You're heartless, I'm less: self-image and social norms in moral judgment.

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Journal of General Psychology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1080/00221309.2023.2218637
Bastien Trémolière, Patrick Rateau
{"title":"You're heartless, I'm less: self-image and social norms in moral judgment.","authors":"Bastien Trémolière, Patrick Rateau","doi":"10.1080/00221309.2023.2218637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Are moral judgments to sacrificial dilemmas shaped by a latent social norm? The present research addresses this issue. We report a set of six studies (plus a supplementary one) which question the existence of a social norm in the longstanding deontism/utilitarian debate by relying on two original tools, namely substitution technique and self-presentation paradigm. Study 1 showed that American participants asked to answer like most Americans would do gave more utilitarian responses than control participants who answered in their own name (Study 1). Study 2 showed that participants instructed to answer in a disapproval fashion were more utilitarian than both participants instructed to answer in an approval fashion and control participants. Importantly, no difference was observed between the approval and control conditions, suggesting that participants naturally align their moral judgments with a latent norm they think is the most socially desirable. Studies 3-5 explored in addition the effect of the activation of a deontism-skewed norm using the substitution instruction on subsequent impression formation. For the latter task, participants were instructed to evaluate a random participant selected from a previous study who gave utilitarian-like responses (Studies 3a-3b), or to evaluate a fictitious politician who endorsed either a deontic or utilitarian orientation (Studies 4-5). Although we consistently replicated the effect of substitution instruction, we failed to show that attempts to activate a norm in a given individual shaped their evaluation of other people who do not align with this norm. Finally, we report a mini meta-analysis targeting the pooled effect and homogeneity among our studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"112-137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2023.2218637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Are moral judgments to sacrificial dilemmas shaped by a latent social norm? The present research addresses this issue. We report a set of six studies (plus a supplementary one) which question the existence of a social norm in the longstanding deontism/utilitarian debate by relying on two original tools, namely substitution technique and self-presentation paradigm. Study 1 showed that American participants asked to answer like most Americans would do gave more utilitarian responses than control participants who answered in their own name (Study 1). Study 2 showed that participants instructed to answer in a disapproval fashion were more utilitarian than both participants instructed to answer in an approval fashion and control participants. Importantly, no difference was observed between the approval and control conditions, suggesting that participants naturally align their moral judgments with a latent norm they think is the most socially desirable. Studies 3-5 explored in addition the effect of the activation of a deontism-skewed norm using the substitution instruction on subsequent impression formation. For the latter task, participants were instructed to evaluate a random participant selected from a previous study who gave utilitarian-like responses (Studies 3a-3b), or to evaluate a fictitious politician who endorsed either a deontic or utilitarian orientation (Studies 4-5). Although we consistently replicated the effect of substitution instruction, we failed to show that attempts to activate a norm in a given individual shaped their evaluation of other people who do not align with this norm. Finally, we report a mini meta-analysis targeting the pooled effect and homogeneity among our studies.

你无情,我有情:道德判断中的自我形象和社会规范。
对牺牲困境的道德判断是否受潜在社会规范的影响?本研究就是要解决这个问题。我们报告了一组六项研究(外加一项补充研究),这些研究利用两种原创工具,即替代技术和自我陈述范式,质疑在长期存在的去道德主义/功利主义争论中是否存在社会规范。研究 1 表明,被要求像大多数美国人会做的那样回答问题的美国参与者比以自己的名义回答问题的对照组参与者给出了更多的功利主义回答(研究 1)。研究 2 表明,被要求以 "不赞成 "的方式回答问题的参与者比被要求以 "赞成 "的方式回答问题的参与者和对照组参与者的功利性更强。重要的是,在赞成和控制条件下没有观察到差异,这表明参与者会自然地将他们的道德判断与他们认为最符合社会需要的潜在规范相一致。研究 3-5 还探讨了使用替代指令激活去道德主义偏向规范对后续印象形成的影响。在后一项任务中,我们指示被试评价一名从先前研究中随机抽取的、做出类似功利主义反应的被试(研究 3a-3b),或评价一名虚构的、认可去义取向或功利取向的政治家(研究 4-5)。尽管我们一直在重复替代指令的效果,但我们未能证明,试图激活特定个体的规范会影响他们对其他不符合这一规范的人的评价。最后,我们报告了一项小型荟萃分析,该分析针对的是我们研究中的集合效应和同质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of General Psychology
Journal of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Psychology publishes human and animal research reflecting various methodological approaches in all areas of experimental psychology. It covers traditional topics such as physiological and comparative psychology, sensation, perception, learning, and motivation, as well as more diverse topics such as cognition, memory, language, aging, and substance abuse, or mathematical, statistical, methodological, and other theoretical investigations. The journal especially features studies that establish functional relationships, involve a series of integrated experiments, or contribute to the development of new theoretical insights or practical applications.
×
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