Morality shifting in the context of intergroup violence

We propose morality shifting as a mechanism through which individuals can maintain a moral image of the ingroup. We argue that a shift from the moral principles of harm and fairness to those of loyalty and authority occurs when assessing a potentially threatening event, particularly among high ingroup glorifiers. Three studies confirmed this hypothesis using three different methodologies. Study 1 compared the use of language related to four moral foundations formulated in moral psychology in response to ingroup‐ and outgroup‐committed wrongdoings. Results showed that loyalty‐ and authority‐related words were used more, whereas harm‐ and fairness‐related words were used less in response to ingroup‐ compared with outgroup‐committed wrongdoings. Study 2 replicated this effect with regards to the cognitive accessibility of these moral principles. Study 3 confirmed that morality shifting is a motivated response to social identity threat, rather than a response to mere activation of social identity. Finally, as predicted, Study 3 demonstrated the effect of morality shifting to be moderated by ingroup glorification but not ingroup attachment. Implications and consequences for intergroup and individual wrongdoings, as well as for intergroup relations, are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Moral foundations tell us why guilt induces unfair allocation in multi‐party interactions

Previous studies have demonstrated that a sense of guilt promotes and maintains social fairness in two‐party interactions (Psychological Bulletin, 115, 1994 and 243). However, the situation is much more complex in three‐party or multi‐party interactions. De Hooge et al. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 2011 and 462) found that guilt could not only induce pro‐social behaviour towards the victim, but also have a disadvantageous impact on a third party. In the present study, we attempt to explain how guilt promotes unfair allocations from a moral foundations perspective. We conducted two experiments using a ‘three‐party dictator game’ paradigm. Firstly, it was repeatedly verified that guilt could induce unfair allocations in three‐party interactions. Secondly, five moral foundations (harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy and purity) were measured. Then the moderating and main effects of these five indices on how guilt affects the fair allocation of resources were explored using regression analysis. The results show that competition between harm and fairness in individual traits can explain the disadvantageous effect of guilt on fair allocations: the fairness foundation promoted equality in allocation, while the harm foundation promoted victim compensation.     

Fairness,Self‐Interest,and Cooperation in a Real‐Life Conflict1

Effects of procedural fairness and self‐interest on cooperation vs. hardness in an urban planning conflict were examined in a questionnaire study. The self‐interest perspective posits that people seek to maximize their outcomes and, therefore, cooperate only when they can gain advantages or avoid disadvantages by doing so, while fairness models of cooperation view cooperative actions as based mainly on justice motives. The data give strong support for the fairness hypothesis, showing that self‐interest accounts only for hard strategies, whereas justice motives explain a considerable part of cooperation. The impact of the results on further research on social conflicts and their settlement, as well as the elaboration of models of fairness in the social psychology of conflicts are discussed.     

Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important,overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing

Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Past perspectives on the folk psychology of moral standing have focused exclusively on the role of “patiency” (the capacity to experience pain or pleasure) and “agency” (usually defined and operationalized in terms of intelligence or cognitive ability). We contend that harmfulness (i.e., having a harmful vs. benevolent disposition) is an equally if not more important determinant of moral standing. We provide support for this hypothesis across four studies using non-human animals as targets. We show that the effect of harmfulness on attributions of moral standing is independent from patiency and intelligence (Studies 1–2), that this effect pertains specifically to an animal’s harmful disposition rather than its capacity to act upon this disposition (Study 3), and that it primarily reflects a parochial concern for human welfare in particular (Study 4). Our findings highlight an important, overlooked dimension in the psychology of moral standing that has implications for real-world decisions that affect non-human animals. Our findings also help clarify the conditions under which people perceive patiency and agency as related versus truly independent dimensions.     

Procedural Fairness,the Economy,and Support for Political Authorities

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver to people and by the extent to which they employ fair decision making processes. Furthermore, some of that literature describes a process‐outcome interaction, through which the effect of outcome favorability is reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well‐known individual‐level relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process‐outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on aggregate incumbent parties’ support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes seems to extend beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.     

