The “Why Me?” Model: Explaining Moral Judgments in the Eyes of Single Versus Several Victims

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Shahar Ayal, Daffie Konis, Kelly Saporta
{"title":"The “Why Me?” Model: Explaining Moral Judgments in the Eyes of Single Versus Several Victims","authors":"Shahar Ayal,&nbsp;Daffie Konis,&nbsp;Kelly Saporta","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This series of five studies examines a bias in moral judgment where harm inflicted on a single individual is perceived as more morally wrong than similar harm experienced by multiple individuals. To explain this bias, we introduce the “Why Me?” Model (WMM), which suggests that people tend to interpret harm directed at a single individual as personally targeted. This perception intensifies the judgment that the harm is more severe and morally egregious. Studies 1 and 2 explored how the victim's perception of personal targeting mediates this bias, whereas Studies 3–5 investigated specific boundary conditions of the WMM. Consistent with our predictions, the bias disappeared when participants were given explicit reasons for the harm (Study 3) or when they could directly compare scenarios involving one versus multiple victims (Study 4). Finally, Study 5 demonstrated that this bias arises from a tendency to perceive an act as more harmful when it is personally targeted at an individual, compared to when it affects several individuals, even when there is no difference in the perceived unfairness or general intentionality of these two conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70012","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This series of five studies examines a bias in moral judgment where harm inflicted on a single individual is perceived as more morally wrong than similar harm experienced by multiple individuals. To explain this bias, we introduce the “Why Me?” Model (WMM), which suggests that people tend to interpret harm directed at a single individual as personally targeted. This perception intensifies the judgment that the harm is more severe and morally egregious. Studies 1 and 2 explored how the victim's perception of personal targeting mediates this bias, whereas Studies 3–5 investigated specific boundary conditions of the WMM. Consistent with our predictions, the bias disappeared when participants were given explicit reasons for the harm (Study 3) or when they could directly compare scenarios involving one versus multiple victims (Study 4). Finally, Study 5 demonstrated that this bias arises from a tendency to perceive an act as more harmful when it is personally targeted at an individual, compared to when it affects several individuals, even when there is no difference in the perceived unfairness or general intentionality of these two conditions.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信