 Since Haidt was interested in Shweder’s claim that the moral domain was much larger for people in non-Western societies, his study was designed to compare the judgments of participants near his own university, in Philadelphia, with those of participants in two Brazilian cities—Porto Alegre, in the south, which was industrialized, westernized, and relatively wealthy, and Recife, in the north, which was much poorer, less industrialized, and less westernized. As Shweder would have predicted, Haidt found that participants in Recife were more likely than participants in Philadelphia to view behaviors like those in  Dog,  Kissing, and  Chicken  as moral transgressions, using Haidt’s version of the questions intended to determine whether a participant regarded a transgression as moral or conventional. Participants in Porto Alegre were in between the two. But there was also a surprise in the data. Haidt and colleagues had collected information about the socio-economic status (SES) of their participants, and they found that lower SES groups “moralized” more than higher SES groups in all three cities, and that the effect of SES was much larger than the effect of location.