Assimilation and contrast in organizational justice: The role of primed mindsets in the psychology of the fair process effect

This paper focuses on the psychology of the fair process effect (the frequently replicated finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects people's reactions). It is argued that when people have received an outcome they usually assimilate their ratings of outcome fairness and affect toward their experiences of procedural fairness. As a result, ratings show fair process effects. It is also possible, however, that when people have received their outcome they compare this outcome to the procedure they experienced: Is the outcome better or worse than the procedure? A result of this comparison process may be that contrast effects are found such that higher levels of procedural fairness lead to more negative ratings of outcome fairness and affect. Research findings suggest that when comparison goals have been primed, contrast effects indeed can be found. The implications for the psychology of the fair process effect and organizational behavior are discussed.     

Diversity,Merit, Fairness,and Discrimination Beliefs as Predictors of Support for Affirmative‐Action Policy Actions1

This paper explores support for hiring policies associated with affirmative action (AA) using a model including beliefs regarding the fairness of AA, merit, value of diversity, prevalence of discrimination, personal self‐interest, and demographic characteristics. Participants (n = 212) evaluated 8 hiring policies ranging from the use of strong preferential treatment to race‐blind policies. Beliefs affected support for policies differently. For example, diversity valuation predicted support for policies involving preferences and recruitment, but predicted opposition to race‐blind approaches, whereas support for the merit principle predicted opposition to preferences and support for race‐blind approaches. Results suggest that established predictors of attitudes toward AA do not necessarily predict support for specific forms of AA.     

WHAT DOES HOLISM HAVE TO DO WITH MORAL PARTICULARISM?

Moral particularists are united in their opposition to the codification of morality, and their work poses an important challenge to traditional ways of thinking about moral philosophy. Defenders of moral particularism have, with near unanimity, sought support from a doctrine they call ‘holism in the theory of reasons.’ We argue that this is all a mistake. There are two ways in which holism in the theory of reasons can be understood, but neither provides any support for moral particularism.     

Is the moral domain unique? A social influence perspective for the study of moral cognition

The nature of the cognitive processes that give rise to moral judgment and behavior has been a central question of psychology for decades. In this paper, we suggest that an often ignored yet fruitful stream of research for informing current debates on the nature of moral cognition is social influence. We introduce what we call the “social‐moderation‐of‐process” perspective, a methodological framework for leveraging insights from social influence research to inform debates in moral psychology over the mechanisms underlying moral cognition and the moral domains in which those mechanisms operate. We demonstrate the utility of the social‐moderation‐of‐process perspective by providing a detailed example of how research on social influence in behavioral ethics can be utilized to test a research question related to a debate between two prominent theories in moral psychology. We then detail how researchers across the field of moral psychology can utilize our social‐moderation‐of‐process perspective.     

道德外语效应及其调节变量：来自元分析的证据

同一个道德决策情景使用外语(相比母语)呈现时, 个体会表现出更强的功利性倾向, 即道德外语效应。随着研究的深入, 结论并不一致。本研究运用元分析方法首次探讨了语言类型(母语vs. 外语)对道德判断中功利性倾向的影响, 并分析了相关的调节变量。通过文献检索及梳理, 共有19篇文献46个独立样本97个效应量符合元分析标准(N = 9672)。结果显示存在较小但稳定的道德外语效应(g = 0.23); 调节效应分析表明, 道德外语效应受故事类型的影响, 在个人道德两难故事中存在较小但稳定的外语效应(g = 0.32), 但在非个人道德两难故事(g = 0.11)与日常道德评价故事中(g = 0.12)不存在外语效应; 非个人道德两难故事中的外语效应受记分方式的影响, 多点记分在该故事类型下存在效应(g = 0.27), 二点记分不存在效应(g = 0.05); 性别和语系类型没有显著的调节效应。这些结果表明语言类型对个体面对道德困境时的选择倾向有一定程度的影响, 道德故事类型和记分方式在未来的研究中需要加以考虑。     

Fairness‐related behaviour modulation by friendship is moderated by American primes in Chinese participants

