Harmful situations, impure people: An attribution asymmetry across moral domains

Cognition

Volumn 136, Issue , 2015, Pages 30-37

  Chakroff, Alek ^a   Young, Liane ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Action explanation; Attribution theory; Moral foundation theory; Moral psychology; Morality; Social cognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN ASYMMETRY; CANNIBALISM; CHARACTER DISORDER; DISGUST; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; FEMALE; FREEDOM; HUMAN; MALE; MORALITY; NORMAL HUMAN; SOCIAL COGNITION; SUICIDE; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; PERCEPTION;

ADULT; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; JUDGMENT; MALE; MORALS; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84918807296     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.034     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alicke M.D. Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, 63(3):368-378.
2. Alicke M.D. Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin 2000, 126(4):556.
3. Bieneck S., Krahé B. Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard?. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2011, 26(9):1785-1797.
4. Chakroff A., Dungan J., Young L. Harming ourselves and defiling others: What determines a moral domain?. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(9).
5. Gilbert D.T., Malone P.S. The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin 1995, 117:21-38.
6. Graham J., Nosek B.A., Haidt J., Iyer R., Koleva S., Ditto P.H. Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 101(2):366.
7. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 2007, 316(5827):998-1002.
8. Hitchcock C., Knobe J. Cause and norm. Journal of Philosophy 2009, 11:587-612.
9. Jones E.E., Harris V.A. The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1967, 3(1):1-24.
10. Jones E.E., Nisbett R.E. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior 1971, General Learning Press, New York, p. 16.
11. Kelley H.H. Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska symposium on motivation 1967, University of Nebraska Press.
12. Kelly D., Stich S., Haley K.J., Eng S.J., Fessler D.M. Harm, affect, and the moral/conventional distinction. Mind and Language 2007, 22(2):117-131.
13. Knobe J. The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 2006, 130(2):203-231.
14. Leslie A.M., Knobe J., Cohen A. Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science 2006, 17(5):421-427.
15. Malle B.F., Knobe J.M., Nelson S.E. Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: New answers to an old question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, 93(4):491.
16. Milgram S. Behavioral study in obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1963, 67:371-378.
17. Niemi L., Young L. Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry 2014, 25(2):230-233. 10.1080/1047840X.2014.901127.
18. Nisbett R.E., Caputo C., Legant P., Marecek J. Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1973, 27(2):154-164.
19. Parrado N., Rause V. Miracle in the Andes: 72 days on the mountain and my long trek home 2007, Three Rivers Press.
20. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 2008, 40(3):879-891.
21. Ross L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1977, 10:173-220.
22. Rottman J., Kelemen D., Young L. Tainting the soul: Purity concerns predict moral judgments of suicide. Cognition 2014, 130(2):217-226.
23. Rozin P., Lowery L., Imada S., Haidt J. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 76(4):574.
24. Russell P.S., Giner-Sorolla R. Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality. Emotion 2011, 11(2):233-240.
25. Russell P.S., Giner-Sorolla R. Moral anger is more flexible than moral disgust. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2011, 2(4):360-364.
26. Russell P.S., Giner-Sorolla R. Bodily moral disgust: What it is, how it is different from anger, and why it is an unreasoned emotion. Psychological Bulletin 2013, 139(2):328.
27. Russell P.S., Piazza J., Giner-Sorolla R. CAD revisited effects of the word moral on the moral relevance of disgust (and other emotions). Social Psychological and Personality Science 2013, 4(1):62-68.
28. Tannenbaum D., Uhlmann E.L., Diermeier D. Moral signals, public outrage, and immaterial harms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011, 47(6):1249-1254.
29. Turiel E. Distinct conceptual and developmental domains: social convention and morality. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1977: Social cognitive development 1979, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. H. Howe, C. Keasey (Eds.).
30. Uhlmann E.L., Zhu L. Acts, persons, and intuitions: Person-centered cues and gut reactions to harmless transgressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2014, 5:279-285.
31. Young L., Phillips J. The paradox of moral focus. Cognition 2011, 119:166-178. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.004.
32. Young L., Saxe R. When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition 2011, 120(2):202-214.
33. Zimbardo P.G. On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition 1973, 2(2):243-256.