| Abstract: | In two studies, subjects judged the morality of reporting and failing to report serious and nonserious crimes. Subjects also judged the general moral level and the likability of reporters and nonreporters. In accordance with predictions, the seriousness of the crime and whether it was reported differentially affected the judgments. Reporting a crime was seen as a more morally right action than fading to report it, and this difference increased with the severity of the crime. Reporters of nonserious crimes were perceived as the most moral, while non-reporters of serious crimes were seen as the least moral individuals relative to the other conditions. There were indications in the data that for certain nonserious crimes reporters were less liked than nonreporters. The results are discussed in terms of attribution theory and the effects of perceived standards for reporting crimes and other rule infractions as these standards vary with the seriousness of the act. |