Empirical studies from the fields of psychology and behavioural economics indicate that people do not like being treated unfairly and may punish those who violate the norm, even at a cost to themselves. Recent research has emphasized the relationship effect on fairness‐related behaviour but has shown conflicting results and has not focused much on the characteristics of culture. This study used the cultural priming paradigm and the Ultimatum Game (UG) to explore whether cultural primes could moderate the relationship effect on fairness‐related decision making. We primed Chinese participants with either Chinese cultural symbols or American cultural symbols and asked them to play as responders with friends or strangers in the two‐party UG (experiment 1) or in the three‐party UG (experiment 2). Results from the two experiments confirm that Chinese participants accepted unfair offers more often when the offers were made by friends than when the offers were made by strangers. However, the relationship effect was diminished after American cultural priming. These results suggest that American primes can moderate the relationship effect on fairness‐related behaviour in Chinese people. This finding may shed new light on the likelihood of exiting from the heavy reliance on social relationships in Chinese society.     

Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors Influencing Adolescents' Decisions About Having Sex: A Test of Sufficiency of the Theory of Planned Behavior1

This study tested the theory of planned behavior's (TPB) expectation that attitudes, social norms, and self‐efficacy would mediate other variables' effects on intention for having sex and probability of having sex. Longitudinal data were collected from 790 high‐school‐aged adolescents. In an intrapersonal variable model, sensation seeking, alcohol use, hard work, smoking, and moral beliefs had mediated effects, but the last 2 also had direct effects (on intention and behavior, respectively). In an interpersonal model, school attachment had mediated effects, pressure to have sex had a direct effect on behavior, and parent communication and number of sexually active friends had both. Intrapersonal variable effects were better described by the TPB than those of interpersonal variables. Targeting distal psychosocial factors may enhance intervention efficacy.     

公平规范执行中内群体偏爱的心理发展机制

如何揭示群体规范和公平价值在个体心理发展中的作用机理, 提升儿童-青少年在群际互动当中的公平感知与规范执行, 是教育心理领域的关键问题。公平规范执行中内群体偏爱现象是近年来的研究热点之一, 然而先前研究存在以下不足：1)大多采用问卷法, 易受社会赞许性的影响, 存在言行不一致的情况; 2)大多采用情景实验, 聚焦社会互动的最终行为输出端, 无法实时有效地把握社会决策的动态进程; 3)脑成像研究仍以fMRI技术为主, 侧重于评估认知加工潜在的脑区激活模式及各脑区间的功能连接, 缺乏对群际公平规范执行中大脑激活动态模式的精确把握。针对这些不足, 本项目从资产分配情景出发, 以儿童和青少年为研究对象, 联合运用认知、行为、眼动和电生理等多层次测评手段, 对公平规范执行中内群体偏爱的发生过程进行认知解析, 探讨认知控制和心智化在其间的关键作用机制及其心理发展轨迹。研究结果将服务于中小学管理中的德育教育, 引导与培养学生的公正感与行为。     

Gaita's Moral Philosophy and the Rational Soul

Raimond Gaita's moral philosophy has a Platonic emphasis on “goodness beyond virtue.” But it also displays an anti‐rationalist tendency, subordinating reason to the immediate responsiveness of human beings to each other. However, Gaita's account of the lucidity on which moral life depends fits ill with this subordination. Some Wittgensteinian remarks that have influenced Gaita are deployed to show that a Platonic rationalist psychology better serves his purposes than does his own, implicitly empiricist, psychology. The conclusion notes that Gaita's more recent work evidences less hostility to rationality.     

Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?

When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view (the motivated reasoning hypothesis), (b) be influenced by in-group distributive biases as a result of identifying with parties that share rather than oppose their moral point of view (the group differentiation hypothesis), or (c) react with anger when outcomes are inconsistent with their moral point of view, which, in turn, colors perceptions of both outcomes and procedures (the anger hypothesis). Results support the anger hypothesis.     

