Social roles and the moral judgement of acts and omissions

Three experiments investigated how moral judgements of harmful acts and omissions are affected by information about social roles. Subjects were given vignettes in which the relationship between an actor and victim was varied along the dimensions of solidarity (e.g. friends versus strangers) and hierachy (e.g. superior versus equal; the terms are from Hamilton & Sanders, 1981). Subjects were asked to judge the morality of the actor in each case, both for a harmful omission (e.g. intentionally withholding the truth) and for an equivalent act (e.g. actively lying). Subjects judged the behaviour worse in the act than the omission. Judgements were also affected by role relationships. The act–omission difference was also greater in the low-responsibility roles. Responses to the high-responsibility roles seem to reflect in a consequentialist perspective, focusing on outcomes rather than prohibitions.     

Interviewer's Moods and Reactions to Job Applicants: The Influence of Affective States on Applied Social Judgments1

Male and female subjects interviewed a same-sex applicant for an entry-level management position. In reality, this person was an accomplice who presented a carefully standardized pattern of positive and negative information. Prior to the interview, participants were exposed to treatments designed to place them in a positive, neutral, or negative mood. Results indicated that subjects’ moods influenced their reactions to the applicant. They rated this individual higher on job-related and personal dimensions and made more favorable employment decisions about him or her when in a positive than negative mood. In addition, participants recalled more information presented by the applicant that was consistent with their current mood than information that was inconsistent with these feelings. Implications of these findings for the development of closer conceptual links between (a) basic knowledge about social cognition and (b) practical issues relating to the conduction of fair employment interviews are discussed.     

Young adults' caregiving and the age level of a potential recipient

The hypothesis that two caregiving tendencies are affected by the age of potential recipients was investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, two matched groups of 40 young adults selected from 16 pairs of either facial profile drawings or age-labels (e.g., "2-year-old") those individuals that they would feel most compelled to protect (i.e., the most "defense-provoking" in each pair). Both groups tended to select younger and more elderly individuals over more middle-aged ones. In Experiment 2, two more matched groups of 40 adults rated the defense-provokingness or the cuddliness of a series of facial profile drawings showing a male at eight ages, from newborn to 70 years old. Although rated cuddliness decreased as portrayed age increased from age 6 months onward, rated defense-provokingness decreased with age from birth to 35 years, but increased thereafter. These results are generally consistent with the expectation that adults' tendency to protect or cuddle others varies in accordance with the typical neediness of individuals of different age levels for these forms of care.     

The Equity-Control Model as a Predictor of Vandalism Among College Students1

The equity-control model of vandalism (Baron & Fisher, 1984; Fisher & Baron, 1982) is used to conceptualize vandalism among college students. The model predicts that vandalism is most likely where there are low perceived equity (perceived lack of fairness in one's social or environmental arrangements) and low to moderate perceived control (perceived inability to effectively modify outcomes and arrangements). To test the model, university students were given questionnaires which measured perceived equity and control as these factors relate to the university and to dormitory living. Using multiple regression analysis, the interaction of equity and control was predictive of vandalism: Subjects with low perceived equity and control were most likely to report they engaged in vandalistic acts.     

THE ILLUSION OF MORALITY AS SELF-INTEREST:

Abstract— One reason for people's voluntary cooperation in social dilemmas, or altruistic behavior in general, may be their belief that altruism pays off in terms of long-run self-interest. Although this is often true, it is typically false in large-scale social dilemmas among strangers. In three questionnaire studies, subjects endorsed this self-interest illusion frequently for large-scale dilemmas, such as over-fishing and pollution, in which the benefits of cooperation are delayed.     

Threatened retaliation from the victim as an inhibitor of physical aggression

Sixty male undergraduates participated in an experiment designed to investigate the effects of apparent probability of retaliation from the victim and level of prior anger arousal upon adult aggressive behavior. It was hypothesized that threatened retaliation would be highly effective in inhibiting subsequent aggression under conditions where subjects had not previously been angered by the victim, but would generally fail to inhibit such behavior under conditions where they had previously suffered strong provocation at the hands of this person. Support was obtained for both of these predictions. Findings were discussed in terms of their implications for the prevention and control of human violence in naturalistic social situations.