative. Taken together, the data and the critiques point to the same lesson: Context, quality and agency matter just as much as the technology itself.

Why it matters for all of us

The lessons from this growing body of research are straightforward. The presence of AI does not guarantee higher motivation, but it can make a difference if tools are designed and used with care and understanding of students’ needs. When it is used thoughtfully, in ways that strengthen students’ sense of competence, autonomy and connection to others, it can be a powerful ally in learning.

But without those safeguards, the short-term boost in performance could come at a steep cost. Over time, there is the risk of weakening the very qualities that matter most – motivation, persistence, critical thinking and the uniquely human capacities that no machine can replace.

For teachers, this means that while AI may prove a useful partner in learning, it should never serve as a stand-in for genuine instruction. For parents, it means paying attention to how children use AI at home, noticing whether they are exploring, practicing and building skills or simply leaning on it to finish tasks. For policymakers and technology developers, it means creating systems that support student agency, provide reliable feedback and avoid encouraging overreliance. And for students themselves, it is a reminder that AI can be a tool for growth, but only when paired with their own effort and curiosity.

Regardless of technology, students need to feel capable, autonomous and connected. Without these basic psychological needs in place, their sense of motivation will falter – with or without AI.

Yurou Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can AI keep students motivated, or does it do the opposite? – https://theconversation.com/can-ai-keep-students-motivated-or-does-it-do-the-opposite-264728

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jackson Trager, Ph.D. Candidate in Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Across cultures, people often wrestle with whether having lots of money is a blessing, a burden or a moral problem. According to our new research, how someone views billionaires isn’t just about economics. Judgment also hinges on certain cultural and moral instincts, which helps explain why opinions about wealth are so polarized.

The study, which my colleague Mohammad Atari and I published in the research journal PNAS Nexus in June 2025, examined survey data from more than 4,300 people across 20 countries. We found that while most people around the world do not strongly condemn having “too much money,” there are striking cultural differences.

In wealthy, more economically equal countries such as Switzerland and Belgium, people were more likely to say that having too much money is immoral. In countries that are poorer and more unequal, such as Peru or Nigeria, people tended to view wealth accumulation as more acceptable.

Beyond economics, we found that judgments about excessive wealth are also shaped by deeper moral intuitions. Our study drew on moral foundations theory, which proposes that people’s sense of right and wrong is built on six core values – care, equality, proportionality, loyalty, authority and purity. We found that people who highly value equality and purity were more likely to see excessive wealth as wrong.

The equality result was expected, but the role of purity was more surprising. Purity is usually associated with ideas about cleanliness, sanctity or avoiding contamination – so finding that it is associated with negative views about wealth gives new meaning to the phrase “filthy rich.”

As a social psychologist who studies morality, culture and technology, I’m interested in how these kinds of judgments differ across groups and societies. Social and institutional systems interact with individual moral beliefs, shaping how people view culture war issues such as wealth and inequality − and, in turn, how they engage with the policies and conflicts that emerge around them.

Why it matters

Billionaires wield growing influence in politics, technology and global development. The richest 1% of people on Earth own more wealth than 95% of people combined, according to Oxfam, an organization focused on fighting poverty.

Efforts to address inequality by taxing or regulating the rich may, however, rest on a mistaken assumption — that the public generally condemns extreme wealth. If most people instead view amassing wealth as morally justifiable, such reforms could face limited support.

Our findings suggest that in countries where inequality is highly visible and persistent, people may adapt by morally justifying their structural economic system, arguing that it is fair and legitimate. In wealthier, more equal societies, people appear more sensitive to the potential harms of excess.

While our study shows that most people around the world do not view excessive wealth as morally wrong, those in wealthier and more equal countries are far more likely to condemn it.

That contrast raises a sharper question: When people in privileged societies denounce and attempt to limit billionaires, are they shining a light on global injustice − or projecting their own sense of guilt? Are they projecting a moral principle shaped by their own prosperity onto poorer countries, where wealth may represent survival, progress or even hope?

What still isn’t known

One open question: How do these views change over time? Do attitudes shift when societies become wealthier or more equal? Are young people more likely than older generations to condemn billionaires? Our study offers a snapshot, but long-term research could reveal whether moral judgments track broader economic or cultural changes.

Another uncertainty is the unexpected role of purity. Why would a value tied to cleanliness and sanctity shape how people judge billionaires? Our follow-up study found that purity concerns extended beyond money to other forms of “excess,” such as disapproving of having “too much” ambition, sex or fun. This suggests that people may see excess itself – not just inequality – as corrupting.

What’s next

We’re continuing to study how cultural values, social systems and moral intuitions shape people’s judgments of fairness and excess – from views of wealth and ambition to knowledge and AI computing power.

Understanding these gut-level, moral reactions within larger social systems matters for debates about inequality. But it can also help explain how people evaluate technologies, leaders and institutions that accumulate disproportionate, excessive power or influence.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Jackson Trager does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is it wrong to have too much money? Your answer may depend on deep-seated values – and your country’s economy – https://theconversation.com/is-it-wrong-to-have-too-much-money-your-answer-may-depend-on-deep-seated-values-and-your-countrys-economy-265247