How Contextual Variations in Moral and Political Disagreements Influence the Perception of Not Taking a Side

In contentious moral and political discourse, the strategic choices individuals make when conveying their opinions can significantly impact their perceived integrity. Prior research uncovered that opting for nondisclosure, or refraining from taking sides, can undermine one’s reputation. Building on this finding, the current research explores the generalisability by examining how contextual variations affect the perception of nondisclosure in moral and political disagreements. Study 1 employs controlled scenarios with various topics to examine the reactions of American and Japanese participants, investigating nondisclosure’s impact on belief inferences, trust, competence, and likeability. The findings indicate that, Japanese participants perceived individuals not taking a side as less trustworthy, less competent, and in some contexts, less likeable than those with outright opposition. Among American participants, the trust penalty for nondisclosure was limited, diverging from earlier findings. Study 2 is therefore designed to test whether differences in cultural interest in a topic could account for this attenuation. In this follow-up, the trust penalty of non-disclosers re-emerges across eight vignettes among both Americans and Japanese, with no reliable main effect of topic interest. While some context-specific variations appeared in Study 1, the dominant pattern is that nondisclosure incurred reputational costs regardless of whether an issue was of high or low relevance in a given culture. Recommendations for both Stage 1 (https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=946) and Stage 2 (https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.101191) are available via PCI Registered Reports.