Intention Attribution in Theory of Mind and Moral Judgment

The present research investigated how children would weigh moral acts pitted against intent, across different moral domains. Twenty primary school children were recruited from an existing database and evaluated a set of acts (good-bad) on the basis of intent (good-bad) across three domains (harm, fairness, and social convention) on a 7-point Likert scale. The study found that children took into account the intention of an agent. Interestingly, intent has a differential effect on the evaluation of acts; it was more pronounced for good acts, but less so for bad acts. For the evaluation of bad acts, children placed greater weight on the intrinsic nature of the act rather than the protagonist’s intent. Conversely, whether the intent is good or bad influenced the evaluation of good acts to a greater extent. These findings not only lend support to the domain-specific view of moral reasoning but also show that children do not attribute intent in a unitary manner within theory of mind.     

The Effects of Moral and Pragmatic Arguments Against Torture on Demands for Judicial Reform

Torture can be opposed on the basis of pragmatic (e.g., torture does not work) or moral arguments (e.g., torture violates human rights). Three studies investigated how these arguments affect U.S. citizens' attitudes toward U.S.‐committed torture. In Study 1, participants expressed stronger demands for redressing the injustice of torture when presented with moral rather than pragmatic or no arguments against torture. Study 2 replicated this finding with an extended justice measure and also showed the moderating role of ingroup glorification and attachment. Moral arguments increased justice demands among those who typically react most defensively to ingroup‐committed wrongdoings: the highly attached and glorifying. Study 3 showed that the effect of moral arguments against torture on justice demands and support for torture among high glorifiers is mediated by moral outrage and empathy but not guilt.     

Attachment‐related expectations and mother‐referent memory bias in middle childhood

Understanding the cognitive processing of attachment‐relevant information has become a major focus of attachment research. Previous research demonstrated links between attachment and memory for attachment‐related information, but results were contradictory and did not control for mood‐effects. The current study aimed to provide a conceptual framework to capture inconsistencies. A straightforward memory bias hypothesis was derived and tested. Fifty children (aged 10–12) completed questionnaires assessing confidence in maternal support and depressive symptoms, and a memory task in which they recalled positive and negative words that referred to previous interactions with mother. Less confidence in maternal support and more depressive symptoms were linked to a more negative mother‐related memory bias. The effect of confidence in maternal support remained marginally significant when controlling for depressive symptoms, explaining the initial effect of depressive symptoms. These findings support attachment theory's hypothesis that attachment‐relevant information is processed in an attachment expectation‐congruent way.     

社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程

基于目标追求理论和社会阶层心理学的相关理论, 本文通过3个研究, 逐步深入地考察了社会公平感对不同阶层个体目标达成的影响作用及其过程。研究1为相关研究, 考察了高低阶层成人被试的教育领域社会公平感与为孩子进行教育投入的目标承诺及目标达成之间的关系; 研究2为准实验研究, 通过操纵公平或不公平教育情境启动公平感, 考察其对高低阶层中学生的学习目标承诺与目标达成的影响; 研究3为实验研究, 通过实验操纵社会公平感和社会阶层, 考察社会公平感对高低阶层大学生的实验任务目标承诺和目标达成的影响。研究发现, 社会公平感通过正向影响低阶层者的目标承诺, 进而正向影响其目标达成; 而对于高阶层者来说, 变量之间这些关系则不显著。这表明：相对于高阶层来说, 低阶层者的目标追求易受社会公平感的影响; 低阶层者的社会公平感水平越高, 其追求目标的动机水平就越高, 进而越有利于目标达成。     

Nationalism,Patriotism, and Support for the European Union

Does attachment to a nation enhance or dampen support for the European Union (EU)? Using the 2003 and 2013 ISSP national-identity modules, we isolate and provide multi-item measures of two distinct types of national attachment—nationalism and patriotism. We find that they are positively related yet have divergent effects. We validate the measures showing that nationalism increases, and patriotism decreases, support for nationalistic policies (anti-immigration and protectionism) as expected. We then test the effects of nationalism and patriotism on EU attitudes and find that nationalism increases, and patriotism decreases, opposition to the EU. The presence of a neo-nationalist political party enhanced the effects of nationalism on opposition to the EU, underscoring the importance of political rhetoric in shaping nationalistic EU opposition. In further support of the rhetoric hypothesis, the most-educated nationalists are most likely to oppose the EU in countries with a neo-nationalist political party and vote for such parties when present.